The Literacy Workshop

A Focus on Classroom Spaces

fserafini — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:08:03 +0000

I’ve been thinking a lot about space lately. Not the kind of space that involves moons and planets and stars, but the kind of space that involves classrooms. The spaces we read in, talk in and teach in. In my thinking about space, I’ve decided that there are three spaces that we need to address in the classroom. The first space I will just simply call the physical space. This involves the physical arrangement of the classroom, the way we put the desks, where the teacher desk is, those kinds of considerations. The second space involves what I’ll call the community space and this is where we decide how to talk to each other, how we attend to each other’s ideas and the attitudes we have towards our goals and ideas in the classroom. The third space involves the intellectual space. This focuses on the complexity of discussions the way we move from literal ideas to inferential ideas.

The physical space involves the way we organize a classroom of the things we put in. A major focus of the physical space should be opportunity which is comprised of two components namely access and choice. Our physical arrangements in the class and should allow students to have access to the supplies they need to do the job they’re doing and to have a wider range of resources to provide choice in what they’re reading and what they’re writing and other aspects of our curriculum. The physical space should also provide opportunities for interaction. Roundtables will release moving desks into groups rather than having kids in rows changes the physical space and allows for more interaction among students. Our physical space should support the kinds of interactions were trying to do intellectually.

The physical space in the classroom should support the social spaces in the classroom. The physical space needs to support the kinds of social interactions we want to have in a classroom. Students need to feel that they can express what they think and not just what the teacher wants them to think. Students need to learn to talk to each other and not just to the teacher. The social space involves how we get children to participate in the community of our classroom.

The intellectual space is about complexity, integrity and moving from literal ideas to more complex ideas. It seems in public schools the intellectual spaces become rather shallow. The types of questions teachers ask are usually literal questions, and the types of responses they expect students to give are often as shallow as the questions they ask. We need a sense of complexity and sophistication or depth in this intellectual space if we expect classrooms to move beyond literal recall into real ideas of interpretation, analysis, and critique.

Reading Comprehension: An Overview

fserafini — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:42:45 +0000

The primary objective of reading is comprehending what is being read. Although reading instruction may focus on other aspects of reading, for example phonemic awareness, vocabulary acquisition, or decoding skills, the goal of with one’s engagement with a text is comprehension. Readers brings to the reading event their cognitive capabilities, purposes for reading, knowledge of language and the world, and prior experiences. Readers draw upon these resources to make sense of the texts they encounter.

In addition, other factors play a prominent role in reading comprehension; the text being read, the context of the reading event, both immediate and socio-cultural contexts, and the purpose or goals for reading. Reading does not take place in a vacuum. The author of a text, the context of the reading event and the reasons one reads all play a role in reading comprehension.

It was once assumed that reading comprehension was simply a combination of decoding and oral comprehension skills. That is, if readers could decode the words on the page, they would be able to listen, or monitor, what was being read to themselves, and understand what they were reading. However, contemporary research in reading comprehension has made clear that understanding what one reads involves more than decoding and oral language comprehension. Just because readers can decode the words does not mean that they have understood what they have read. In fact, as readers progress into more complex texts, their ability to decode becomes less and less an indicator of their ability to comprehend.

What Do Proficient Readers Do?
The research on reading comprehension and the comprehension strategies used by proficient readers conducted by Michael Pressley and P. David Pearson, among others, has shown that readers that comprehend:
• are active processors of text
• connect texts to their experiences and prior knowledge
• set expectations or goals for their reading
• attend to the elements and structures of literature
• monitor their understandings
• ask questions of the text as they read
• preview or skim texts before reading
• attend to vocabulary
• are able to articulate and negotiate meaning
• construct meaning as they read through texts
• read selectively, choosing texts that serve their goals and purposes

What is the History of Research on Reading Comprehension Instruction?
In a classic study on comprehension instruction conducted by Dolores Durkin (1978-1979), Durkin demonstrated that classroom teachers were rarely, if ever, teaching comprehension strategies. Unfortunately, her research ascertained that classroom teachers spent a great deal of time assessing comprehension by asking questions at the end of each reading selection, rather than demonstrating comprehension strategies used by proficient readers. What was once considered instruction in reading comprehension, was exposed as assessment in reading comprehension.
Since Durkin’s study, research on explicit instruction in reading comprehension has increased dramatically. In the 1990s, Michael Pressley and colleagues conducted research that confirmed Durkin’s findings, namely that teachers were not offering explicit instruction in comprehension strategies. This realization was surprising given the overwhelming evidence gathered by numerous researchers investigating reading comprehension instruction. Research on reading comprehension, primarily focusing on cognitive aspects of the reading process, has demonstrated that teaching the reading comprehension strategies used by proficient readers to novice or less successful readers improves their reading comprehension abilities (Braunger & Lewis, 1997; Dole et al., 1991; Kucan & Beck, 1997; Pressley, 2000).

Since the 1990s, based on the research focusing on explicit reading comprehension instruction, there has been increased attention on reading strategy instruction, resulting in numerous publications designed to help classroom teachers teach reading comprehension strategies. The publication of Mosaic of Thought (Keene & Zimmerman, 1997) invited teachers to reflect on the nature of their reading comprehension instruction and launched the publication of numerous teacher professional development materials that focused on effective reading comprehension instruction (see references).

What is Reading Comprehension?
As previously mentioned, reading comprehension is more than a combination of decoding and oral comprehension skills. Reading comprehension is the process of constructing meaning in transaction with texts in a social context. All four components, the text, the author, the reader, and the context play an important role in the reading event; the text presenting the written language of the author, the reader constructing meaning based on their knowledge of language and written texts, the author as constructor of the text, and the world, and the context providing the purpose for reading and expectations of or for the reader.
Reading comprehension is affected by other factors, including, vocabulary knowledge, reading fluency, decoding abilities, and the readers’ previous experiences and knowledge of the world and written language. It is a complex process that involves the construction of meaning and the interactions of texts, readers, authors, contexts and purposes.

What are the Components of Effective Comprehension Instruction?
Fielding and Pearson (1994) described four primary components of effective comprehension instruction: a) time to read and engage with texts, b) explicit instruction in comprehension strategies, c) opportunities for peers to collaborate while reading, and d) time to respond to and discuss what readers are reading. These four components, when combined with a supportive classroom environment, a model of effective comprehension instruction, access to quality reading materials, attention to students’ motivations to read, and assessment that supports teaching and learning, are the basis of effective literacy instruction (Duke & Pearson, 2002).
Based on a Gradual Release of Responsibility Model of Instruction (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), reading comprehension instruction involves the direct explanation and demonstration of comprehension strategies, the opportunities to apply these strategies with teacher guidance, the use of these strategies during independent reading and opportunities to reflect on how the strategies worked (Serafini, 2004).

What is Explicit about Explicit Comprehension Instruction?
Most research and professional development materials that focus on comprehension instruction, refers to the most effective type of instruction as “explicit” instruction. Explicit instruction refers to instruction that is:
• deliberate – unambiguous purposes and objectives for the instruction
• responsive – instructional content is based on the needs, interests and abilities of the reader
• clear- language of instruction is clear, not redundant, and makes sense to the learner
• relevant – the purpose for the instruction relates to the lives and interests of the student
• evidence-based – the instruction is based on sound evidence of its effectiveness

Explicit instruction is based on a relationship established between the teacher and learner, and does not require a script to be explicit. The role of explicit instruction is to provide demonstrations of the strategies proficient readers use, call readers’ attention to the aspects of text and reading comprehension, and make reading processes “visible” so that novice readers can acquire the requisite strategies.

What Strategies Should Be Taught?
Most research on comprehension strategies refers to the following seven strategies: 1) summarizing, 2) predicting, 3) visualizing, 4) monitoring understanding, 5) asking questions, 6) determining importance, and 7) drawing inferences. Along with these cognitive strategies, various literary strategies, for example attending to the interplay between text and illustrations, understanding characters’ motives, and attending to the structures and elements of literature should be addressed. Critical literacy strategies, for example, addressing issues of social justice, uncovering stereotypes, questioning whom is marginalized by the text, and disrupting commonly held assumptions, are also important to be included in reading comprehension instruction.

Some Concluding Thoughts
Reading comprehension instruction must focus on developing the strategies readers draw upon to comprehend what they read. Because of this, all reading instructional practices should be conducted “in service of meaning” (Serafini, 2006). In other words, whether teachers are working on decoding skills, developing readers’ vocabularies, teaching readers to visualize or predict, or how to choose an appropriate text for independent reading, the objective of these lessons should be constructing meaning in transaction with the texts students are reading. Teachers cannot sit back idly by and hope that readers are making sense of what they read. The research is overwhelmingly in favor of direct explanation and instruction in comprehension strategies. It is the role of the classroom teacher to demonstrate what proficient readers do when they read, provide opportunities for readers to acquire appropriate reading comprehension strategies, and listen and observe readers to determine how they are using these strategies to make sense of what they read.
References
Braunger, J., & Lewis, J. P. (1997). Building a knowledge base in reading. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Dole, J., Duffy, G., Roehler, L., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving form the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239-264.
Duke, N., & Pearson, D. P. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481-553.
Fielding, L., & Pearson, D. P. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62-67.
Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271-299.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Serafini, F. (2004). Lessons in comprehension: Explicit instruction in the reading workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Serafini, F. (2006). Around the reading workshop in 180 days: A month by month guide to quality instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Suggested Readings in Reading Comprehension

Farstrup, A. E., & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Owocki, G. (2003). Comprehension: Strategic instruction for k-3 children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning: Teaching comprehension in the primary grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Pressley, M., & Block, C. C. (2001). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: Guilford.

Serafini, F. (2004). Lessons in comprehension: Explicit instruction in the reading workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Snow, C., & Sweet, A. (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: Guilford.

Rethinking the Reading Workshop

fserafini — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:16:22 +0000

The reading workshop has helped many teachers rethink their approaches to reading instruction and organizing their classroom. Many teachers have taken to my work and the work of other literacy educators and have incorporated new components to their reading program. For example, many teachers now include small group “guided” reading in their reading block. Others have added literature study groups in various ways. This change in procedures and the inclusion of new components is an important first step in creating a reading workshop.

However, this change in procedures and addition of certain components needs to be coupled with a change in thinking, epistemology and classroom culture for any significant changes to occur. Let me explain. A shift to workshop approaches to reading instruction must be accompanied by a shift in one’s literate epistemologies. In other words, we need to reconsider what it means to be literate, how we ask students to demonstrate their literate abilities and the learning experiences we foster in the classroom. If we hang on to outdated conceptions like “finding the main idea” we have simply shifted our procedures and not our thinking. Meaning is constructed in transaction with texts. This constructed is polysemous, meaning there are multiple, often contradictory viable, meanings constructed by readers. Discussion strategies must acknowledge the multi-layered, complex nature of the act of reading if we are to open space for readers to generate, articulate, negotiate and revise their thinking with texts.

In addition to this epistemological shift, we ned to change the way teachers and students talk about texts. This new way of talking must break the traditional IRE (initiate-respond-evaluate) model where teachers control the pace, topics, direction and endorsement of correct meanings in a discussion. A shift in ways of talking must be accompanied by a shift in ways of thinking or it becomes a false change in instructional approaches.

The biggest challenge I see, is for teachers to re-establish reading aloud and discussion as the foundation of the reading workshop. Reading aloud is often seen as a thing to waste time, to calm children down, or just for fun, rather than the important instructional approach that I see it as. Every reading strategy, literary element, and discussion strategy are introduced during the read aloud. Using the read aloud as a demonstration of literate behaviors is the basis of differentiated instruction as well. I can introduce strategies during the read aloud that can be followed up in small group and one-on-one instruction based on the needs of the individual learners.

In order to fully realize the potential of the reading workshop, we need to become more coherent and purposeful across instructional components as well as within instructional components. The texts we read and discuss in read alouds need to connect to the books students are reading in literature study groups and the reading strategies we are teaching in comprehension groups. I believe that texts and topics should be the central focus on units of study, not strategies themselves. These strategies, like summarizing, predicting and visualizing are often overdone and done in a generic context, separate from the texts being read. In other words, we don’t go around looking for something to predict, we use prediction when the text, out task and the purpose of our reading calls for it. We would use prediction within a unit of study on mysteries very different from one on expository texts. By focusing on the texts as our organizing focus, we provide a place for our strategy instruction to “hang” and we provide more purposeful use of the strategies.

To often, teachers look for the procedural changes and organizations rather than the theoretical underpinning for their instructional decisions. Publishers provide lists of strategies and lists of lesson scripts for teachers to follow. This dumbing-down of the role of the classroom teacher adds to an anti-theoretical position, one that de-professionalizes teaching. It will be by refocusing on the reading process itself, the culture of the classroom, the way we think about texts, the way we talk about texts, and the coherence we build among the components of our instructional approaches, that we will make significant changes in our reading workshops.

Noticings, Connections, Wonderings Revisited

fserafini — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:25:31 +0000

I have been writing about and recommending a three column chart I have called a Noticings, Connections, Wonderings chart for some time now. The purpose of this chart, like all of the other interactive discussion strategies I have developed, are designed to help students respond to their readings, and share their ideas with other students, in more sophisticated, intellectually complex ways. In other words, these are designed to get students to move beyond, “I like the book.” What we are doing is teaching students the basics of literary criticism. We are helping students attend to texts in deeper more complex ways to increase their interpretive abilities are what I like to call “expanding their interpretive repertoires.” Let me explain these three columns once again. I would introduce them to students individually before I would use them together in a chart. My goal eventually is to use these three points of focus as a framework or format for students reading response notebooks as well.

To begin, “Noticings” are those things students notice in the illustrations or text as they read or we read together. I am interested in what they attend to and what they don’t attend to. In order to be able to do this, I need to have read the book previously and have focused my attention on various aspects of the text that I hope students will see for themselves. To this endI have constructed a picturebook analysis guide that I have attcahed at the end of this post. It is designed to get teachers to analyze picturebooks in more depth, and to be able to model how to look at a picturebook in new ways. These noticings keep us focused on the book or text itself. We need to teach students what to attend to when they read. This guide is simply an extensive list of things you can help students attend to, not all at once, but a few at a time.

In the second column, Connections, are responses that take us away from the text. They focus our attention on other texts or on experiences we have had in our life. First, if we want students to make more meaningful connections we need to read connected texts. Texts that are connected, or relevant to their lives, or connected to other texts by reading books within units of study where each book relates to the others. When we read books each day that have nothing to do with each other, why should we expect students to make better connections?

The third column is Wonderings. These are the questions we have when we read or finish reading. Readers are often left with more questions than answers after an initial reading of some picturebooks, especially those that are more complex or have been called “postmodern” picturebooks. These books challenge readers (a booklist is available on my website) to attend to the text, illustrations, design and structures and other aspects of these picturebooks. We want students to realize that it is OK to have questions and to return to a text to revisit it for more ideas. Rarely can I read a picturebook once and feel I understand what is going on in it.

Modeling these concepts is always an important aspect of teaching. We need to be better readers ourselves so that we can call students attention to what we want them to consider. I would never expect students to write these things in a literature log until we have done them for awhile as a whole class chart experience. Only after students understand what these are, have seen them modeled and have done them as a group would they become a format for our literature logs

Picture Book Analysis Guide
Dr. Frank Serafini

• Pick up the picturebook, attending to the size, format (horizontal or vertical), materials used in construction of book (papers, graphics).
• Consider the author of the text and the artist. What media is used in the illustrations? What fonts are selected? Where is the text located on the page? Borders etc.
• Look at the cover, title and illustrations. What expectations are set up for you as you approach the picture book? What does the cover, title and illustrations suggest?
• What is included in the peritext? The dedication, title page, author’s note, summary statement etc..
• Skim through the book, reading quickly to see where the story goes. What is the overall structure of the book? Home-Away-Home ? Repetitive structures or language? Cumulative? The Hero Cycle? Circular, chronological, or other?

Read through the picture book more deliberately, coding / marking important aspects you want to consider. After your second reading, consider the following questions:

• What were your initial reactions to the text and illustrations?
• What is the overall structure of the text?
• How does the opening of the story compare with the closing of the story?
• How do the illustrations relate to the text?
• Words propel the reader forward and images slow us down. How did this tension between reading and viewing affect your experience?
• What kind of gaps does the author / illustrator leave for the reader to fill in? Are details purposefully left out to create tension?
• How does the story flow from page to page? Are there borders that separate things or does it cross over in language and image from page to page?
• Consider each opening separately. What emotional connotations came to mind?
• Whose background knowledge is privileged in reading this text?
• Is there a relationship between form and content? Does the design of the book add to the content being presented? How?
• What themes were constructed as you read?

Analyzing Visual Images and Design in Picturebooks

• Begin by considering the format of the images and their placement in the picturebook
• Where is the text located? Within the image? Separated by borders or white space, Why?
• Are the illustrations double page spreads, single page images, collages, overlapping images, or portraits?
• Consider the series of images in the picturebook. Do the images change over the course of the book? Do they get bigger, smaller, change?

• Select particular images to consider. Ask the following:
o What is fore-grounded and in the background?
o Consider the “path” your eyes follow as you approach the image. What catches your eye first? Why is that element salient?
o What colors dominate the image? What effect does this have on you as reader?
o Consider the use of white (negative) space. Are the illustrations framed or full bleed? How does this position you as a viewer?
o What is the “reality value” or level of abstraction? Are the images life-like or stick figures?
o Are there any recurring patterns in the images?
o Are there any anomalous elements? Things that stick out, or seem out of place? Are these important to consider?
o What is the artist trying to get you to look at through leading lines, colors, contrast, gestures, lighting?
o Are there any recurring symbols or motifs in the images?
o Consider the style or artistic choices? Are the appropriate, and how do they add to the meanings of the picturebook?
o How are the images framed? Are there thick borders or faded edges?
o Consider the setting of the story. How is this realized in the images? Realistically? Metaphorically?
o Consider size and scale. What is large? Why are certain elements larger than others? Does this add to meanings of power, control?
o Consider the viewers point of view. Do characters directly gaze or address the viewer? Are the characters close up or distanced? How does point of view add to relationships with the characters?

Further Considerations for Analyzing a Picture Book

Personal Response: Involves the impressions / connections / wonderings that you have as you read the picture book. What were you reminded of? What connections did you make with the text or illustrations? What images, feelings, and ideas were brought forward during the reading?

Artistic Technique / Media: What media was used? How do the illustrations support the text and the meaning of the story? Consider the elements of design (line, shape, space, color) incorporated in the artwork. Is the book a horizontal or vertical layout and is this important? Refer to the worksheet provided in class.

Text / Language: Examine the poetic or literary devices used in the text (ie. metaphor, imagery, alliteration, symbolism). What does the author draw upon to write this story? Are there patterns, repeating phrases, predictable structures?

Interplay of Textual and Visual Images: Analyze the relationships between the text and the illustrations using the categories of symmetrical, enhancing, and contradictory or counterpoint. Refer to the worksheet provided in class.

Author / Illustrator: Find some biographical data on the author and illustrator. There are many interviews and information available on the internet. How does this information shed light on the creation or intentions of the story and illustrations? What insights can be learned from studying the life of the author / illustrator? How does this affect your understandings of the story or book?

Socio-Cultural Context: How does this story relate to the world as you see it? What assumptions go unquestioned? Are any characters privileged or marginalized? How are critical social issues (race, gender, class, ethnicity) dealt with?

What’s Differentiated in Differentiated Instruction?

fserafini — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:38:47 +0000

It seems that one of the current buzzwords in education is the idea of “differentiated instruction.” I believe the idea rose out of the gifted education movement, calling for more differentiated instruction (DI) for gifted students in the regular ed classroom. This has evolved into calls for differentiating to support the needs of readers that struggle in the same classrooms. The question I see as important is what is it exactly that teachers are supposed to differentiate? Some cursory exploration into this topic, both in the research literature and through my experiences in classrooms suggests that some crappy instruction is going on in the name of DI. An example is the use of three different ditto sheets for the three groups of students in the classroom. One bad ditto is no better even if it it tripled. Another egregious example comes from programs that require homogenous groupings of students (ie. Success for All). This amounts to what we used to call “tracking” in schools, and it has been shown again and again that the “lowest performing” groups end up with the most narrow of curriculum. As it goes, the low groups get a dose of phonics, and the high groups get quality literature and higher level discussions.

The challenge for me was trying to conceptualize what was to be differentiated? This has led me to the following visual diagram (see attached). I believe that we need to consider the following four components as we try to create supportive, effective learning experiences for all the students in our classroom:
1. Contexts - the setting, grouping and place for the learning experience
2. Texts - the selection of texts used in the learning experience
3. Instructional Approach - the level of support and the instructional approach (lecture, small group work, one on one, mini-lesson etc) being used.
4. Tasks - what we ask students to do, or expect them to be able to do in the learning experience.

each of these four elements or considerations can be altered or adapted to suit a variety of learners in our classrooms. Traditionally it seems we simply changed the task, and the rest of the elements remained the same. In other words, we asked one group to read the story by themselves, while others read in groups or with the support of the teacher. This is a narrow view of differentiation. These are preliminary ideas about this subject. I invite readers to share some thoughts as I expand on my own understandings of this subject.

What happens when the instruction is over?

fserafini — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:00:16 +0000

Numerous educational publications of late, including my last two books, have described in arduous detail the characteristics or components of effective reading comprehension lessons. These descriptions have included lists of resources, including children’s literature and other texts, lesson plans, instructional approaches, and even suggestions for assessment techniques to ensure students are understanding what they are reading. However, one aspect of these comprehension lessons seems to have gone unnoticed; what these lessons should do for novice readers in the future, after the lesson is over. As classroom teachers and literacy educators, we need to consider the residual effects or the consequences of our reading comprehension lessons. It is this residual effect that I am calling “Instructional Trajectory.”
Instructional Trajectory is a consideration of the lasting effects a lesson may have, and the types of supports the lesson may offer. Instructional Trajectory has several components. First, the range of a comprehension lesson considers in how many future contexts individual lessons will support readers. Effective lessons in comprehension should work in a variety of contexts, enabling novice readers to comprehend a variety of texts, for a variety of purposes. I don’t mean to imply that these lessons are “universal strategies” that readers simply apply every time they encounter a text. What I mean is that the focus of our lesson should be its future uses with texts yet to be encountered, not only those texts being read at one particular moment. For example, the lesson I have entitled “Approaching a Text” has an extensive range because it can be used with virtually any text a reader selects, for a variety of purposes. A lesson that focuses on how to read a single Haiku poem may be effective, but it certainly has a limited range for most readers.
Second, lessons should be examined for their relevance. By this I mean, lessons should prepare novice readers to use strategies that will help them in reading events they will encounter in the world, not just in school. Some lessons seem to prepare readers for solely school-based literacy events, not those that occur in the world outside school. Learning how to construct a mobile based on a book character may help students garner approval in some classrooms, but I strongly doubt it will help them effectively perform in any literate events once outside the school grounds. Our lessons have to be relevant to the literacies of our lives.
Lessons should also be examined for their ability to help students generate interpretations before, during, and after reading, or what I would call the lesson’s Interpretive Focus. In other words, this might be considered the depth of a particular lesson. The goal of comprehension lessons should be comprehending texts. This may sound redundant, but I have seen some lessons that stop short of the goal of comprehending. We need to keep our “eye on the prize” so to speak. In this case, the prize is making sense of what we read. An example I have used in some recent workshops speaks about a classroom where the focus of the lessons was on learning how to predict. Although, I would agree that prediction may help in comprehending some texts, in some particular contexts, the goal is not to get good at predicting. The goal is to get good at using predicting to make sense of texts. Our lessons need to keep the focus on generating interpretations, not the isolated use of the strategy itself.
Another example is the creation of classroom charts or artifacts during some comprehension lessons. In many, if not all of the lessons that I have written about describing effective teaching, I have included the creation of charts to support the focus of the lessons being taught. These charts serve as an “audit trail” of where the lessons have been and allow teachers to build upon these foundations in subsequent lessons. But the goal is not to create beautiful charts. The goal is to use charts to extend thinking and discussion. These charts are just a thinking device used “in service of meaning,“ not the primary focus of the lesson.
The fourth, and certainly the most important component of Instructional Trajectory, is whether our lessons help change and improve the way teachers and students think, talk about, and respond to what they are reading. This is called Sustainability. A lesson should not just be about what happens that day, but the changes it affects in the students’ future readings and thinking. Quality lessons should have a sense of “teaching forward.” In other words, the effectiveness of the lesson is measured in what happens after the lesson, not during it.
The primary goal of the Reading Workshop instructional framework that I have been developing over the past decade is to help novice readers and teachers see texts in new ways, talk about texts in more meaningful ways, and comprehend what they read from a variety of theoretical perspectives. Although this is not easy to define, assess or predict, it is the primary consequence for our lessons and should be used to judge the quality of the lessons we provide.
At this point, you might be asking, “Where does one find evidence that any of these things are occurring?” I believe that we may find evidence of the residual effects of our lessons in the writing our students do in their reader response logs, the discussions of texts we have in whole class settings and literature study groups, the strategies our readers employ when reading independently, and the growth we observe during our comprehension strategy groups. Our lessons should help students manage the challenges they encounter as the texts they read become more complex, and the knowledge base required to understand becomes more substantial.
It is not enough to say that one has taught a certain strategy. It is more important to consider whether that strategy is effective in developing the types of readers we want to support, and whether there is evidence that our lessons are being taken up by the readers in our classes. Our lessons should be coherent demonstrations of the types of literate behaviors we want our students to develop in their reading lives. Quality lessons should include and address the four aspects of Instructional Trajectory described above, namely; Range, Relevance, Interpretive Focus, and Sustainability. These are the essential components of Instructional Trajectory.

Reading Comprehension Instruction: Some Concerns

fserafini — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:10:48 +0000

Reading comprehension strategies are used by proficient readers to make sense of the texts they experience. A significant amount of research conducted on effective reading comprehension strategies has focused on the cognitive operations readers employ when reading to construct meaning in transactions with texts (Dole et al., 1991; Fielding & Pearson, 1994; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pressley, 2000; Pressley et al., 2002; Snow & Sweet, 2003). This research has provided educators with a list of approximately seven comprehension strategies that researchers have identified as ones that help readers comprehend. This list generally includes; summarizing, predicting, inferring, monitoring comprehension, visualizing, asking questions, and making connections. These strategies have been referred to as “goal-directed cognitive operations” that are taught through teacher directed instruction.
With an increasing focus on reading strategy instruction, teachers need to continually monitor how the various reading strategies they are demonstrating in their reading workshops serve the primary goal of supporting readers’ construction of meaning in transactions with texts. These cognitive strategies cannot be viewed as an end in themselves, rather each strategy should be viewed as a scaffold for readers to use to make sense of the texts they read.
Reading comprehension, that is, the construction of meaning in transaction with texts, is inextricably linked to the immediate and socio-cultural contexts of the reading event. In other words, comprehension strategies must always take into account the actual reader, text, activity, and context of the reading event. What this means for reading teachers is that we should not teach comprehension strategies in isolation, disregarding the context of the reading event, the reader’s purpose for reading, the text being read, and what is expected of the reader after their reading is completed.
Let me make some of my theoretical assertions more concrete. I have observed classrooms where the focus of the reading curriculum was one of the above mentioned reading strategies, in particular, predicting. Students were taught to predict through a series of activities that paid little attention to the texts being read or the readers’ purposes for reading the texts. Teachers read stories, stopped periodically asking students what would happen next, then read on to see who made the best predictions based on the actual unfolding of events in the story. The problem was that the focus of instruction was predicting, not how readers predict or anticipate when reading, and use this strategy to comprehend what was being read. Prediction became the primary goal, and the transition to using predicting to support comprehension seemed non-existent.
I am certainly not saying that predicting is not an appropriate strategy to teach, but predicting as a reading strategy must be put into the context of comprehending what one is reading. When teachers demonstrate predicting in the context of reading mystery books or the picture books of Chris Van Allsburg, for example, they are contextualizing the strategy of predicting with a particular text, for a particular purpose. It is important for teachers to always help readers understand how the strategies they are demonstrating relate to the goal of making sense of what readers read.
Proficient readers anticipate what a particular book will be about using a variety of cues, for example, the genre of the text, the title, illustrations, and the structure of the text. Teachers can use a “think-aloud” to demonstrate how they would approach a particular text, modeling how they determine the genre, think about the title, examine the illustrations on the cover, read the book blurb and preview the text by scanning through it quickly. The difference is that one can anticipate what is coming up without having to predict what will happen.
Predicting in an instructional setting often leads to some students being right and others being wrong. This makes prediction a competition, not a useful reading strategy. The important thing in reading is being logical, anticipating what may occur and following the story line, not simply guessing what the author wrote next. Books can take various surprising turns and twists, which adds to, rather than detracts from, the reading experience. Just because we can’t always predict what will happen next in a story, does not mean we are not reading for comprehension. Some of the best stories are those that surprise us, not those w can readily predict the outcome.
Comprehension strategies should not become an end in themselves. Classroom teachers need to be sure the strategies we demonstrate and expect students to appropriate into their interpretive repertoires are learned in service of making meaning when students are reading. The demonstrations we offer our students should always include the context the strategy is being used in, the type of texts the strategy is most successful with, and reason for using various strategies. These reading comprehension strategies are actually “reading practices” that are enacted in particular contexts, with particular texts, for particular reasons, not simply cognitive operations we blindly apply to ant text we encounter.

Reading Comprehension Instruction: Some Thoughts

fserafini — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:05:14 +0000

Reading comprehension instruction has assumed a prominent place in educational conversations of late, and for good reasons. With the recent release of the Rand Report on Reading Comprehension, Reading for Understanding: Toward an R & D Program in Reading Comprehension, and the increasing focus on reading instruction as a topic of national concern, we need to understand how reading comprehension is defined, taught and assessed.
In this blog, I will look at how reading comprehension is taught from a research-based perspective and offer some suggestions for implementing some of these ideas in the classrooms in which you are working. First, let me offer the definition set forth in the Rand Report for reading comprehension; the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language. This definition focuses on meaning residing in the text, and refers to reading comprehension as “text-based thinking.” The three elements of the reading event are described as the reader, the text and the activity or purpose for reading, however the primary focus seems to be the reader and the text. Second, the researchers that wrote this report agree that reading comprehension should be taught explicitly in classrooms, and it should not be assumed that comprehension is the goal of all readers. Third, they agree that teacher development in the area of reading comprehension instruction is crucial for improving reading comprehension across grade levels. And finally, they believe that reading comprehension should be assessed at every stage of learning.
Focusing on explicit instruction of reading comprehension, I offer five (5) elements of instruction that should be part of every classroom, kindergarten through high school.
1. Setting Expectations: We need to be sure that readers understand that making sense of texts is the primary goal of every reading event. We can do this by sharing our own reading processes, reading books about readers (there is a booklist on my web-site, http://serafini.nevada.edu), generating a list of characteristics of “Successful Readers” in every classroom and adopting a class slogan or motto, Reading Is Understanding, for example.
2. Demonstrations of Comprehension Strategies: Readers need to hear and see how proficient readers make sense of texts. Using think alouds and other discussion techniques we can demonstrate how we make sense of texts in front of our students. The language we use is explicit and sets the expectation that understanding is the primary goal of reading texts.
3. Guided Practice: Reading comprehension instruction should be based on the “Gradual Release of Responsibility Model” developed by P. David Pearson and others. In this model, the teacher demonstrates a strategy, students practice that strategy with teacher guidance and then begin using it independently. During guided practice, teachers work alongside students as they try and implement the strategies demonstrated by the teacher. One word of caution, the focus must remain on the construction of meaning, and not simply readers using more and more comprehension strategies. Strategies are a means to comprehension, not an end in themselves.
4. Independent Use: Readers need many opportunities to read books and other materials and discuss these texts with other readers. The whole purpose of comprehension instruction is to help readers make sense of the texts they read. Because of this, we need to allow time in our day for readers to read.
5. Reflective Opportunities: During reading workshops, or other classroom instructional frameworks, we need to allow students the opportunity to talk about and think about the strategies they have been employing, the books they have been reading and any questions or challenges that may arise during the reading event. Readers need to learn to talk about their reading processes. It has been shown that those readers that are more “meta-cognitively aware” are in general our better readers.

I hope that this has provided you with a few things to think about as you design your reading comprehension instructional experiences. Demonstrating how proficient readers make sense of texts and then guiding readers to apply the same strategies helps readers understand what they are reading. However, setting the expectation that reading should ALWAYS be a meaning making process is probably the most important thing we can do as reading teachers.

Expanding Comprehension Through Classroom Talk

fserafini — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:25:20 +0000

I began my academic career writing about the Reading Workshop, trying to help teachers understand the organizational framework and components of effective reading instruction. I continued by describing in detail the types of Lessons in Comprehension that I utilized in my Reading Workshop. I have now moved in for an even closer look by conducting research and spending time in elementary and middle school classrooms investigating the interactions or discourse patterns, and the actual language used, in literary discussions and comprehension instruction.
To begin, particular patterns of interaction between teachers and students have dominated traditional classroom instruction. One pattern of interaction that involves traditional roles for teachers and students, and particular ways of talking and responding, has been referred to as the Initiate – Respond – Evaluate (IRE) or Recitation Script (Cazden, 2001; Gutierrez, 1994). In this interaction pattern, the teacher initiates discussion, generally by posing a question, students respond to the teacher’s prompt, and the teacher closes the interaction by evaluating what the student has offered.
The IRE or Recitation Script generally involves the use of “pseudo” or display questions, in other words questions with predetermined answers used to ensure students can recall a specific bit of information from a text. Through numerous studies, display questions have been demonstrated to dominate literacy instruction (Alexander, 2006; Myhill, Jones, & Hopper, 2006; Nystrand, 1997). In traditional classrooms teachers pose a majority of questions, most of these questions involving literal recall of textual elements. The use of these display or pseudo questions relegates students to verbally “filling-in-the-blanks,” diminishing their active involvement in lessons and discussions.
Various educators have referred to the traditional IRE pattern as a “monologic” (single-voiced), or authoritarian, discourse. This pattern of interacting with students has dominated classroom discussions and has become viewed as a “natural” way of talking with children. It has a very strong influence on teaching and teachers, yet it is rarely openly discussed and critiqued in professional development experiences and coursework for preparing teachers. This monologic interaction pattern is what Cazden calls a “default setting.” In other words, if teachers don’t pay conscious attention to the language they use during instruction and discussions they will constantly revert back to this traditional way of talking.
In contrast to the monologic discourse pattern, educators have also described and proposed a “dialogic” (multi-voiced) discourse pattern.
Robin Alexander has suggested that dialogic teaching is:
1) Collective – teachers and students address questions together
2) Reciprocal – teachers and students listen to each other and share ideas
3) Supportive – students offer ideas without fear of reprisal
4) Cumulative – teachers and students build on one another’s ideas
5) Purposeful – teachers keep educational goals in mind

Dialogic teaching is not simply a way of asking new questions to get students responding, instead it is a different way of talking with, and responding to, students. Dialogic teaching sets new expectations for student involvement in discussions, requires students to pose as well as answer questions, and supports understanding and interpretation of what is read, rather than narrowly viewing comprehension as the ability to recall textual elements.
To make the shift from monologic to dialogic teaching requires teachers to ask interpretive (higher order) questions that provide a wider range of acceptable answers, view the text as a “point of departure” during discussions, understand that discussion is an instructional support for helping students explore the potential meanings of a text, and encourage students to move beyond literal meanings and expand their interpretive repertoires.

There are several instructional techniques for supporting the development of students’ interpretive repertoires. Let me briefly describe several of these instructional techniques here.

Set New Expectations for Discussion – students have become socialized into answering literal questions as much as teachers have become trained to ask them. We need to clearly articulate new expectations for literary discussions and be sure that students understand that our goal is to explore written texts and visual images in order to generate, articulate, and negotiate meanings in our community of readers.

Change the Physical Arrangements for Discussions – when students sit in rows the focus of their attention is on the teacher. When students are asked to sit facing each other, their attention shifts to their fellow classmates. We want students to learn to address one another as well as the teacher during our literary discussions. In this new arrangement, we may begin to suggest that students not raise hands, but listen attentively to one another in order to join the discussion.

Sensitive Listening and Uptake – teachers need to really listen to what students are saying and extend their ideas and responses by “taking up” from what has been said to clarify, extend and support students’ interpretations. We do this by naming specific student contributions, generalizing from their responses, having a deep understanding of the literature we are reading, and challenging students to “go deeper” with their thinking. We cannot respond effectively if we don’t listen, nor can we extend what students offer if we don’t address their comments and provide opportunities for students to consider other interpretations.

Become Aware of Dialogue Blockers – there are specific things that occur during a literary discussion that may block us from conducting effective discussions. Dominating voices, passive participants, lack of time, focusing on “winning” discussions, constantly seeking consensus and agreement, defensive attitudes, attacking other students and their ideas, and not listening to one another can diminish the effectiveness of discussions. The more we become aware of these potential dialogue blockers, the more we can effectively contain and possibly eliminate their effects.
James Britton has reminded us that “talk is the ocean on which all learning floats.” If we don’t pay close attention to our patterns of interactions in the classroom, the traditional discussion patterns we have relied on for years may hinder students’ interpretive abilities. In the next issue of In the Loop, I will address the types of questions teachers should be asking and the potential pitfalls and supports particular questioning strategies may offer.

References
Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Dialogos.
Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. London: Penguin Press.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gutierrez, K. (1994). How talk, context, and script, shape contexts for learning: A cross-case comparison of journal sharing. Linguistics and Education, 5, 335-365.
Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Hopper, R. (2006). Talking, listening, learning: Effective talk in the primary classroom. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Challenges to Implementing a Reading Workshop

fserafini — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:06:58 +0000

I have spent the last six years conducting workshops across the United States, and teaching graduate and undergraduate classes that focus on workshop approaches to reading and writing instruction. For the most part, my experiences and instructional approaches have been readily accepted by classroom teachers without incident. However, it has not been without some reservation. In this position statement, I will address the various challenges that classroom teachers have offered concerning why they don’t feel they can implement a workshop approach in their classrooms. I believe that all of the challenges these teachers offered are legitimate concerns, however, they should be addressed, discussed, and can be overcome.

The Pressures of High Stakes Testing – This is by far the biggest challenge offered about implementing a workshop approach to reading instruction. Their challenge is, “How do we prepare students for standardized tests if we don’t teach to the test during reading instruction?” Since, many of the expectations for being a successful reader in the reading workshop are drastically different from those expectations for readers on a standardized tests, I suggest we separate test preparation from reading instruction. In other words, rather than teaching reading as a single ability that can be used with poetry, newspapers, novels and test passages, I suggest we teach standardized test passages as a separate genre. In another position statement on this site, I share some thoughts about how this genre study might go. The most important thing about this approach is that it helps readers understand that reading for a test and reading in the reading workshop may focus on different skills and processes.

Administrative Pressures – In today’s public schools, administrators are under tremendous pressures to raise test scores and produce evidence that their school is not leaving any child “behind.” Some administrators do not support workshop approaches to reading instruction, preferring instead the implementation of a commercial program or scripted lesson format. I believe that this has more to do with control than with concerns over effective teaching. Since, reading workshops rely on both pre-planned experiences and response-centered instructional approaches, all lessons cannot be scripted out in advance, or contained in a little box in a teacher’s lesson book.
Many administrators require teachers to write out their lesson plans a week, sometimes a month, in advance and be turned in to be evaluated. This gives them some false sense of accountability, but also lets everyone know who is in charge. When teachers are trusted, and principals have faith in teachers ability to teach reading, they may require teachers to turn in reflections AFTER the week I over to discuss how the lessons went and how they are going to use the information to create the next week’s curriculum. Teachers should be able to explain how their teaching aligns with state and district standards, but also how it aligns with what they know about their students and the topic under consideration. Not all quality instruction can be planned out in advance. Teaching is a responsive, human activity, not a technical act that can be scripted.
Whether we like it or not, it is part of our job to educate our administrators as to why we teach the way we do. Many of them have not read the professional articles and books we have, nor have they taken classes or attended workshops and conferences that focus on teaching reading. Unfortunately, I know very few principals that attend in-services with their teachers. This is a tragedy. As teachers of reading and readers, we need to be able to articulate the theoretical foundations upon which we develop our instructional practices, explain how we adequately deal with the mandated standards and testing requirements and why we are offering the instructional approaches we provide. Until we as teachers explain why we teach the way we do to wider and wider audiences, we will struggle against those that feel they can script lessons and dictate how to teach. If these changes don’t work, consider finding a school where you “philosophy of teaching can survive.”

Access to Reading Materials, Primarily Quality Literature – Another legitimate concern is the lack of resources provided for workshop approaches. So much money in districts go to basal readers and commercial programs that there is little left over for trade books and literature. What a shame! Like my first year of teaching, many teachers don’t have access to a large classroom library. Over time I have amassed a large literature collection, but it takes time and money. I spent my own money on books (about $4,000 per year), ordered books from book clubs, borrowed extensively from other teachers, made good friends with the school and public librarians, and asked administrators for financial assistance. I also joined the library selection committee, when there was one, to insure that the books I wanted were being ordered.
If you have 30 students in your room, you need at least 300 quality books to get started with a literature based, reading workshop. I would prefer 3000 but I am an idealist. One of the foundations of a workshop approach is choice, and you can’t have choice if there are no books to choose from. Seek donations from wherever you can. Get to know retiring teachers and find out what they are doing with their collections when they leave. Garage sales, used book stores and parent contributions have all added to my collection.

Lack of Knowledge of Children’s Literature – Although, many teachers would not readily admit this, many teachers attempting a workshop approach to reading instruction don’t have enough knowledge of children’s literature to know what is available or how to use what they have. Not only do we need to remain current with what is being published, as well as know the classics, we need to be able to discuss literary devices, the art in picture books, the interplay between illustrations and text and how readers make meaning in transaction with literature.
For many teachers, a refresher course in children’s literature would enhance their ability to teach in a reading workshop. Spending some Saturday mornings in a local children’s book store may help as well. Teachers also need to read professional articles and publications that focus on literature and reading workshop in study groups. Reading these books is greatly enhanced if teachers are provided time to talk about what they are reading. Create teacher study groups where you read children’s literature along with professional materials.
In the mornings, on my drive to school I would listen to young adult novels on tape in my car. I read young adult novels when I am working on the stair-master (trying to keep my figure, you know). I have decided to only read novels that have been positively reviewed because I don’t have time to read poorly written novels. The Newbery and other award winning books is where I start. The more I know about quality children’s literature, the better able I am to put the best books in a child’s hands.

The Politics of No Child Left Behind – There is nothing written in the NCLB law or the National Reading Panel Report that says you can’t use a workshop approach to teaching reading. No where! Some people have tried to interpret the NRP report as mandating scripted, isolated lessons, but it does not say that in th report. The NRP document wants you to be able to articulate the role that direct, explicit instruction plays in your workshop. My new book, entitled Comprehension Lessons: Explicit Instruction in the Reading Workshop, out in summer 2004 from Heinemann, explains what I mean by explicit instruction and the role it plays in my reading workshop. The book will also offer 70 mini-lessons for the reading workshop. We may have to explain how we are teaching reading, but that does not mean we can’t do it in a workshop approach.

Scripted Instructional Mandated Programs – Basically, if your school and administrator requires you to use a scripted program you have five (5) choices, other than quitting teaching:
• change schools
• change the administrations mind about the program
• close your door and teach the way you want in secret
• adapt the program to fit your workshop
• adapt your workshop to fit your program
Some of these choices may not be available to you, but you have to decide how important it is to you and your students.

When Do I Teach Skills? – Like a pasta commercial once said, “It’s In There!” Skills are taught everyday in my reading workshop, I just don’t use worksheets to do it, nor do I isolate my instruction from authentic reading events. Reading for meaning is primary, any text that has no meaning (worksheets, Daily Oral Language, Accelerated Reader quizzes) have no place in my workshop. There are numerous professional articles and publications that describe how skills are taught in workshop approaches. This is no longer a legitimate concern.

Classroom Management Concerns: One of my least favorite concerns is the concern over classroom management. For many teachers, it is a concern over losing control over every aspect of instruction. However, if you are following a scripted program, you don’t have any control already. This concern may be legitimate, no one wants to spend time in a chaotic classroom, but it is wrong focused. Having challenges managing a class is no excuse for providing inferior instruction.
Many teachers refer to workshop approaches as “unstructured” and the traditional “sit in rows” as structured. I disagree!! When students sit in rows, all doing the same thing at the same time, with only the teacher knowing what is happening next, it is extremely unstructured. Structure is develop by consistency in procedures and the sharing of responsibility with students. When students know what to do next, there is more structure than when they wait for the teacher’s next directions. My reading workshop was always highly structured, only it wasn’t structured like traditional instruction. By transferring some of the responsibility to students, teachers are able to work alongside readers and small groups. It takes time to get there, but the rewards are worth it.

Varying Levels of Student Experience - This concern is actually one of the reasons for implementing a workshop approach to reading instruction. A reading workshop is a more responsive, child-centered environment that can use classroom based assessments to guide the reading curriculum. There are no scripted lessons, or a one-size-fits-all mentality. Having all students working on the same book at the same time is about control and teacher comfort, not effective teaching.
The reading workshop focuses on changing the way we think and talk about texts. Readers define what it means to read and be a reader as they learn how to read. Many students come to intermediate grades with deeply held beliefs about school, reading and what is expected of them. It takes time and support to help readers understand the new expectations set for them in a workshop approach. They are required to assume more responsibility for selecting what to read, for making sense of their reading, and for sharing and negotiating what they think about a text. The experiences students have had before they come to my class affects how they respond to the new environment, but does not preclude them from being successful.

Parental Expectations – Parents want to see a classroom environment that reminds them of the one they remember until we can demonstrate why the way our classrooms operate is better than what they experienced. We need to enroll our parents in “Parent University”, a series of workshops designed to help them understand how we teach and the theories that underlie our practices, to help them understand why a workshop approach is superior to sitting in rows reading the same book about in round robin fashion. To do this, we need to talk to parents in jargon-free language, model for them what their children will experience throughout the day, and be able to articulate why we do what we do.
Once parents trust what we are doing, they become allies in their child’s learning. Continuous reporting of student progress and well-planned parent nights can help. We need to explain where our curriculum will come from and how we will deal with standardized assessments. This doesn’t guarantee that all parents will buy into what we are doing, but more of them will.

Peer Pressure – “All the other teachers at my school do it this way, and I have to work with them everyday!” This is by far the lamest excuse for not changing your teaching practices. Just because other teachers haven’t read an article in ten years or attended a conference, doesn’t mean you have to teach like they do. Lounge talk is NOT professional development. The “way things used to be” wasn’t as great as we would like to remember. This is a profession, not a job, so act like a professional. Professionals think about what they are doing, they take classes and attend workshops to improve their practice, they keep current in the literature of their field, they share and discuss ideas with other professionals. Once you stop growing, you’ll fall off the vine.

Misconceptions of Reading and Reading Comprehension – Whether we acknowledge it or not, what we believe about reading and learning to read will affect how we teach. Until we are able to put aside outdated models and understanding of the reading process, the changes we make in our teaching practices will be largely cosmetic. It may look different, but the theory hasn’t changed. For example, just because a teacher is using chapter books instead of a basal doesn’t mean her practice has changed. She may be giving chapter quizzes, asking students literal recall questions and assuming their is one correct main idea in every book. The resource has changed but a “modernist” theory of reading and meaning dominates her beliefs about reading. There is an article on this website entitled, “Perspectives on Children’s Literature: Modernist, Transactional and Socio-Cultural perspectives’ that explores this idea in greater detail.