education – Page 3 – CCIRA Professional Development Blog

By Jennifer Serravallo

Discussions of evidence-based reading instruction, what many refer to as “the science of reading,” are everywhere. In fact, thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that requires schools to use research-based resources to teach reading in elementary school. The science of reading refers to a multidisciplinary body of research that examines how kids learn to read and identifies what works in literacy instruction. However, there isn’t a central repository for the research and no list of which studies are and are not included. And of course, researchers continue to add to the body of research as new studies uncover new findings.

I’m a big believer in using research to inform how we teach reading. As an author and literacy consultant, I have always used research to better understand the practices that are most likely to impact the most students. And I think we need to look at all the research, not just those studies that support a certain perspective. For example, in my newest book, Teaching Reading Across the Day, I cite and interpret more than 300 studies, meta-analyses, and papers. Research about phonics and word reading, knowledge and vocabulary development, strategy instruction, fluency, comprehension, verbal reasoning, executive function skills, language structure, engagement and motivation, and theory of mind are all key to developing proficient readers. I also lean on research about pedagogy, explicit instruction, and inquiry, as well as how to teach responsively – offering feedback and guiding students.

But here’s the thing about research: controlled studies, meta-analyses, brain research, reader models, etc. are all a great starting place. However, for the research to have an impact on student learning, teachers need to understand how best to implement findings in the classroom, and how to accommodate the inevitable variability as individual student needs come into play. So, while I read research and talk to researchers for my podcast To the Classroom, I also spend time with teachers in classrooms around the country as a guest teacher, coach, and collaborator. I model lessons, and together we problem-solve, test, and refine ideas, using the research, but also relying on our teaching experience and expertise, with the goal of meeting every student’s need. I was honored when Rachael Gabriel, a professor of Literacy Education at the University of Connecticut called me a faithful translator of reading research, since that’s exactly what I aim to be! When I share practices, strategies, or ideas in my books or workshops they are not only grounded in decades of research, they are also classroom-tested.

One of the problems my team of consultants and I have been trying to solve lately is how to ensure teaching is explicit, engaging, well-planned and well-paced, while keeping planning and preparation time reasonable. In the schools we support, we find that teachers are working hard to address a wide range of student needs with grade level texts in ELA and across content areas, while also incorporating science of reading-aligned practices, sometimes using a new curriculum. Leaning on the research around explicit engaging instruction, we’ve come to rely on nine lesson types (read aloud, phonics and spelling, vocabulary, focus, shared reading, close reading, guided inquiry, reader’s theater, and conversation) that ELA and content teachers can depend on. If you know the pacing, structure, teaching moves, and predictable ways you’ll need to respond for each lesson type, you spend less time planning, which keeps your focus – and your students’ – on the content you’re teaching.

And of course, it’s not just the science of teaching that’s important – the art of teaching is as well. The creativity you bring to your teaching, together with the hundreds of decisions you make daily to respond to the needs of the students in front of you often makes the difference as to whether a student learns or not. With the all the standards and content you must cover, responsive teaching is critical. No matter what curriculum you are using, it’s you and your responsiveness to student needs that makes the greatest impact on student learning.

Responsive teaching starts with a small set of predictable lesson structures and a great lesson plan. The beauty of relying on nine lesson structures is that you can use them to teach any text in any subject, although of course certain lesson structures are better suited to certain goals and content. Once you are familiar with the structure, you’ll save planning time as the steps become second nature and teaching within a structure will give you more flexibility to innovate and respond during the lesson.

Though responsiveness to students can feel like it’s all in-the-moment decision making, it’s possible to anticipate the prompting, support, redirection, or affirmation students might need as you guide them toward lesson objectives. This might include direct instruction when introducing a new vocabulary word. Or perhaps orchestrating a turn-and-talk to get students engaged and to assess their understanding. Or maybe modeling a particular reading strategy so students can see the steps you follow to determine key points or understand character motivation.

When I teach a lesson, I’m always looking at and listening to the students, and getting feedback from them. I watch their facial expressions. I notice their body language. I tune in to nuances in their inflection. I attend to what they are not saying as well as what they are saying. If the students have bright faces and are eagerly following what I say, I can continue with the plan. Maybe they are further ahead than I anticipated, and I can pick up my pace or skip a part of the lesson. If I’m looking out at a sea of puzzled expressions and students are quiet, I may need to back up, slow down, and offer an extra explanation or demonstration. These pivots and adaptations not only impact student engagement during the lesson, they determine whether students learn or not.

So, it’s about the science and the art – honoring the decades of research on reading and the collective experience of teachers. Research that doesn’t recognize the importance of the teacher doesn’t lead to a successful outcome. And teachers who don’t tap into and apply evidence-based reading instruction don’t reach as many students. It’s the marriage between the science and art of teaching that helps students become proficient readers.

Jennifer Serravallo is a NYT bestselling author, award-winning educator, literacy consultant, frequent invited speaker at state and national conferences, and former member of the Parents Magazine editorial board. Learn more about her and her work, including her podcast To the Classroom, at www.JenniferSerravallo.com. Her newest book, Teaching Reading Across the Day, is available now from Corwin Literacy.

As a special offer for CCIRA, Corwin is offering a 25% discount and free shipping for Teaching Reading Across the Day. Simply use the code SERRAVALLO at check out.

By Dr. Scott McLeod, 2024 Conference Presenter

Hi friends.

Over the past five years, some research buddies and I have visited over 90 innovative schools all across the country (and a few overseas). Fueled by learning equity and college / career readiness concerns, new technologies, and state policy changes, numerous new ‘deeper learning’ schools are emerging that aim to prepare ‘future ready’ graduates. Deeper learning schools are a small but quickly-growing number of institutions, constituting perhaps 1,000 or so schools out of 129,000 total schools in America. Although deeper learning can be defined in numerous ways, most of the schools that we have visited tend to share the following characteristics:

an emphasis on applied creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving;
high levels of student agency, control, ownership, voice, and choice;
opportunities to engage in authentic, real-world work in local and global communities; and
robust technology infusion.

A fifth characteristic that deeper learning schools share is that they are incredibly energizing and inspiring places to visit. For example, at any given moment, students in a deeper learning school might be investigating connections between their backyards and inland water ecosystems, creating kinetic art sculptures, learning about the relationship between chocolate-making and forced labor overseas, or building video game controllers for peers with disabilities. Students are thinking deeply, problem-solving collaboratively with peers and outside partners, and making significant impacts in their local communities, while still learning important, foundational course content and academic skills. As they find meaning and relevance in their work, students are excited and engaged learners rather than bored and apathetic.

What I love about the deeper learning schools that we have visited is the sheer energy and enthusiasm that students have around their learning. They’re eager to describe what they’re working on, what they’re mastering, and how they’re positively contributing to the world around them. It’s not just I’m excited to see my friends energy or I can’t wait to do my electives or extracurriculars today energy. It’s delight in the learning itself.

This learning engagement stands in sharp contrast to what we often see in more traditional schools. We’re so worried about ‘learning loss,’ we often engage in practices that feel fairly unproductive: Let’s add more reading and math blocks! Let’s extend the school day or calendar! Let’s create an intervention / remediation period during which students can catch up on the basics! Let’s require kids to attend summer school! Let’s force children to repeat a grade! We don’t actually change how we teach or what we do with students during this additional time. We simply double down on what they didn’t like in the first place.

Post-pandemic, we continue to see a great deal of student boredom and apathy. Some students are opting out physically, and we see many schools struggling with chronic student absenteeism. Other students are opting out mentally: even when they do show up, many of them don’t care much about the work that we ask them to do. The students who are compliant aren’t exactly excited about their learning either. They’re mostly checking off boxes and playing the game of school. If we’re honest with ourselves, we will admit that even our most academically-successful students often struggle to find meaning in the learning tasks that we put before them.

While there are no easy answers here, deeper learning schools show us that that leaning into

greater student ownership of their learning,
depth of student learning (beyond recall and regurgitation), and
student meaning-making (not just academic but also real world and applied)

can be powerful levers for student engagement. And just to be clear: This is not a teacher issue, it’s a systems issue. Together, we could create new visions for student success, establish structures and processes that treat our humans with dignity and respect, and redesign instruction in ways that are more interesting and engaging. We’re not helpless victims, trapped in systems that will forever perpetuate student boredom. We can do better.

How many of us are tired of constantly cajoling or disciplining students, pleading with or forcing them to do work that they don’t want to do? Me too.

SCOTT

Tag: education

The Art and Science of Teaching Reading

Student (dis)engagement