Literacy Coaching Model that Works

I was impressed at the IRA conference earlier this spring with a presentation from reading teachers at Downer's Grove High School. Their model of literacy coaching involved "literacy coaching" and action research. In May 12's Education Week, there's an article about links between the "Literacy Collaborative" (developed at the Ohio State University) and reading gains. See website here. The "literacy coaching" model seems to be gaining traction. Ironically, on the same page of Education Week is an article titled "Study of Reading Programs Find Little Proof of Gains in Student Comprehension." Short story: professional development of teachers, not canned programs, works.

See the results of the recent study done here. (This is what the Ed Week article references)

See more info here from the Lesley University.

Senior classes

In the May 12th (2010) Education Week, an article reported that the Educator of the Year spoke at the White House recently. Interesting to me is that she created 15 new courses. "Once students fulfill their requirements, they can select from such classes as "on the Road," which explores metaphorical and physical journeys, "Sport, Competition, and Culture," which looks at the cultural significance of sports; and "Genders' Game," Which takes on the role of gender in history. Her name is Sarah Brown Wessling. She teaches at Johnston High School in Iowa. The National Teacher of the Year program is sponsored by ING and Target and is a project of the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Action Research as Professional Development

After 4 successful years of action research, this article comes as no surprise. I've recently been thinking of how to encourage everyone in the department to take on AR as their professional growth plan.

I'm also interested in it b/c at the IRA conference I saw how successful the Downer's Grove North reading lab was in spreading PD through embedding literacy liaisons in each department, and asking each to engage in action research.

Article reference:

Action Research as a Constructivist Approach to Professional Development

Maeva López-Kassem

Common Core Standards - comments by Doug Reeves

In Education Week, Doug Reeves comments on Common Core Standards using English Language Arts as a pointed example. He praises them and says that they should come along with more direction to teachers about how to achieve the high expectations.

I've cut-and-pasted it here:

COMMENTARY

Common Standards: From What to How

How Common-Core Standards Should Influence Teaching

By Douglas B. Reeves

Premium article access courtesy of Edweek.org.

Read more FREE content!

• Printer-Friendly
• Email Article
• Reprints
• Comments (2)
• 

Will the recently released draft of K-12 standards from the Common Core State Standards Initiative provide a degree of coherence in academic expectations for students, teachers, and education systems that has not previously been available in American education? Or will this effort be one more failed reform, distinguished more by enthusiastic presentation than by successful implementation? The answer depends not merely on the standards documents, but also on the degree to which policymakers and leaders are willing to link the clear intent of the standards to the reality of the classroom.

We should first acknowledge that, in a nation committed to “local control” of education, any attempt to draft common standards represents courageous and difficult work. The standards-writers deserve our thanks, if not always our agreement. But while I applaud the rigor and specificity present in much of the standards document, I must challenge what seems to be its central premise: that standards are merely the “what” of education, while the “how” must be left to the discretion of individual schools and teachers.

In the introduction to the English/language arts standards document, for example, the writers declare: “Teachers are thus free to provide students with whatever tools and knowledge their professional judgment and experience identify as most helpful for meeting the goals set out in the standards” [Page 2]. And they then say, “The standards define what all students are expected to know and be able to do but not how teachers should teach” [Page 3]. Such statements undermine what is otherwise a document with a great deal of promise.

Consider the best features of the proposed common-core standards, which include a refreshing emphasis on nonfiction reading and writing at the elementary school level. The document suggests that 65 percent of elementary school writing should be explanatory or persuasive in nature, while most current elementary writing is dominated by fiction, fantasy, poetry, and personal narrative.

The standards also make clear that teachers in social studies and science are responsible for teaching and assessing reading, writing, speaking, and listening as well, a directive that is particularly important at the secondary level. Recent research suggests that while teachers are widely aware of the importance of evidence-based instructional practices in writing, they are not likely to apply them in secondary social studies and science classes.

The standards for grades 6-8 are particularly strong, and will for many schools represent a significant improvement in the preparation of students for high school. If taken seriously, they will lead to dramatic increases in the attention given to the teaching and assessment of reading and writing in these grades. The case for improved quantity and quality of nonfiction writing and reading at this level is supported with an impressive collection of research.

The standards-writers not only make clear the importance of greater rigor in our expectations of what student literacy should be, but also demonstrate convincingly that most students now fail to read and write at the levels suggested by these standards. Indeed, students are rarely asked to read and write with this degree of complexity.

The standards-writers deserve special commendation for their emphasis on kindergarten reading and writing. While I continue to hear the evidence-free argument that it is not “developmentally appropriate” for kindergartners to read and write, the standards document demonstrates with authentic examples that students can rise to the challenge. Writing, or failing to write, by the ages of 5 or 6 is not a reflection of brain development, but a consequence of adult expectations.

---

The false “what-how” dichotomy, however, threatens to reduce the standards-writers’ accomplishments to rubble. In their introduction, for example, they also say that “the standards do not mandate such things as a particular writing process or specify the full range of metacognitive strategies that students may need to use to monitor and direct their thinking and learning” [Page 2]. They might as well have written, “While the evidence suggests that obesity is a national tragedy with enormous personal and financial costs, we completely support your decision to dive into a smorgasbord of sugared water and junk food.” After all, recommending diet and exercise would be too close to mandating a “process,” something these standards eschew.

Any careful reading of the standards makes clear that process and content are essential components of effective education. The document very clearly does not regard every expression of professional judgment as equally valid. The writers, properly in my view, would require that 4th grade students “produce coherent and clear writing in which the organization, development, substance, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience” [Page 18].

The document also provides very explicit requirements for persuasive, informative, and narrative writing at each grade level. The expectations for revisions, research, correction, and adherence to conventions all have clear implications for teaching methods and instructional leadership.

With a majority of states having agreed to embrace the common-core standards, this moment is too important to let slip away. Now is not the time to weaken before those who think that “local control” implies a constitutional right of indifference to evidence. Standards take us halfway up the mountain. If we are to reach the summit, then teaching and leadership, not equivocation and indecision, will take us there. n

Douglas B. Reeves is the president of the Leadership and Learning Center, headquartered in Englewood, Colo.

Vol. 29, Issue 31, Pages 32-33

Jing comments on papers

Joe L. forwarded me this article about a teacher who Jings comments on student papers:

8 December 2006

Russell Stannard

Westminster lecturer Russell Stannard is videoing himself marking essays so that students get the most out of feedback. He

reports on small-screen success

Imagine you videoed yourself every time you marked a student's work. Imagine you could open up a student's essay on your

computer screen, press a button and from that moment on everything you said and any corrections you made on the work

were all recorded on video. If you highlighted something, underlined a spelling mistake or talked about the organisation of the

essay, it would all be recorded. Then you simply clicked a button and e-mailed the video to the student. They could then play

it back, and listen and watch as you commented on their essay. You could get them to watch the video and then redraft their

essay. Moreover, it wouldn't require any fancy software, just standard screen recorder software that works at a click of the

mouse.

This is already happening at Westminster University. Students receive live video recordings of me correcting their essays.

Early results are encouraging. Students are taking much more interest in the feedback they receive. The amount of

information that can be provided by the teacher is much greater, and students feel it is the nearest thing to a one-to-one

feedback session. With recent discussions on improving feedback in higher education, this may be just the thing universities

are looking for. It is powerful yet incredibly simple to use and provides documented proof of feedback.

So how does the technology work? The student e-mails an essay in text format to the tutor. The tutor opens the file and

activates the software.

Everything that the tutor then does on screen is recorded as a video: every mouse move, underlining and correction. If the

tutor has a microphone plugged in, any comments they make are also recorded. Once the feedback has been completed, the

video is compressed into a format that students can view on their computer and is sent back to them.

It doesn't matter what text programme the student uses because the software simply records the screen.

Research is at an early stage, but is causing widespread interest. Most lecturers add notes in the margins of students'

essays, normally fewer than ten words. However, because tutors can talk as they correct the work, much more detailed and

complete feedback can be given.

In Westminster's research, based around an "English for academic purposes"

course, the students are told where the problem is and how it might have come about, but are left to correct the mistake

themselves. This forces them to watch the videos and then redraft their essays. Whereas the total number of comments on a

"normal" feedback system might amount to a quarter of a page, if the comments from the videos were written down they

would take up more than a whole page of writing. For example, traditional correction of grammar in an essay might include a

few notes about the type of mistake that has been made, whereas with the video the teacher can explain where the mistake

might have come from.

The power of the software lies in its simplicity. There is a small amount of extra time involved because the videos have to be

compressed before being sent to the student, but apart from this it really is a "live"

recording of your feedback session. And because the software simply records the screen, any tools you use when correcting

on screen will come out on video. So, for example, if you use a "highlighter" facility to point out a mistake or underline a

particular word, it all shows up in the video. This makes feedback both oral and visual, and therefore suitable for different

learning styles.

Tests so far have shown there is a strong fit between the technology and language teaching as the video feedback can

Times Higher Education - The spelling mistake: Scene one, take one http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&story...

2 of 2 13-Mar-2008 8:05 AM

include information about syntax, grammar, spelling and choice of vocabulary. However, other ideas for using the technology

have also emerged. On an information and communications technology course, I marked essays on the topic of using

"interactive whiteboards" in the normal way. Then I opened up a text file, turned on the screen recorder and began to

produce a "general feedback video" where I talked through common mistakes, organisation of essays, good points that were

made by some of the students and so on. Afterwards, I produced an essay plan explaining how I would have organised the

answer.

The video was compressed and sent to all the students.

These general class feedback videos are particularly useful as they are quick to make and can cover a lot of material. And

on an English course I realised there were several students making a particular grammatical mistake. I produced a feedback

video that was more like a grammar lesson, providing information about the point, writing up examples and then sending the

recording to all the students. Of course these ideas are not limited to higher education. They could be used in any course at

any level.

Many teachers and lecturers are also citing the possibilities for distance learning. Michael Thomas, an associate professor of

English as a foreign language in Japan, who has been exploring the feedback videos with his own university students,

believes the idea could be invaluable for distance-learning courses.

"Many distance-learning courses would really benefit from this idea as they often lack personal contact with the tutors," he

says. "It could add a whole new dimension to student-teacher feedback, as the technology can be used with a minimum of

knowledge by students and teachers alike."

The first step in setting up the videos involved identifying the technology that could be used. There are a number of screenrecorder

software packages. Screen recorder by Matchware is very easy to use (a click of a button to start recording your

screen) and can be effective. Camtasia and Captivate allow greater editing facilities and compression options.

I chose Camtasia because the latest version allows you to include a small video of yourself in the corner of the screen so that

the students not only see your computer screen and hear your voice, but can see you as you mark their work.

The second step was to look at the kind of feedback provided. Is it better to provide direct correction of the mistakes within

the videos or simply to highlight mistakes, but get students to correct the work themselves? The research findings were

contradictory but it was decided that the most effective way of getting students to use the videos was not to correct the

mistakes but rather to point out where they were, suggest what might be the cause of them, and leave it up to students to do

the corrections in the redraft. This forces students to work with the videos and extract the information provided in them.

The software does not only have to be used for feedback. Screen recorder software can be used to teach in all sorts of

areas. For example, you can open up a software package such as Adobe Flash, turn on the screen recorder software and

demonstrate ways of using Flash, talking and commenting as you do so. Such video presentations have proved to be very

popular with students. Will Whitlock from Westminster's Educational Initiative Centre, which funds the project, says the

centre is looking at more projects in this area and that the feedback videos have created "a lot of interest".

The next step is to do some comparative studies. Are the videos effective learning tools? Do they result in improved drafts

against traditional methods and what do students feel about them?

Does it make the whole process of feedback more interesting? We should have some answers early next year.

Russell Stannard is a principal lecturer at Westminster University's department of computer science. An example of

feedback on grammar he has produced can be viewed online, although not at full screen size, at:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ1y4t6ggQs

What makes learning stick? Experiment

Edutopia yesterday: find it here

Join Our National Lab Day Experiment

What makes learning stick? Participate in our little experiment!

Mixed Results for Charters

NYT article of May 1, "Despite Push, Success at Charter Schools Is Mixed," by Trip Gabriel,
talks about mixed results for Charters. Thanks Mike P. for sending this my way.

Key idea: charters vary WIDELY in effect.

Key paragraph setting up that idea:

But for all their support and cultural cachet, the majority of the 5,000 or so charter schools nationwide appear to be no better, and in many cases worse, than local public schools when measured by achievement on standardized tests, according to experts citing years of research. Last year one of the most comprehensive studies, by researchers from Stanford University, found that fewer than one-fifth of charter schools nationally offered a better education than comparable local schools, almost half offered an equivalent education and more than a third, 37 percent, were “significantly worse.”

Teachers Evaluated by Student Test Scores in NYC

Yesterday's NYT story, "Agreement will alter evaluations of teachers," by Jennifer Medina details a NY teahers' union agreement to overhaul teacher evaluations "and tie them to student test scores" something "the unions had bitterly opposed for years. Check this out: "Teachers would be measured on a 100-point scale, with 20 percent points based on how much students improve on the standardized state exams. Another 20 percent would be based on local tests, which would have to be developed by each school system. After two years, 25 percent would be based on state exams and 15 percent would come from the local tests."

Is this coming to a state near you soon? Too soon to say, but this detail from the article is interesting: NY Teachers will be will be placed in one of the following categories: highly effective, effective, developing, and ineffective. Illinois has agreed to move to that same system next year.

There are not that many common denominators left

Today's NYT's article "As Newsweek goes on Block, an era fades," author Stephanie Clifford details the implications for a world where magazines from the middle with great stature.

For English teachers, this is really essential -- our job is to help kids figure out who's talking and what's their authoirty -- everything is rhetoric.

The end of the 3-hour phone conversation. So what?

After the hyperbole about the effects of increased technology on kids, this article talks about "the really nuanced things about the way technology is affecting the closeness properties of friendship." Half of American kids send 50 or more texts per day. Studies show that kids are less interested in face to face meeting. Kids don't have hour-long phone conversations with bosom buddies anymore. Should we care? This article introduces the topic. Article "Antisocial Networking?" by Hilary Stout, published today in the New York Times Style section here.

"Contesting Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?" Short Interview of James Shapiro

Julia Keller supplies a quick e-mail interview of James Shapiro, author of new book "Contesting Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?" Key idea: "My interest is not about proving what people think.. so much as why they think it. Keller: "His book tells the story of the people who refuse to believe the obvious -- that Shakespeare was Shakespeare -- and what this deathless skepticism revesals about our changing notions of authorship, creativity and the extent to which written works are imbued with autobiography." Article here. I'll use it in my freshman English class now that we're reading Romeo and Juliet as a modern connection.