Intertwining Reading and Math

While I think it’s universally agreed that reading is the most important skills children learn in elementary school, I believe math is extraordinarily important too. The subjects are taught separately, but I think it’s worthwhile to think how the two intersect. One of the most obvious intersections (and one that was mentioned in class on 11/2) is word problems in math. In order to successfully solve word problems, children need to know how to read the text. Word problems also require students to strategize—by picking out terms that dictate how to solve the problem. Math is also part of reading, although not as obviously. Readers may encounter concepts that require mathematical thinking. Readers looking at non-fictions may also need to understand how to interpret graphs and other mathematical data.

I’m left to wonder how the two subjects can be more explicitly intertwined. While teaching odd and even number this past week, I read Missing Mittens, and while I think my students enjoyed a read aloud during math, I think there are better ways to find connections between the content areas. Shatzer’s 2008 The Reading Teacher article explores books with explicit math concepts along with books like Henry and Mudge where teachers can point out specific math concepts (money, cost, and savings) to draw connections between math and reading. Scholastic hosts a portal with articles and videos describing how to develop math and reading lessons. ReadWriteThink also includes several lessons where math and literacy can be integrated. I believe drawing these connections is important, especially for young children, so they understand how the interdisciplinary nature of math and literacy.

Shatzer, J. (2008, May). Picture Book Power: Connecting Children's Literature and Mathematics. The Reading Teacher, 61(8), 649–653. doi: 10.1598/RT.61.8.6

What is a "Good" Reader?

During our class session on Nov 2^nd, we discussed the idea of a “good” reader. Classmates offered their perspective on assessments and anecdotal evidence of reading. It became clear that the term “good” reader can vary widely based on experience; one colleague refuses to use the term because she learned the term “good” adds value and we should simply encourage students to be readers. I think a “good”” reader is not only someone who can read fluently and comprehend, but also understand the value of reading. For example, a “good” reader would know the importance of reading to gather information about an unknown topic, or how texts on the same topic can discuss varying viewpoints which contribute to new knowledge. As a teacher who wants to see students become lifelong learners, I think understanding the value of text is almost as important as understanding the skills to decode and comprehend text.

In an effort to build students who demonstrate self-efficacy, I think it’s also important to understand student perception of what makes a “good” reader—not only to develop their own perception of their abilities, but to better model practices to guide students in becoming better readers. A 2005 article from The Reading Teacher uses a questionnaire that can be distributed to students throughout the year to gauge their perception of “good” readers. As someone who wants to encourage my students to love and value reading—even if they are still working on the skills to decode, read fluently, and comprehend—I think this type of measure may be useful to better understand how students conceptualize the process of reading and becoming “good” readers.

Johnson, J.C. (2005). What makes a "Good" Reader? Asking students to define "Good" Readers. The Reader Teacher, 58(8), 766-770. doi: 10.1598/RT.58.8.6.

Teacher Preparedness in Reading

I realize an earlier blog posting addresses teacher training and preparedness, but it’s a subject I’m really jazzed about so I’d like to write about it some more J In my article discussion on October 29^th, I asked classmates’ their perception of preparedness to teach reading as they entered the profession. The response was a resounding “no”. While many in my class are in the non-traditional ProMAT program, even teachers who went through a traditional route explained they really didn’t understand reading instruction until they entered the classroom. The American Federation of Teacher’s 1999 position paper Reading IS Rocket Science examines how the instruction of reading is downplayed and issues with schools of education; the National Council on Teacher Quality’s 2006 report What Education Schools Aren’t Teaching found that only 15% of education schools provided “minimal exposure to the science” of teaching reading (5). The report is fascinating—it analyzes syllabi and textbook selections, but its recommendations are most helpful for policy makers in deciding how to correct the problem on a macro level. What’s the 1^st year teacher who wants their students to be successful to do?

I took 6 credits of reading coursework before starting to teach, but I was still unsure of major things, like how to conduct a guided reading lesson. On a day-to-day basis, I construct my plan to teach reading by listening to anyone and everyone—teammates in staff meetings, in the copy room, and in classes at Hopkins. I also keep my eyes and ears open for specific means of teaching different strategies. I would also like to visit the classrooms of more seasoned teachers to observe their approach to reading. While there are many resources on paper, little compares to seeing an expert teach. Finally, as nerve-wracking as observations may be, I believe they are so critical in gaining the competencies necessary to be an effective teachers—especially in a subject as important as reading.

Literacy Push Down

Our class is fortunate to have students teaching reading to a range of students, from early childhood through upper elementary, and both struggling, average, and above average readers. The topic of the “push down” of reading instruction wherein explicit reading instruction now begins in Kindergarten was brought up. As an educator who wants to see all children succeed for the benefit of our future, I believe this approach is beneficial because it lays the groundwork for students to become strong readers while still developmentally appropriate. The public, however, has a different view of increased instruction in the younger years.

Public perception is informed by mass media sources that may distort the genuine intent curricular testing. I referenced this article in my September 25^th posting and I’m referencing it again because articles in the NY Times reach a large audience and therefore generates discussion. While Orenstein is entitled to her opinion, I do think the judgments may be misplaced; Dibels are not just to test student, but are used as teachers for guided reading groups and then differentiate instruction, allowing teachers to work within students’ zone of proximal development.

At the same time, as a new teacher I realize this emphasis on testing is due to policies like No Child Left Behind that have made high stakes testing—including at young ages—a reality in schools. On one hand, push-downs like more testing allows teachers specific measures to see where they can be help students learn, but testing also creates high pressure situations that some—like Orenstein—argue are not developmentally appropriate. Where is the balance? Most would agree that programs like public Pre-K provide income-eligible families an opportunity to compete with their peers. Whitehurst explains gaps identified in Kindergarten only widen as children go through elementary school. So where is the balance? I'm sure as I teach more I'll form a more distinct opinion, but I'm curious about what others think!

Teacher Training

During our class a few weeks ago, we briefly discussed how often administrators will—sometimes without warning—require teaching staff to implement new programs. Coming from another field that highly valued professional development and paid for staff to attend trainings and workshops, I think training is very important to prepare teachers in making content meaningful for students. Especially because some programs can be complex and different from previous approaches, trainings and workshops are sometimes necessary. Yet the reality is districts and schools are often hesitant to let teachers take professional leave to further develop their skills.

Fortunately, both my district and my school encourage staff to develop skills. I hear from other teachers working in MCPS that a school’s willingness to let teachers take leave can vary widely. I realize a variety of factors can affect a school’s attitude towards development, including administrator and community perspectives. But I personally find it highly ironic that schools are so reluctant to provide teachers the opportunity to further their professional knowledge. As was mentioned in class, this is part of a larger conversation regarding public perception of teachers are professionals. This discussion inevitably leads to discussions of teacher evaluations, as this article by Bill and Melinda Gates illustrates. Nonetheless, I believe this conservation must continue because teachers need the opportunity to learn, especially in the face of increasingly high standards.

Motivation: Doing More Harm Than Good?

Our e-class discussion of motivation and reading raises an issue I’ve considered a lot recently. One of my students who I’ll call Duke (if the name sounds familiar, that’s because I also mentioned Duke in my e-class discussion!) is excited to read but unmotivated otherwise. I’m fortunate that his parents are very engaged and interested in helping him succeed as much as possible. Duke works with a tutor afterschool and they are currently reading books from The Magic Treehouse series, books that are highly popular in my second grade classroom but above Duke’s reading level. Nonetheless, Duke’s parents describe how getting Duke to participate with his tutor and complete his homework is a constant struggle.

Our e-class discussion of motivation and reading raises an issue I’ve considered a lot recently. One of my students who I’ll call Duke (if the name sounds familiar, that’s because I also mentioned Duke in my e-class discussion!) is excited to read but unmotivated otherwise. I’m fortunate that his parents are very engaged and interested in helping him succeed as much as possible. Duke works with a tutor afterschool and they are currently reading books from The Magic Treehouse series, books that are highly popular in my second grade classroom but above Duke’s reading level. Nonetheless, Duke’s parents describe how getting Duke to participate with his tutor and complete his homework is a constant struggle.

In order to keep Duke on task in class, Duke’s parents and I have developed a behavior contract. If Duke stays on task throughout the day with minimal interruption for redirection, he earns a Pokemon card. Duke really values Pokemon cards, and since we’ve started this system about a week ago, Duke has earned a Pokemon card every day. I know his parents and I are excited to see Duke motivated to work hard. But I wonder what will happen next year, or when Pokemon cards lose their allure. How can we keep Duke motivated, especially with reading since he’s already one of the lowest readers in my class? Are my good intentions only setting Duke up for disappointment and increased frustration in the future?

The National Association of School Psychologists' brief primer on motivation in early childhood and warns against the use of excessive extrinsic motivators when working with young children. But Duke has clearly struggled to stay motivated; early in the school year when the school’s reading specialist visited my classroom, she noted that “I see nothing’s changed since Kindergarten” as she saw Duke distracting another student. While I think this comment was a bit insensitive, I think it also highlights how students like Duke require creative thinking. At the same time, at what point do extrinsic motivators go overboard? I personally believe programs like DC Public School’s usage of money to motivate students as a part of their Capital Gains program erode at any intrinsic motivation a student may possess (even if some studies find they do work), but perhaps so do Pokemon cards. Over the next school year, I hope to continue working with Duke and his parents so he can be a motivated and confident learner.

The Reality of Centers

Prior to this school year, I put extensive amounts of thoughts into the reading centers I would implement during reading instruction. From substitute teaching and working in summer school, I saw how centers could work well and reinforce skills, and how centers could also function as little more than busywork. I was determined to construct center rotations that were engaging and well-run, reading through Debbie Diller’s Literacy Work Stations: Making Centers Work. Then, like many well-intentioned first-year teachers, I started school, and all my plans flew out the window. I wanted to make centers a part of our daily routine from Day 1; centers did not start until the third week of school. The need for reading testing in the first month of school made it difficult to model and correct behaviors. In short, I have lots of ideas of what I’ll change next year, but the big question is what will I do with my current group of students?

I’m fortunate that I have a great group of students and fairly strong classroom management procedures, so students are open to changes that I make. As guided reading begins, I’m planning on a more systematic and meaningful approach to centers. I still refer back to Diller’s book and the need to limit the number of children at each center. I also consider practice students require—for example, identifying nouns, verbs, and adjectives—and create stations for students reinforce the skills they will need. More than all else, consulting with knowledgeable, experienced teachers is helpful as I learn the most appropriate way to allow students the practice they need. I’m learning a lot by making mistakes—I just learned that a handwriting practice center is a bad idea because students need immediate feedback in order to make changes to their writing. These mistakes continue to inform decisions about literacy stations.

Next year, I think I may take my experience and apply an entirely new approach to reading centers. While substitute teaching, I met a 2^nd grade team that used Gail Boushey and Joan Moser’s The Daily Five. As students rotate through 5 reading/writing centers, students not only practice reading and writing skills, they also practice working independently. One significant advantage as a teacher is that students produce little paperwork—meaning there is less to plan, less to photocopy, and less to grade. This goes against conventional thought that centers need some sort of deliverable, but student independence is emphasized from day one. Regardless of the approach I choose in the future, I’m learning teachers need to be thoughtful and reflective to make centers meaningful.