The dirty secret of teaching

I shyly admitted to a friend the other day that I was having to re-score old student papers in order to use the data in action research.  When I scored the papers the first time I did a dirty job of it - now I am re-doing the scoring the way I wish I had.

"Oh, don't feel bad about that," she said kindly. "I have a teacher in the family; I've heard this before. You all have a secret pile a papers you never corrected, right? You stress about this: Should you hand them back to students after all this time? Or just throw them out?"

Ahh, the dirty secret of teaching.

In teacher school you think of course you will always correct assessments immediately, handing them back while the work is fresh in students' minds. But then there you are, carrying a battered folder of overdue uncorrected papers from school to home and back again. (If I told you how many times, I'd have to...)

Of course, and always, there is never enough time. Something must be left undone. Why, is correcting papers the thing left undone? Why do I avoid this task, above all others? As Alfonso Procaccini (my favorite college professor) taught me, there is a method to madness. I can look backwards at what I actually do to figure out what I am thinking and why.

When I am correcting students' papers, I could focus on what the student has learned. I could be thinking, "Look at what this student has learned! Where is this student on the continuum of learning this skill, or gaining this knowledge?"

Is there a teacher out there that thinks like that? Not me. I think "Why is this student not getting this?" which leads me right to "What have I done wrong? How am I failing this student?"

By leaving the papers in the folder instead of reading them I avoid feeling...shame.

Readers learn the troublesome assumptions in school!

Sadly readers come to their troublesome assumptions honestly - teachers teach those assumptions to them!  In the book In the Middle, New Understandings About Reading, Writing and Learning (p. 28-29, 2d Ed., Heinemann, Portsmouth NH) Nancie Atwell names 21 "lessons" students get about reading, shown below.

The first lesson - reading is serious and painful - is almost the whole enchilada. Lessons 3-10 and 12-14 are variations of what I call "troublesome assumptions."

Cloze experiments to change readers' ideas about reading

Struggling readers try to make sense of text by relying heavily on the graphic and phonic features of words. This means they often make poor predictions about what text means because they are busy substituting words that look or sound similar but don't mean the same. For example, substituting dimple or simple won't help a reader understand what an author means by pimple.

One way to move students past this habit would be to give them a cloze text to work with. In a cloze text the reader has a passage with blanks where words were removed. The reader's task is to insert words that make sense. This exercise puts readers in a position where they have to take risks to make meaning and they can't rely on graphophonic cues.

For example:

• Once upon a ________,
• The little pig built _____ house out of straw
• The wolf walked ________ the road

Apparently a traditional cloze text eliminates every seven words. Another approach would be to leave an introductory section intact and then eliminate words according to a pattern, such as every ten words.

In Debra Goodman's chapter, The Reading Detective Club, in Retrospective Miscue Analysis by Goodman and Marek (1996), she describes using cloze exercises she built from predictable stories or folk tales in order to reap the benefits of retrospective miscue analysis with a larger group of students. Goodman had students work the exercises in pairs and then share responses. She would put all responses on the board and ask:

• Do these responses make sense?
• Why did you come up with this response?

The second question opens the door to the reading process. Following questions might include:

• What did you see in the text that led you to this response? 
• What clues did you use to come up with this response?
• What were you thinking about when you came up with this response?

Take-aways and more teaching advice from Retrospective Miscue Analysis book

Here are additional take-aways and bits of teaching advice...

1. When students finish reading, always focus on what they understand before discussing any other aspect of reading. Follow this by asking what, if anything, gave students trouble. 
2. If a reader pauses at an unknown word, wait it out, and watch what they do.
3. If a reader asks for the meaning of a word, instead of providing the answer, ask them what they think should go in that place. If they make a reasonable guess, they can move on. If the guess is not reasonable or they won't make a guess, encourage them to keep reading. Watch what they do when they see the word again or when they make sense of the meaning.
4. Text selection is key.
5. Gaining control of the reading process may be a light switch that flips on, or a gradual zigzag.
6. "Matching" is a good way to talk about reproduction of the letters/sounds. Did what the reader say out loud match what was written?
7. Miscue analysis is a problem-solving, inquiry-oriented experience. It can't be turned into a formula and will lose power if procedures are followed slavishly.
8. After the first 200 words of a text, a reader starts to make more effective predictions.
9. Don't underestimate the ability of any reader to read a substantial amount of text (500 words is a minimum to gain understanding).
10. Students assume that they have said something incorrect if the teacher asks a follow-up question.

Getting readers ready for retrospective miscue analysis in small groups

Retrospective miscue analysis is often done in individual sessions with students, but in a college classroom where students attend for a maximum of 10 weeks (and some fewer than that) there isn't time to schedule the number of individual sessions needed.

The analysis can also be done within student groups during class. Sarah Costello's chapter titled A Teacher/Researcher Uses RMA in Retrospective Miscue Analysis by Goodman and Marek, has some useful ideas for a series of seven background lessons to prepare students to do the analysis in small groups. I summarized these below with notes about implementation, and with instructional objectives (derived from Costello's description). Note that Costello developed the series of seven after trying three lessons exploring:
1) what is a miscue (unexpected response, not a mistake, a window into reader thinking),
2) all readers miscue
3) reading process: what readers are doing to make meaning (sample/predict/confirm/deny)

Lesson 1: What is the process of learning?
Objective: Identify and become aware of the pre-requisites for learning. Costello used a group brainstorming activity. I have used think/writes to call up wisdom gained in past experiences (successes and failures), sometimes combined with a dating line where students share their wisdom with others in turn. Pre-requisites to look for:

• students must want to learn
• students must be in an environment where they can take risks and make mistakes
• students must have opportunities to practice

Lesson 2: What is "reading"?
Objective: Define reading and list examples of the variety of student reading experiences. Costello assigned students to "log all the reading they did in one day," categorizing it on a chart as informational (e.g. textbook, magazine, instructions, cookbook), recreational (e.g. a phone text, TV commercial) or environmental (e.g. a stop sign). The class discussed the data collected on the next day.

Lesson 3: What do we perceive?
Objective: Evaluate the quality and nature of individual perception. People can perceive the same thing differently and we often see what we think we see.  Costello showed the students optical illusions - images with more than one meaning. My colleague Phyllis Nissila demonstrated a similar lesson on perception for our faculty inquiry group using geometric optical illusions.

Costello also used riddles to discuss multiple interpretations "because the author expects the reader will think one way and then provides a twist for the purpose of surprise."  Examples from Costello:

1: Some months have thirty days; some have thirty-one. How many have twenty-eight? (All)
2: You are lost in the woods. You are freezing and you find a cabin. You have only one match. You enter the cabin and find a kerosene lamp, an oil heater and a wood-burning stove. Which would you light first? (The match) (Goodman & Marek, Retrospective Miscue Analysis p. 171).

Costello closed the lesson with a final exercise and discussion about "what effective and efficient readers do when reading." This is a dramatic example of a miscue using a text that purposefully leads the good reader to read what is meant instead of what is written.

Efficient readers will miscue when reading these two samples because they don't even see (or read) the repeat the or a. If someone were reading word for word they would see and read it, but it's not important when reading for meaning. Efficient readers aren't making a mistake, it's a miscue. The efficient reader samples only as much text as the reader needs to make meaning, predicting what will be there and confirming or denying what he/she predicts by asking if it makes sense, then correcting as needed.

Possible discussion supports after reading the sample out loud (to a partner?) and having the partner listen and then compare the text to the words read out loud.

• Did the reader read the text out loud exactly how it was written on the page?
• What was different about the reader's version?
• Why didn't the reader say all the words?
• How did the reader know that those words weren't needed?
• What is the reader doing?
• Does it matter if the reader's version is different from the author's version (what is read out loud is different from what is typed on the page)?
• When would that matter?

Terms to highlight for students (note that Goodman calls these the strategies but if using a more detailed list of strategies perhaps these would need another name):

• sample - the reader chooses what to read next to make sense of the text
• predict - the reader thinks about what the author will say next
• confirm/deny - the reader checks to see if the prediction is correct
• correct - the reader samples and repeats if the prediction is not correct

In my experience students will need several more experiences in order to re-examine the assumption that decoding words is the same as reading (or making meaning). 

Lesson 4: What do readers do in the search for meaning, if they aren't just decoding the words?
Objective: Identify the steps in the reading process (sample, predict, confirm/deny, correct) and how students already use those steps.

[According to Costello, in this lesson students discussed how "miscues are influenced by what readers expect to see, relating to the previous lesson on perception." How is this different from the previous lesson? Is it necessary or is this just relation back to the previous lesson to move ahead?]

Next, Costello and her students discussed the way everyone uses the steps/strategies. For students to reach the lesson objectives they would need to use the information presented to make decisions on their own - perhaps an assignment to find examples and bring them back to class, or brainstorm them with a partner, after hearing a few examples. Possible examples:

• looking at a book cover and predicting what the book will be about
• watching a sample of a movie (trailer) to predict what the movie will be about
• comparing the trailer to the movie (confirm/deny/correct)
• sizing up a teacher on the first day of class
• meeting a dog at the dog pound to consider for adoption

Finally, Costello surfaced student background knowledge of reading strategies used to find word meaning, including sounding out the word, skipping it, asking someone, using the dictionary and stopping reading. I wonder why surfacing word level strategies is meaningful at this early stage, when a central goal is to help students re-examine their assumption that finding word meaning is the key task in reading. Perhaps she surfaced this schema early on so her students could see how it related to the new information she presented about the reading process. This also feels like another lesson. 

[Would it be fruitful to compare the traditional word level strategies to the sample/predict/confirm etc. steps.? For example, a reader who skips a word leaves it out of the sample, but can return later with more information to predict/confirm word meaning. Or, a reader who sounds out the word is sampling every letter in an attempt to find meaning. Or, a reader who asks someone or looks in the dictionary samples the word, but skips prediction - looking immediately for the correct answer. Perhaps that's why this technique fails so many readers, because often the dictionary just provides a new set of variables requiring new predictions and confirmation...]

Lesson 5: What information do readers rely on to make predictions and confirm or deny?

Objective: Identify the four cueing systems that readers use to make meaning.

Costello defined the four cueing systems and gave students examples of how they use their intuition about language to make meaning by using these systems.

Terms to define - the reader figures out meaning by looking at cues that are...

1. Semantic  - based on meaning, context - what the word could mean here
2. Syntactic - based on language, grammar - what function the word has here
3. Graphophonic - based on letters, sound - what the word looks like or sounds like
4. Pragmatic - based on word usage - what people use words like this for

Examples of syntax that students would pick up - many more examples needed:

Readers know that these words can't fit: Jack ran up the have. Give me the put.

To grasp this objective students would need to do something with the information - perhaps analyzing miscues (after watching a demonstration and doing a reciprocal teaching exercise to practice the technique). Costello has this lesson followed by the practice - will it work to have these on separate days?

This feels like technical information presented out of order - at a time when students do not yet understand what to do with the information or why it's important. If the driving purpose is to focus students on whether a miscue does/doesn't affect meaning, could Lesson 6 come before Lesson 5, with explanation of the technical terms following the analysis of examples?

Lesson 6: What do readers use to make predictions and confirm or deny?
Objective: Analyze the quality of a variety of miscues, using the cueing systems.

Costello gave students miscues to analyze and discussed each one while students responded on a chart.

Here is a miscue example provided by Costello (with miscue in bold italics, and original text crossed out): "I'm really bored," said Judy Julie, "Why don't we go out and play?"

Questions for analysis/charting:

1. Did what the reader said mean the same thing as what was written in the text? [semantics]
2. Did what the reader said sound like language [syntax]
3. Did what the reader said look like or sound like what was written in the text? [graphophonics]
4. Did the reader self-correct?
5. Did the reader need to self-correct?
6. What is the reader's strength?

Lesson 7: How can we notice and analyze miscues in a small group?
Objective: Analyze miscues from a recorded oral reading of text with help from a group. Try out the routine for small groups.

Costello originally used this lesson to review the procedures for small group retrospective miscue analysis session and the expectations for group members. She would ask a student volunteer to read for recording while the whole class followed the reading with a typescript, marking miscues. She found this unworkable because the audio wasn't loud enough on replay and the reader became defensive about the miscues. She recommends having students work only in small groups.

Another way to accomplish this would be for the teacher to do the reading for the whole class demonstration, recording and playing back using the classroom projector and speakers. To work in small groups students need instruction cards with steps to follow and roles to carry out.

Costello's routines for retrospective miscue analysis in small groups:

Size: Costello settled on four students as the optimal group size. Groups of three might be better for the 10-week term so that each student had three opportunities to read if this was a weekly routine.

Routine: On the first day one student read a selected text. All students had a typescript copy of the reading and a chart to mark the miscues (see above). The group would listen to the tape, and have stop the tape as soon as someone heard a miscue. The students would listen to it again and work together to analyze and log the miscue on their charts. This process would start on the first day and continue on a second day. At the end of each cycle a student would volunteer to read at the next session. The students turned in their charts and noted the name of the next reader.

Roles: Each group had a chairperson who would set up the recording equipment, assemble the group, hand out the materials, and get the group started.

Groundrules/etiquette: Allow the reader to read without interruption. Allow the reader to self-correct - let them figure it out for themselves (like figuring out a riddle). Allow readers to volunteer. Giver readers the option to read to teacher solo outside of class instead if more comfortable.

Teacher preparation: Costello formed heterogenous groups. She prepared a basket for each group with copies of the text, charts, and recording equipment. A log identifying readers could be added.

To investigate further...

Materials to investigate and for further collection of teaching ideas:

1. Atwell, Nancie, In the Middle (1987, 217) - using riddles to look at reading from a different perspective - author misdirecting the reader?
2. New Zealand Ministry of Education (1985, 1990), New Zealand model of teaching reading and writing - experiences for students to explore the reading and writing process
3. "Materials for teachers to explore the reading and writing process" - for experiences for students in addition to cloze exercises
4. Goodman, Bird, Goodman, The Whole Language Catalog (1991) and Assessment Supplement (1992)
5. Davenport, Ruth, Miscues not Mistakes - description of reader with business degree miscueing as he reads his daughter Blueberries for Sal
6. Burke, Jim, Reading Reminders - more reader experiences to explore the process?
7. Reading Apprenticeship curriculum - experiences moving students from word to concept level, role of vocabulary discussion, use of student goals, assessment for student feedback
8. Dudley-Marling and Rhodes, Readers and Writers with a Difference: A Holistic Approach to Teaching Struggling Readers and Writers - role of vocabulary, experiences
9. dehaene, Stanislas, Reading in the Brain - text examples where decoding doesn't lead to meaning and vice versa

Evaluating possible inquiries for whole-class Reading/Writing units

 The holy grail of inquiries for whole-class Reading/Writing units:

• controversial - inquiry with no right/wrong answer that sparks emotional engagement
• relevant - requires a decision that is relevant to students' lives and social contexts
• limited - can be investigated to reach an evidence-based conclusion in 3 weeks
• builds GED content knowledge - especially life science or government

I'm working on two inquiry units for Spring term, timed to coincide with teachers in other classrooms, with the first one grounded in Social Studies and the second in Science.

Looking for relevant controversies related to Social Studies I've been searching Oregon ballot initiatives, since during Spring term there will be a May vote-by-mail election, including voting on ballot initiatives. Past Oregon Voter's pamphlets describing ballot measures with descriptions of the controversies surrounding the measures are available online, along with the election history. The pamphlets provide an authentic and meaningful reading challenge. (Unfortunately the current pamphlet won't be published until midway through the term, or in the final days of this unit.)

I'm leery of investigating this spring's hottest ballot controversies (legalization of marijuana and gay marriage). Students need practice investigating questions to arrive at conclusions based on textual evidence. I assume that this is more difficult when students start the investigation with a ready and deeply-held emotional answer, which makes the spring controversies a bad match for me as a beginning inquiry leader. 

Another one predicted to show up on this Spring's ballot: Should Oregon require food to carry labels if the food contains genetically modified organisms? This would involve study of both social studies and science, but I'm pondering whether students will find this relevant and engaging.

Some older controversies from election history looked appealing at first:

• Should Oregon repeal Measure 57 (providing longer sentences for certain crimes)?
• Should Oregon repeal Measure 11 (providing mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes)?
• Should the federal government eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes?

These could be relevant and engaging, because of the connection between mandatory minimums and long sentences with high incarceration rates and especially the disparate incarceration of minorities (which has been called the "new Jim Crow.") However, in Oregon the Legislature took reform action last summer, so this is a controversy that is no longer as open-ended and polarized.

Another incarceration-related controversy is voting rights of ex-felons, but it looks like Oregon is not one of the offending states, so this is a national issue - a little less relevant to Oregon residents.