Reading the Reading Research: Figured Worlds of Special Education Teachers

Barb Novak contributed this post. 

Click here for more of Barb's thinking.

Click here for more Literacy Booth thoughts about research.

Note. I'm sharing this article simply to give access to how I process when I read from academic journals - how I organize my thinking before, during, and after reading. This post is not intended to be an endorsement of the research or its conclusions.

"Stimulating tensions in special education teachers' figured world: An approach toward inclusive education"

Kathleen A.K. Thorius in International Journal of Inclusive Education (2016)

I accessed the article (full-text free of charge) from Thorius's page on ResearchGate.

Why this article?

I worked with Thorius on a project about identifying high leverage literacy practices for students with disabilities. I respect her strengths-based approach to professional learning and emphasis on collaborative sense-making as part of a change process.

Research Questions:

Thorius introduced "artifacts" during professional learning sessions and reviewed transcripts from the sessions to understand:

•  how "the figured world of special educator participants emerge and shift over time" (p. 1329)
• how artifacts "contribute to the creation of tensions and related shifts in this figured world" (p. 1329)

Important Terms:

• Figured worlds: Holland's theory (1998) that "people figure their identities through participating in activities and social relationships with others" (p. 1328). People construct an understanding of who they are and behave according to these understandings.
• Artifacts: Objects with mediate identity formation.

Methods:

Thorius facilitated seven weekly teacher learning sessions (1.5 hours each). Participants were drawn from "two schools in a large Midwestern urban school district" (p. 1329). All participants were female. Two identified as general educators; four identified as special educators. All worked between kindergarten and grade six.

Each teacher learning session included:

1. a debrief of the previous session led by the research team, 
2. presentation of an artifact developed or selected based on progress in the previous session
3. engagement with the artifact
4. homework (application within the classroom)

Artifacts pushed thinking about inclusive education and universal design for learning (UDL).

Thorius and the research team recorded and transcribed the teacher learning sessions and analyzed the transcripts for evidence of figured worlds.

Main Points:

Special educators who participated in the learning sessions initially viewed themselves as "remediators" and "diagnosticians" (p. 1332). This led to a "desire to learn 'tricks' to fix students" (p. 1333) and a belief that a student's diagnosis "explained student patterns of competence and. . . suggested a prescription for remediation" (p. 1333).

Artifacts introduced in the learning sessions did produce tensions and identity shifts. Some tensions were related to relationships with general education colleagues. Specifically, tensions surfaced about how special educators "were physically and professional positioned by and in comparison to their general education coutnerparts (p. 1335). Participants also realized they needed to be "critical examiners of structural barriers" that may prevent them from applying their learning.

Limitations:

The sample size for the study was small (6 participants from two schools in the same district).

Discussion:

Thorius's article has implications for planning and facilitating professional learning:

• How can reflection be included in professional learning in order to consider how one's identity is shifting?
• How can sequential opportunities for learning be adjusted to meet the needs of the participants (rather than strictly following a set plan)?
• How can professional learning promote change within classrooms but also within a system? How can professional learning position educators as change agents for their system?

Full Citation:

Thorius, K.A.K. (2016). Stimulating tensions in special education teachers' figured world: An approach toward inclusive education. Interntional Journal of Inclusive Education 20(12), 1326 - 1343. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1168877

Reading the Reading Research: Afflerbach on Assessment

Barb Novak contributed this post. 

Click here for more of Barb's thinking.

Click here for more Literacy Booth thoughts about research.

Note. I'm sharing this article simply to give access to how I process when I read from academic journals - how I organize my thinking before, during, and after reading. This post is not intended to be an endorsement of the research or its conclusions.

"Reading Assessment: Looking Ahead"

Peter Afflerbach in The Reading Teacher (2016)

Wisconsin educators can use Badgerlink to access full-text of Reading Teacher articles. .

Click here to access Afflerbach’s article.

Why this article?

I’m feeling now, more than ever, the need to think carefully about assessment in order to actively seek change where it is needed. From his book (Understanding and Using Reading Assessment) to that time he recorded a webinar just for Wisconsin, I trust Peter Afflerbach’s thinking about and work around assessment.

This is not research; “The Inside Track” is a column in each issue of The Reading Teacher. The author of the column is selected (issue-by-issue) by the journal’s editors.

Research Questions:

Not applicable - this is a column written by a literacy expert rather than research.

Methods:

Not applicable - this is a column written by a literacy expert rather than research.

Main Points:

Afflerbach uses the article to advocate for “developing comprehensive formative assessments, assessing the wide array of factors that contribute to students’ reading development, and fostering student independence by helping students learn to use reading assessment on their own” (p. 413).

• An assessment system (and each assessment within it) must be based on “a detailed model of the thing we are to assess” (p. 413). What is reading? How do we define it?
• Afflerbach believes all assessment should follow this credo: “Assessment should produce information that is useful in helping students become better readers, and assessment should do no harm” (p. 413 - 414).
• Widely used assessments measure what was considered by the National Reading Panel Report, which is not a match for what is required of a reader on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) or by the Common Core State Standards.
• Assessment should include “affective aspects of reading” (p. 416).
• Students should be the end users of data from reading assessments. Afflerbach states, “When we view reading assessment as an important teacher task, we may gather information that informs our instructional decision making. When we view reading assessment as something to teach, we can help students move toward the goal of independence through self-assessment. We want to use assessment that helps shift students from an outward orientation, where there is dependence on the teacher for assessment feedback, to one that looks inward” (p. 417).
• What impact could we have if we took all the money we spend on assessment and, instead, spend it on professional learning for educators about instruction and assessment?

Limitations:

• I wanted/needed more about “comprehensive formative assessments”. Common formative assessments, in my opinion, are interim assessments and are too formal to be considered formative. I was hoping comprehensive formative assessments could be an idea to replace common formative assessment.
• The article is theory; there is not a research component. It could inform questions for future reference.

Discussion:

• I’m interested in how Afflerbach’s ideas about engaging students in instruction and practice to become reflective readers could apply within universal instruction and intervention. What would it look like to make this a systemic and systematic practice? How could the results of implementing this practice be measured?
• Reliance on numeric data and the high-stakes nature of numeric data are obstacles to implementing Afflerbach’s ideas - especially his ideas about assessing the affective aspects of reading.

• This article would be useful foundational piece for reading and discussion by a school/district team reviewing its literacy assessment system.
• Excerpts from the article could be used to consider how a school/district engages students in reading assessment and teaches self-efficacy.

Full Citation:

Afflerbach, P. (2016). Reading assessment: Looking ahead. The Reading Teacher 69(4), 413 - 419.

Reading the Reading Research: Teachers' Reading Habits & Instructional Practices

Barb Novak contributed this post. Click here to access more of Literacy Booth thinking about research.

Note. I'm sharing this study simply to give access to how I process research when I read - how I organize my thinking before, during, and after reading research. This post is not intended to be an endorsement of the research or its conclusions.

"Does Johnny's Reading Teacher Love to Read? How Teachers' Personal Reading Habits Affect Instructional Practices"

Sharon S. McKool & Suzanne Gespass (2009)

Click here to access to full record on BadgerLink. BadgerLink does not have the full-text of this article. Share the citation above with your librarian to access the full-text.

Why this article?

I read this to put some quantitative science behind something I (along with others I adore, such as Donalyn Miller, Pernille Ripp, and Matt Renwick) talk about often - the need for teachers to identify as readers and share their reading lives with their students. To show support for this idea, we begin every month at The Literacy Booth by talking about what we're reading.

Research Questions:

This study investigated (quoted exactly from p. 265):

1. Do reading teachers engage in reading as a leisure time activity?
2. Do teachers who read for pleasure use more instructional strategies associated with best practice than teachers who do not read for pleasure.
3. Is there a difference between the instructional practices used by teachers who value reading in their own lives and those who do not?
4. Is there a difference between teachers who read for pleasure and those who do not in terms of how they motivate students to read?

Methods:

A survey was distributed to 105 and completed by 65 classroom teachers (collection rate of 62%) from New Jersey, Florida, and Texas. The participants "taught reading as one of several subjects" daily (p. 266) in grades four (23 respondents), five (26 respondents), and six (16 respondents). Sites were selected based on relationships with the researchers.

Respondents, all of which were female, had an average of ten years of experience in education. 23% completed master's degrees.

The survey, completed in written form, included four sections:

1. Descriptive data (such as years of experience)
2. Out-of-school activities
3. Instructional practices
4. Personal reading habits and attitudes

There were two additional sections:

• Three-day after-school activity log
• Short answer question about motivating students to read

Main Points:

"The results of this study indicate that teachers who are readers themselves are more likely to engage in instructional practices that model their own passions for reading" (p. 273).

• ". . . while most teachers value reading as a leisure time activity, only a little more than half of the teachers surveyed actually read for more than 10 minutes a day in their free time" (p. 271). 
• "20% of the teachers (or 1 in 5) admitted that they were only somewhat committed or slightly committed readers" (p. 268).
• ". . . there was not a difference between teachers who read for pleasure and those who did not in terms of how they attempted to motivate students to read. Almost half of the teachers surveyed in this study, regardless of personal reading habits, reported they primarily used extrinsic rewards to motivate students to read" (p. 272).
• "Teachers reported that they only recommended good books for students to read once or twice a month" (p. 269).
• "The teachers who valued reading in their own lives were more likely to use literacy practices associated with best practice" (p. 269).
• ". . . it is interesting to note that only the teachers who valued reading the most in their own lives reported that they also valued having students participate in daily periods of sustained silent reading at school" (p. 271).
• McKool and Gespass suggest fostering a love of reading beginning with teacher preparation. This love of reading should be considered in hiring and fostered in on-going professional learning, such as book clubs.

Limitations:

The authors suggest ". . . these data and findings should be viewed as exploratory rather than research findings to be generalized" (p. 273) because:

• The sample size (65) was small, homogeneous, and not randomly selected.
• Data was self-reported and not triangulated.

Discussion:

The article includes the full questionnaire administered for this research. It would be helpful for others wishing to administer a similar survey.

Also, this article would provide a nice introduction to reading research. It is carefully written in a traditional research format and very transparent about findings and limitations.

Full Citation:

McKool, S.S., & Gespass, S. (2009). Does Johnny's reading teacher love to read? How teachers' personal reading habits affect instructional practices. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48, 265 - 276. doi: 10.1080/19388070802443700

Qualitative vs. Quantitative

Jaimie Howe contributed today's post. Click here to read more of Jaimie's thinking.

Over the last few months these two words have resonated with me quite frequently. After several presentations over the last two months regarding word study and the transfer of skills (see my last blog post), I’ve found myself stopping to think about these two words quite often. I’ve said so many times in conversations that reading/literacy is not black and white and that we need to stop trying to make it that way.  I feel this ties right into qualitative and quantitative processes. At what point do we ever really stop and analyze which adjective describes the way we teach, assess, and respond to student’s learning?

Below are the dictionary definitions of these two terms.

qualitative

/ˈkwɒlɪtətɪv; -ˌteɪ-/

adjective

1.involving or relating to distinctions based on quality or qualities

quantitative

/ˈkwɒntɪtətɪv; -ˌteɪ-/

adjective

1. that is or may be estimated by quantity.

2. of or relating to the describing or measuring of quantity.

Qualitative referring to quality and quantitative referring to quantity. Which term would you rather have describe your teaching?

In my opinion we don’t use qualitative measures enough.  We seem to be very heavy on the quantitative side.  I think about the amount of assessment we do, the push to always do more, get as much in as possible.  It seems to always be about quantity.  I do believe quantitative measures are definitely needed, but like everything else, in balance with qualitative.  I understand why we lack the use of qualitative measures as well- they take time.  But sit back and imagine a group of teachers sitting down at a table and really analyzing the miscues on a student’s running record and making instructional decisions based on student’s use of the meaning, syntactic, and visual cueing systems versus based on a number they received on any particular quantitative assessment.

We need to push ourselves to use qualitative practices more often, in conjunction with all of the quantitative measures we already have.The qualitative practices require us to really think, analyze, and discuss students’ core needs.   We can’t afford to continue to disregard some of the best information we have on our students. It’s worth the time and effort.

Reading the Research: Educational Implications of the Science of Reading

Barb Novak contributed today's post. More of her thinking about research can be found here.

I mentioned a PLC I'm part of in a previous post. We meet monthly and discuss a piece of research (selected by one of the members) at each meeting. The study I'm writing about today will be discussed by my PLC.

I'm sharing the study simply to give access to how I process research when I read - how I organize my thinking before, during, and after reading research. This post is not intended to be an endorsement of the research or its conclusions.

"The Science of Reading and Its Educational Implications"
Mark Seidenberg (2013)

The article can be accessed in the following ways:

• Badgerlink does not include the full-text of this article. You can request the article, as published, by contacting your local public library. Click here for a link to the citation.
• Click here to access the full text (posted by the Language and Cognitive Neuroscience Lab). (The page numbers below correspond to the PDF available at this link.)
• Click here to access a manuscript-version of the article, published through the National Institute of Health.

Why this article?
The perspective offered in this article - that of an educational psychologist - is one I am not overly familiar with. In addition, the author, Dr. Mark Seidenberg, is a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Argument:
This article is not research. Instead, Seidenberg forms an argument in responsive to this question: "If the science [of reading] is so good, why do so many people read so poorly?" (p. 331).

Main Points:
The "intrinsic properties of English" (p. 334) are not to blame for America's low levels of literacy. Instead, ". . . how reading is taught is indeed a significant part of the literacy problem in the US and other countries" (p. 340). 

Seidenberg argues that current classroom practice is guided by educational practice rather than science. He writes, ". . . science and education occupy different territory in the intellectual world. . . The cultures of education and science are radically different: they have different goals and values, ways of training new practitioners, criteria for evaluating progress. The two cultures communicate their research at separate conferences sponsored by parallel professional organizations attended by different audiences, and publish their work in different journals. There are publishers that target one audience and not the other. These cross-cultural differences, like many others, are difficult to bridge" (p. 342). This cultural divide is characterized by differences in what evidence is accepted by educators and scientists, educators' reliance on a socio-cultural approach, and a lack of educator understanding of science.

Seidenberg also discusses the achievement gap, specifically for African Americans. He discusses how dialect could impact reading achievement, suggesting that "differences between dialects could potentially affect children's ability to benefit from classroom experience" (p. 353).

Limitations:

• The article focuses on English; no other languages are discussed.
• The article represents thinking from a single field, educational psychology.

Questions:

• Has anyone in the education community written a response to this article?
• What are other viewpoints about the impact of dialect on reading achievement and instruction? Do others in educational psychology and education agree with Seidenberg's argument?

Complete Citation:
Seidenberg, M.S. (2013). The science of reading and its educational implications. Language Learning and Development, 9(4): 331 - 360). DOI: 10.1080/15475441.2013.812017

Reading the Research: Critical Discourse Analysis of IEP Meetings

Barb Novak contributed today's post. More of her thinking about research can be found here.

I mentioned a PLC I'm part of in a previous post. We meet monthly and discuss a piece of research (selected by one of the members) at each meeting. The study I'm writing about today was discussed by my PLC.

I'm sharing it simply to give access to how I process research when I read - how I organize my thinking before, during, and after reading research. This post is not intended to be an endorsement of the research or its conclusions.

"The the Eyes of the Institution: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Decision Making in Two Special Education Meetings"
Rebecca Rogers (2002)

The article is available free for Wisconsin educators through BadgerLink.

Why This Article: 
I'm interested in discourse analysis as a research methodology and am on a work group about College and Career Readiness IEPs.

Research Questions:

How are "contradictions of social structure embedded within the special education process" (p. 214)? Basically, research has already demonstrated that children from minority groups are over represented in special education. Rogers's research is unique because it investigates how the special education process maintains and/or perpetuates social inequalities.

Methods:
This is an ethnographic study; Rogers served as a participant-observer.

Rogers studied language and literacy practices of a community (Sherman Hollows) for two years. Much of her work focused on a mother (June Treader) and daughter (Vicky Treader). Rogers data collection was extensive; data included interviews; documents and photographs; 300 hours of recorded interactions in home, community, and school; 500 hours of participant observation in home and community; and interviews with school and community members. 

Rogers participant-observation included a special education eligibility and IEP meeting (when Vicky was in sixth grade), and Vicky's subsequent annual IEP (when Vicky was in seventh grade). The article focuses on the discourse as these meetings. Although, Rogers relies heavily on her understanding of the Treader family and their community to make sense of the meetings.

Findings:

There were vast contradictions between the two special education meetings.

• The eligibility determination meeting included a cataloged and data-based list of Vicky's deficits. One year later, the same things noted as deficits were discussed as strengths.
• Prior to both meetings, Rogers talked with June and Vicky about their hopes for the meetings. The outcomes of both meetings (along with communication between meetings) contradicted what June and Vicky wanted prior to the meeting.
• The eligibility meeting was highly structured and data driven. The second meeting included no formal data or evidence.
• June and Vicky spoke much more at the second meeting than the first meeting. Yet, democratizing the meeting did not change the results. Vicky remained in special education as

Limitations:
This research is highly contextualized. Findings cannot be generalized to other settings.

Vicky transitioned to a new school (elementary school to middle school) between the meetings. How were the contradictions between the meetings related to the differences in protocol and practice between schools?

Questions:

• Rogers references Mehan's (1996) work about disability as a cultural construct. I want to know more about this.
• How would these meetings look the same and different for a student who identifies with other cultural groups?
• How would the participants reflect on the experience now (almost 20 years later)?

Complete citation:

Rogers, R. (2002). Through the eyes of the institution: A critical discourse analysis of decision making in two special education meetings. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 33(2), p. 213 - 237. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3196174

Reading the Research: A Meta-Analysis about Writing

I mentioned a PLC I'm part of in a previous post. We meet monthly and discuss a piece of research (selected by one of the members) at each meeting. The study I'm writing about today was discussed by my PLC.

I'm sharing it simply to give access to how I process research when I read - how I organize my thinking before, during, and after reading research. This post is not intended to be an endorsement of the research or its conclusions.

The article is available for free for WI educators through BadgerLink.

Research Questions:

1. Are writing interventions, in general, effective for students with LD (learning disabilities)?
2. Which specific writing interventions are effective?

Methods:

• Meta-analysis (searched literature through December 2011) that included 53 effect sizes (collected from 43 studies)
• Only included studies that "involved a true-experiment with randomization, a quasi-experiment with pretest data, or a within subjects group design" (p. 456)
• Only included studies that "included students in Grades 1 to 12 identified as LD with appropriate supporting information" (p. 456)
• Authors defined writing as content generation or sharing of ideas (rather than the physical act of writing)

Findings:

43 Studies were organized in six subgroups containing four or more studies each with an average weighted mean effect size (ES) calculated for each subgroup

• Writing interventions for students with LD (ES = 0.74)
• Significant positive effect sizes:
• Strategy instruction (ES = 1.09)
• Dictation (ES = 0.55)
• Goal setting (ES = 0.57)
• Process writing (ES = 0.43)
• Not statistically different from zero: procedural facilitation (ES=0.24), prewriting (ES = 0.33)

Limitations:

• Results cannot be generalized beyond the specific population studied (students with an identified learning disability in grades 1 - 12)
• Must fully understand each subgroup (strategy instruction, dictation, goal setting, process writing, procedural facilitation, and prewriting) before applying conclusions of the meta-analysis
• Studied content generation - not mechanics of writing (such as spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation)
• Does not discuss new literacies or digital writing (or the use of assistive technology)

Questions:

• Both goal setting and process writing had statistically significant effect sizes. How are these the same and different? Isn't goal setting part of the writing process?
• What conclusions do other types of studies (such as case studies, interviews, observations, etc.) draw about writing interventions for students with learning disabilities?
• What types of writing interventions are effective for other populations (such as students without disabilities, English language learners, or students with disabilities other than LD)?

Connections to Other Work and Studies:

• WI DPI resources about writing instruction
• Writing Next

Complete citation:

Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children 80(4), p. 454-473. DOI: 10.1177/0014402914527238