By Reading Horizons Reading Specialist, Stacy Hurst

In the world of psychology there is a phenomenon called “The Illusion of Explanatory Depth.” In their article on the phenomenon, Rozenblit and Keil (2002) explain that, “People feel they understand complex phenomena with far greater precision, coherence, and depth than they really do; they are subject to an illusion – an illusion of explanatory depth.” Basically, people think they know more about things than they really do. For example, if you asked 100 people on the street if they know how a toaster works, many, if not most would say that they do. Most people have successfully used a toaster, after all. If you then ask them to explain exactly how a toaster works, it would quickly become apparent to both of you that they really don’t know as much about a toaster as they thought they did.

Research about teacher knowledge supports this notion when it comes to reading instruction. Common perception is that being a skilled reader (i.e. knowing how to read) is qualification enough to be a skilled teacher of reading. However, being a skilled reader does not mean one has an explicit awareness of the structures of written and spoken language that is necessary to effectively teach reading. Over the years, Louisa Moats has administered many surveys to teachers with varying levels of experience in order to measure their perceived and actual knowledge of concepts that are essential for effective reading instruction (Moats, 1995; Moats & Foorman, 2003). Teachers taking the survey were asked how confident they were in their ability to teach reading then they were asked specific questions about reading. Moats found some major gaps in teacher knowledge about reading instruction and understanding of the structure of the English language.

Results from these surveys have consistently demonstrated that teachers show a lack of understanding of the following concepts related to literacy knowledge and instruction:

• the difference between speech sounds and the letters that represent the sound
• the ability to identify individual sounds (phonemes) in words
• the ability to recognize a word’s regularity or irregularity (i.e. knowledge of the letter combinations (graphemes) that represent sounds (phonemes) in common words
• identification of spelling units such as digraphs, blends, and silent-letter spellings
• syllable division and spelling patterns in syllables
• recognition of basic parts of speech

The surveys also showed that teachers had difficulty recognizing when students struggled with phonology, orthography, or syntactical elements of reading when analyzing work samples or assessments. This lack of understanding logically leads to misinformed attempts to teach reading.

Moats and other researchers have come to the convergent conclusion that most teachers are ill prepared to explicitly teach reading and writing as demonstrated by a lack of knowledge concerning the phonology and orthography of the English language. Conversely, teachers who have a strong knowledge of phonology and orthography as well as the ability to apply these concepts have students who have higher levels of literacy achievement (Cunningham, et. al., 2004; Spear-Swerling, 2004). This especially applies to teachers who are teaching in the primary grades where literacy acquisition is critical.

In this free 30-day online workshop teachers can learn how to explain the phonology and orthography of the English language. ›

References

Cunningham, A.E., Perry, K.E., Stanovich, K.E., & Stanovich, P.J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 139-172.

Moats, L.C. (1995). The missing foundation in teacher education. American Educator (Special Issue: Learning to Read: Schooling’s First Mission), 19 (2), 9, 43-51.

Moats, L.C., & Foorman, B.R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23–45.

Spear-Swerling, L. & Brucker, A.O. (2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 332-364.

Rozenblit, L. and Keil, F. (2002), The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26: 521–562. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1   

By Guest Writer, Stephen Dolainski, ABE consultant

I was talking to an adult reading teacher in Los Angeles the other day and asked her how her evening class was going.

“Well, I’m not sure,” she said. “I’ve got 40 students, so my administrator seems happy, but I’m not. Besides that, I’m exhausted and I’m afraid my students aren’t getting what they need.”

This was an experienced teacher who was not one to complain. She had recently been trained to deliver evidence-based reading instruction (EBRI) and was trying to phase it in. EBRI requires:

• assessment of students’ skills in the four crucial components of reading (alphabetic, fluency,vocabulary, comprehension)
• instruction based on the assessments
• direct, explicit instruction
• tightly-focused, systematic and sequenced lessons
• multiple opportunities for students to practice and receive teacher feedback

“Are you using managed enrollment at your school?” I asked.

She smiled weakly and shook her head. “No, we’re still on open enrollment, and I get new students just about every night.”

Think about that—a classroom with 40 high-needs adult learners, one teacher, and new students arriving almost nightly. Is that a recipe for success? Research suggests that open, or continuous, enrollment causes “attendance turbulence” (Sticht et al, 1998) and contributes to the widespread use of highly individualized instruction, which, in fact, results in students receiving little of the systematic or direct reading instruction the research tells us is more effective with this population.

Writing for the U.S. Department of Education, John Strucker, Ed.D, of Harvard University, says:

“It is difficult to imagine implementing systematic instruction when…learners are free to drop in or out at any point …. Under these circumstances, teachers face the dilemma of presenting material for which the new enrollees have no foundation, or endlessly reviewing what has already been covered and thus short changing previous enrollees.”

When it comes to managed enrollment (ME), one size does fit all. When I was the adult literacy adviser for the Los Angeles Unified School District, I worked with our adult school administrators and teachers to tailor ME models that worked for individual schools. In one case, where the reading class covered a four-hour block of time, we divided the class into two periods. Period 1 employed a six-week ME model, when new students were not permitted to enter after the first week of class. Period 2 was the open-enrollment class. At another school, ME looked like this: new students were admitted to the class weekly, but only on Monday.

When I taught adult reading at the adult school in Burbank, Calif., we used a nine-week ME model. Students could enter the class during the first two weeks; after that, they had to wait to enter the class until the next enrollment period. We also implemented an attendance policy. Students were allowed to miss three classes. At any time, if they missed more than three classes, they lost their place in the class.

Students, of course, need to be counseled and encouraged about enrolling in a reading class when they have the time to attend regularly. There is research (Comings, Parella and Soricone, 1999; 2000) to suggest that some form of ME may help learners improve their attendance and completion rates.

Strucker again:

“The case for managed enrollment rests on the following logic: teachers need to deliver reading instruction that is systematic, and the success of systematic instruction depends on good attendance by individual learners and relatively stable classroom environment with minimal turnover and turbulence.”

You can read Strucker’s policy paper on managed enrollment here.

Stephen Dolainski is an adult educator, editor, and author. He was the adult literacy adviser for the LA Unified School District for 10 years, and has trained adult reading instructors in evidence-based reading instruction. As an instructor, he had taught ESL, Adult Secondary Education, and Adult Basic Education. He is the co-author of series Words to Learn By: Academic Vocabulary (Contemporary/McGraw-Hill).

Dolainski recently presented a webinar for Reading Horizons titled, Adult Reading Instruction: What the Research Tells Us that can be viewed free at anytime.

By Guest Writer, Angela Morgan

Is it any wonder to know that less than half of high school seniors are prepared to go on to college and be successful young professionals? Harsh, no? That is what the most recent test results of the standardized college entrance exams, the SAT’s and ACT’s, are showing according to reports released by the College Board.

Declines in test scores are apparent across the board in every ethnic group, and in every income margin, although there is a significant difference in the results of students who have been raised by parents who have more than a high school diploma. What can we do to turn this downward spiral around?

Who is to Blame for Lower Test Scores?

Whether SAT tutoring or a return to more traditional test preparation is required, the current generation of high school students are fairing as well as their grandparents did during the early 1970’s when scores were most recently this low. There are some that will say that standardized testing has run its course and is no longer an accurate benchmark, but more than everyday test scores, standardized entrance exams are an indicator of the chances of future success in college.

It is not only a student's responsibility to be properly prepared for the SAT’s and ACT’s because of the ramifications of being denied acceptance to a college, but it is also the responsibility of parents and educators. High school seniors who do not go on to college will be sent out into the real world right away. If they're not ready to continue their education, then making it in the real world doesn't seem like it has any better chances.

Parents have a responsibility to guide students along a path to success. Teachers have a responsibility to follow a curriculum and assure that the students who are promoted have the knowledge to compete. If these students are not prepared, then it’s the teacher’s responsibility to keep the student back until they do gain the knowledge, or encourage SAT tutoring with an emphasis on areas where the student is falling short.

No Child Left Behind

Some are quick to blame the government for the current results in college entrance exams. The No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2001 and signed into law, but is that law to blame? The 2001 bill is simply a reauthorization of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed in 1965. It has been passed as reauthorization repeatedly, with bipartisan support, by every administration since Lyndon Johnson signed it into law.

Minor tweaks to the current bill include a requirement that schools must make average yearly improvement on standardized test scores. If schools fail to meet this requirement for more than two years consecutively then parents are offered the opportunity to transfer their children to better performing schools.

Improving Results

Looking forward, test results need to improve for the future of the students and the future of the country in general. For test scores to improve will take the support and cooperation of the students, parents, teachers and government. Parents need to encourage and motivate their children and take part in their education instead of standing on the sidelines hoping for the best. Though results-based education may require more of teachers, it is no different than any other field that requires results for success from retail to health care to investments. After all, students are an investment in the future.

Angela Morgan is a freelance journalist living in the Atlanta area. She holds a journalism degree and has been published in national newspapers and magazines.

By Guest Writer, Melissa Maranto

Technology is proving more and more to be an exciting evolution in the way students learn. It is something that many people anticipate and look forward to learning and growing with. If you put the latest iPad in front of a group of people, it is going to steal their attention and spur their fascination. Very seldom will someone with an iPad in front of them let it just sit there. In the case of education, there is no difference. It is more than likely that if you put a hardcopy textbook and an e-book in front of a student, he will gravitate toward the e-book. Although the educational material is identical in both mediums, formatting that same material on an iPad, or any other piece of recent technology, promotes learning in a way that has never been seen before. Technology is preparing students for the job market that involves direct application of various computer programs to prepare entry level candidates for positions at tech companies like Intel or lifelock jobs.

iPad's in the Classroom

Never before has technology played such a pivotal role in the educational process as the iPad. Educational shows on TV and video learning programs have aided in the classroom in the past, but the limitations of these programs are obviously apparent — they are only useful for a few hours at most. Now, however, technological aids in the classroom have the ability to entertain for hours and become an everyday, if not permanent fixture in the classroom.

One of the most recent examples of technology becoming a fixture in the classroom was when the San Diego Unified School District purchased 26,000 iPads for use in over 340 classrooms throughout the city. Costing roughly $15 million, the price was worth it for those students wishing to attend colleges in San Diego or other prestigious universities around the country. The use of iPads with the learning of students at colleges in San Diego, and high schools in the area, is a big step, one that is ahead of many other school districts in the nation.

Learning is a Game

Students who used the iPad and one of its math applications experienced an increase in test scores by 15% over traditional learning. This is a big revelation for local schools that now have statistical data to back their requests to incorporate technology, like that of the iPad, in the classroom.

With the seemingly endless selection of apps available on tablet devices like the iPad, the opportunity for students to learn in a fun, and exciting new light is suddenly abundant. Although not all apps are educational on the iPad, and some are even inappropriate for students of younger ages, there are numerous options that have the potential to increase constructive learning for students, both inside and outside the classroom. Students can use apps like Motion Math, to treat learning as a game with scores and incentives to continue their studies.

The most transformative new concept is Apple Textbooks and its companion app iBooks, which allows authors and publishers to design textbooks that users can download directly to their iPad. This will take the traditional hardcopy textbook and make it virtual for students. Student can carry around as a practically weightless study guide. While this sort of implementation has yet to make a wide spread appearance in schools around the country, the possibility of this becoming a reality is beyond exciting.

With all the talk in the news about politics and education, it's good to look at what is really going on in regards to education and literacy:

These statistics expose serious economic consequences for individuals, state governments, and the nation.

In order to address these issues, we must first understand what is creating this great literacy deficit. There are three key contributors:

1. The presence of learning disabilities.
2. The fact that reading is a declining activity among teenagers and adults.
3. Secondary teachers receive limited training in adolescent literacy instruction. Each factor is discussed in more detail below.

Learning Disabilities

Learning disabilities are common sources of reading problems. The most common and carefully studied learning disability is dyslexia, which affects five to 17 percent of the school-aged population, and affects 80 percent of individuals who are characterized as having a learning disability (Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2001). Dyslexia affects reader’s ability to convert visual information into sounds, which makes it difficult to decode words and identify them. Fortunately,  research has shown that the brain can be “rewired” to learn these relationships with intensive phonics training (Shaywitz, S., 2003).

It is important to identify and address these deficits. Shaywitz & Shaywitz (2001) assert that “both dyslexic and non-impaired readers improve their reading scores as they get older, but studies show that the gap between the dyslexic and the non-impaired readers remains” (p. 3). In addition, Archer, et. al. (2003) report that, “74% of students identified with reading disabilities in third grade continue to have significant reading challenges in ninth grade (p. 89),” which illustrates the importance of providing appropriate intervention in intensive, systematic phonics training to struggling readers.

Reading Rates

A second contributing factor to low literacy skills is the fact that reading is declining as an activity among teenagers. Less than one-third of 13-year-olds in America read daily, and fifteen- to 24-year-olds spend 7-10 minutes a day reading voluntarily (NEA, 2007). When reading does occur, it often competes with other forms of media, which suggests “less focused engagement with a text” (p. 10). Struggling readers are less often engaged in text because they are less motivated to read (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Consequently, as the complexity of text increases, students fall further behind.

Teacher Training

A third factor that contributes to the challenges of appropriately addressing adolescent literacy deficits is the fact that secondary teachers receive limited training in adolescent literacy instruction. All secondary teachers are not expected to be trained in teaching foundational literacy skills; however, if content teachers were familiar with some of the literacy strategies used by the reading specialist or special education teacher, they could pre-teach difficult vocabulary and their class could decode difficult words together (NIFL, 2008).

In addition, secondary teachers are often frustrated that remediation services are less available and less effective for their struggling adolescent students than they are for struggling young readers and that fewer resources are directed to secondary schools for literacy. Reading and literacy specialists, administrators, and teachers are all important resources to systematically address struggling readers’ needs (NIFL, 2008).

Conclusion

In order to improve education and build a more literate nation, teachers must be trained to teach reading to students with learning disabilities and learn how to teach foundational literacy skills. As teachers learn how to remediate reading difficulties, struggling students will be more motivated to read because it will be less taxing. Teachers also need to help students discover texts that relate to their interests and match their reading level.

This post was adapted from an article on Heidi Hyte’s blog, ESLtrail.com