Category Archives: Reflective Practice

Reflecting on 35 Years of Teaching Writing

Teaching and using writing to explore, to expand, and to explain is what we do; how to use writing is what we teach. With this in mind, “writing is best understood as a complex intellectual activity that requires students to stretch their minds, sharpen their analytical capabilities, and make valid and accurate distinctions” (National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges, 2003, p.13). Thus, I teach with writing.

As both a student and a teacher, I have lived through numerous trends and theories of writing instruction. As a high school student in the early seventies, I methodically wrote the assigned five-paragraph essays about literature; then in college, used the same basic format to approach the longer papers assigned. When I entered the credential program at UCSB in the early eighties, I entered the world of Peter Elbow as I participated in Sheridan Blau’s South Coast Writing Project. Suddenly, writing shifted from form to freedom. Commenting on that time period’s emphasis on social values of individualism, personal expression, equality, and freedom, D. Bowden observes that “outlets for self-expression in writing were suddenly highly valued” and “that both the process movement (which paid attention to how writing was produced) and voice (which privileged the expression of emotions, passions, ideals, and a writer’s inner character) not only took hold but also became quickly entrenched (Clark et al., 2003, p. 287). When I began teaching, I faced a tug-of-war between teaching the form by which I had learned to write for school and avoiding what Macrorie termed Engfish, “standard academic writing in which students attempt to replicate the style and form of their professors” (Clark et al., 2003, p. 289). My early years as a teacher produced many standard English, five-paragraph essays because frankly, I could more objectively explain grades to students, parents, and colleagues. In the early nineties, I met Rae Jean Williams who invited me to work with the UCLA Writing Project. Through that involvement with colleagues, sharing experiences and theories, I discovered freedom in using writing to teach, as opposed to trying to teach writing.

One of the most important lessons I learned from Rae Jean is that students need a reason for writing, that writing is a response to some stimulus, a means to an end rather than the end. Some may disagree, and in fact, in my early years of implementing writing workshop in my classroom, I believed that the objective was simply to get kids writing. My writing workshop followed the usual protocol of encouraging students to write frequently and allowing for students to work on several pieces at a time, keeping every piece of writing, from notes to outlines to rough drafts to final copies, in their English folders. As students completed rough drafts, they spent time with me during a conference session discussing possible revisions. These rough drafts were not graded, in order to motivate revision, rather than create frustration. Students were required to submit revised pieces as part of their final exam grade — these pieces were graded on revision work shown. Two days a week in class were Writing Workshop days during which students worked on their own writing, shared writing with peer groups, and individually conferred with me about writing problems. I encouraged individuals to write about topics that interested them personally; I rarely assigned one topic to all students. I challenged students to experiment with various modes of writing such as autobiographical, poetry, journaling, short story, persuasive, and observational. The basic workshop approach provided a safe environment for writing, which does motivate as “they had ownership over the learning activities,” but did not provide a reason to write (Shellard & Protheroe, 2004, p. 13).

A better use of writing workshop provides a safe environment to approach the writing tasks presented in students’ core classes. Research indicates that one of the problems with the romantic rhetoric approach of my initial workshop is that it was “based on the idea that writing has only one purpose, self-exploration. However, in reality, it has multiple purposes” (Williams, 2003, p. 66). Because reading and writing are so integrated, students need to understand the use of specific genres of writing for specific purposes, not only as readers of text but as responders to text. When teaching the use of writing, teachers need to understand that “writers and readers use similar kinds of knowledge…in the act of making their meanings: knowledge about language, knowledge about content, knowledge about genre conventions” and help students make those connections (Langer & Flihan, 2000). Correct grammar can signal skillful writing – correct structure does indicate a sense of organization and coherence. “Correct” writing, however, is often boring and according to a recent study:

Teaching students the grammar raises tacit knowledge to a conscious level in ways that interfere with the efficient language processing necessary in writing. In other words, students…probably were thinking more about the grammar rules than they were about writing, with deleterious effects. (Williams, 2003, p. 50)

Here, once again, is the tug-of-war between personal and academic discourses. However, when I ask students about audience, purpose, and the key question of “so what?” I help students learn how to use those formal elements of style to elicit the answer they desire.

In the workshop setting, students can look at form and structure of an essay, for instance, as the “basic outfit” that needs personal identity. In groups, or individually, students can consider how the writing can be improved by adding elements of style specific to their purpose, personal choices made by each writer including the choice of genre that best addresses their needs. Depending on students’ background knowledge, students can be asked to add their own style by adding rhetorical devices, varying sentence structure, changing passive voice to active; this is best achieved by break ing this into steps and modeling, rather than direct instruction/drill of grammar. We may discuss, for instance, rhetorical devices and then students add one device to a piece of writing on which they are currently working. When we look at sentence types, I can then lead students to adding a periodic or cumulative sentence, for example. In this way, students develop understanding of grammar and rhetorical structure in the same way they look at what their favorite performers are wearing, choosing to add the elements they like best to their own personal wardrobe. Referring back to where I began, with writing, I teach students to use writing to achieve their purposes, to generate the answers they desire to the questions they and/or their teachers ask, to write meaningfully.

Teaching with writing applies to all content areas because it is teaching students how to use writing as “Powerful discourse…discourse that makes a difference; has a rhetorical purpose; and informs, persuades, or moves an audience from their present state of mind to a new one” (Clark et al., 2003, p. 296).

References:

Clark, I., Bamberg, B,, Bowden, D,, Edlund, J., Gerrard, L., Klein, S., Lippman, J., & Williams, J. (2003). Concepts in composition: Theory and practice in the teaching of writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Langer, J., & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and reading relationships: Constructive tasks. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://cela.albany.edu/publication/article/writeread.htm

National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf

Shellard, E., & Protheroe, N. (2004). Writing across the curriculum to increase student learning in middle and high school. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Williams, J., (2003). Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Leave a comment

Filed under Reflective Practice

Modeling Leading to Transfer

2543351480044258467fFzOdb_fs   As an academic success counselor, teachers will often approach me about particular students. Sighing heavily, a teacher laments that the student cannot read or the student does not read. Students who are not engaged or appear unable to meet the academic expectations of the course do discourage teachers who are experts in their subject areas and who are eager to share that expertise with their students. J. Guthrie (2001) observed that “student engagement affected teacher involvement as much as teacher involvement influenced student engagement” (Guthrie, 2001). If this is true, then we need to look closely at the inter-relatedness of teacher involvement and student engagement in order to reduce the frustrations of teachers and students related to reading. As a result of reading and researching, I am convinced that we cannot continue to assume that students know how to read by the time they reach our middle and high school classrooms if we desire their engagement and involvement in our classes (Alvermann, Phelps, and Ridgeway, 2007, p. 4). We must actively, explicitly teach our students pre-, during-, and post-reading strategies that will help them read to learn, to make connections, and to more deeply engage with us and our content.

April Nauman, Ph. D. (2007) observes that “high school students must read, comprehend, and remember information in a variety of high-level content area textbooks, which are packed with new concepts and vocabulary…these expectations occur at a time when students’ motivation to read tends to decline” (p. 31). As I have worked with students struggling to read sections in their history text, I have observed that teaching them to use specific strategies aids not only their comprehension, but also increases their motivation to read. The history text presents two columns of text, at least one chart, and an inset box per page. My students tend to gloss over the pages, skimming for what might be on the quiz that their teachers will inevitably give the day after the pages are to be read for homework. A difficulty that I face as a Learning Specialist is that I cannot choose the assignments and the means of assessments that my students encounter in their classes; I can, however, use those assessments as literacy teaching tools. For example, when a student points out difficulties he faced in responding to questions based on history text reading, I can use that experience to show the student how to actively read the text to learn. Vacca (2002) points out that “continued literacy development is of critical importance because it helps to shape the core strategies by which adolescents learn to negotiate meaning and think critically about the texts in their lives, whether in the context of school or the world outside of school” (p. 186). Students need to see this type of thinking modeled, as it is not an intuitive skill that they activate simply because the learning task demands it.

I have learned that this modeling and guided practice means that I am actively thinking out loud as I read with my students, and that I offer my students a variety of strategies. For example, I can show my students how to use strategies such as KWL charts or SQ3R to set a purpose for reading. I particularly like the SQ3R strategy for use with my students’ history textbook because the students learn to look over the chapter, change section headings into questions, and can at the same time, set up Cornell Notes (two-column notes) or a 5-W Chart (who, what, when, where, why) to use as they read to answer the questions. The most important step in this strategy for my students is the question phase because they tend to not even notice titles and subheadings. Yet, each title, when rephrased as a question, becomes the guide for determining the main ideas in that section of the reading. For some of my students, reading has always been a passive activity, either due to family background (lack of education, lack of involvement, lack of emphasis relative to other activities) or perhaps due to educational experiences (poor instruction, behavioral issues that masked reading difficulties left unaddressed, moving from one school to another preventing engagement promoting reading). For these students, learning how to take notes, summarize, and draw inferences are new skills requiring much guided practice which I can give them during our meetings.

Although, I realize my students may not see their history reading as fun, I have learned that “teachers can affect student motivation to read through explicit reading strategy and reading comprehension strategy instruction and practice” and do so when they “show how, practice, tell why, and tell when” (Mccrudden, Perkins & Putney, 2005). My students need to learn for instance, that “note taking is not simply a way to record facts; it also leads to deeper student engagement and reflection” (Fisher, Frey, & Williams, 2002, p. 72). Metacognition, or thinking about thinking, is the goal of during-reading strategies and therefore, teachers must make a conscious effort to “teach comprehension strategies that empower students to internalize the strategies and to develop a conceptual framework for understanding content area topics” (NASSP, 2008). With this goal in mind, and understanding the difficulties that my students have reading their history textbook, I use active reading strategies that guide their reading. For example, the RAP strategy teaches students to read one paragraph, ask what it says, and put it into their own words before reading the next paragraph. The emphasis in this approach is helping the student recognize that reading the history text book involves new skills which he is in the process of learning and that he actually understands more of the text than he believed he could. My students benefit from looking at the reading assignment in chunks, rather than pages, with each section read to answer a question seen as a chunk of text to be understood and summarized. The notes taken affirm to my students that they have understood what they read; so often they have lamented reading the “whole chapter” but not remembering or understanding anything they had read.

I integrate the use of the RAP strategy with another strategy, Questioning the Author, moving students beyond facts to thinking about why those facts are important. My students have written many reports during their years in school, all of which asked for facts. Now, in high school, it is not enough to know the facts and just the facts. Students have to analyze the facts, relate those facts to prior knowledge, consider how those facts might relate to the future, and develop an understanding of the significance of those facts to their own lives. According to its creators, “Questioning the Author begins by taking stock of what we want students to learn from a text and noticing what might interfere with that understanding,” then “prompts student response to text through such queries as, ‘What is the author trying to say?’, or ‘What did the author say to make you think that?'” (Beck, & McKeown, 2002). To implement these strategies together, as they seem a natural pairing, I first preview the text, noting sections that may pose interruptions in comprehension and preparing questions that will help students over the bumps. As we read the text together, I ask the students questions to engage them in interacting with the text and to monitor comprehension. I may begin with an active comprehension question such as ‘What would you like to know about this chapter’ after reading the title and the first paragraph; then after reading further, I may pose a questioning the author query such as ‘What distinction is the author making here’ at a point where the students may not infer what is needed for full comprehension. This active reading encourages students to “respond to queries by contributing ideas that other students and the teacher may build on, refine, or challenge” (Beck, & McKeown, 2002). In addition, students not only think about the text as I am asking questions such as ‘What do you think the author meant by saying that…,’ but they also observe when I choose to ask the question. I want my students to understand the text, but I also want to model how to think while reading. Ideally, students learn to ask questions themselves while reading. This approach leads my students to an understanding of how to apply the strategies on their own; “modeling, coaching, and fading” provides my at-risk readers “with the scaffolding necessary to incorporate the procedural and conditional knowledge they were learning into their own repertoire of reading strategies” (Dole, Brown, & Trathen, 1996, p. 73). Research emphasizes that the key to effectiveness is to model and guide students through the process; showing students just once and then expecting them to apply any strategy is idealistic, if not simply unfair. Fisher (2001) points to “significant improvement in student quiz scores after graphic organizers had been implemented with teacher guidance” (p. 116). This guidance is on-going and repeated; Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) caution, “simply directing students what to do, however, is not the same as showing them how to do it” (p. 32). Dole, Brown, and Trathen (1996) further remind us that “with its emphasis on making abstract cognitive thought processes explicit, strategy instruction can be difficult for students to understand, especially if the instruction is not sequenced clearly and systematically” (p. 67). This instruction, meaning modeling and thinking-aloud to show students the process is worth the effort and the time; “long-term instruction of sophisticated comprehension strategies clearly improves student understanding and memory of texts that are read” (Pressley, 2002, p. 291).

Finally, as students learn to preview the text, read for a purpose, asking questions as they read, they are moving toward deeper comprehension that will be demonstrated through the use of post-reading strategies. Our history teachers use an acronym “GRAPES” (geography, religion, achievements, politics, economy, and society) to indicate what students should know about each people-group studied, and this could easily be applied with the Compare and Contrast matrix. The basic idea is that “readers compare and contrast the target concepts listed across the top of the matrix according to attributes, properties, or characteristics listed along the left side” (Vacca, & Vacca, 2005, p. 402). By completing the chart, students focus on the items their teachers are highlighting, and in addition, they create for themselves a study guide for use when preparing for tests or essay assignments. Another post-reading skill that I want my students to develop is the ability to summarize notes and what was read. I, again, use a modeling approach with the whole class first, asking students to contribute sentences, as we summarize a text together. I take an active role and encourage active learning.

Galda and Liang (2003) note that “educators who want to capitalize on the potentially rich experience that seems to motivate students to read…need to carefully orchestrate the questions, tasks, and tests” (p. 270). I take an active role in “planning instruction; establishing the structure necessary for successful implementation; observing, assisting, and guiding students and groups as they work; and assessing and adjusting the process” (Ruddell, 2004, p. 107). As freshmen in high school, my students are no longer learning to read, but as noted earlier, reading to learn, “a matter of meaning-making, problem-solving, and understanding” (Jacobs, 2002, p. 59). Because I work with what content area teachers assign my students, I do not get to choose the students’ textbooks; my explicit teaching of reading strategies, showing and not telling, though, may help my students navigate texts with greater success and confidence.

References:

Alvermann, D. E., Phelps, S. F., & Ridgeway, V. G. (2007). Content area reading and literacy: Succeeding in today’s diverse classrooms (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2002, November). Questioning the author: Making sense of social studies [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 60(3).

Dole, J.A., Brown, K.J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 62–88. Retrieved February 11, 2008, from http://www.reading.org/Library/Retrieve.cfm?D=10.1598/RRQ.31.1.4&F=RRQ-31-1-Dole.pdf.

Fisher, A., (2001). Implementing graphic organizer notebooks: the art and science of teaching content. [Electronic version]. The Reading Teacher, 55, 116.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Williams, D. (2002, November). Seven literacy strategies that work. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 70–73.

Galda, L., & Liang, L. (2003). Literature as experience or looking for facts: Stance in the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(2), 268–275.  Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.reading.org/Library/Retrieve.cfm?D=10.1598/RRQ.38.2.6&F=RRQ-38-2-Galda.pdf.

Guthrie, J.T. (2001, March). Contexts for engagement and motivation in reading. Reading Online, 4(8). Retrieved 01/04/08 from  http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/handbook/guthrie/index.html.

Jacobs, V. (2002, November). Reading, writing, and understanding [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 60(3).

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mccrudden, M, Perkins, P, & Putney, L Self-efficacy and interest in the use of reading strategies. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20, Retrieved 1/12/08, from http://www.questia.com/read/5014088133.

NASSP, (2008). During-reading strategies. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from National Association of Secondary School Principals Web site: http://www.principals.org/s_nassp/sec.asp?CID=887&DID=52915.

Nauman, Ph.D, A. (2007). Reader’s Handbook, Grades 9-12, Research Base. Retrieved January 4, 2008, from Great Source Web site: http://www.greatsource.com/rehand/9-12/pdfs/9_12NaumanArticle.pdf

Neufeld, P. (2005, December). Comprehension instruction in content area classes. The Reading Teacher, 59(4), 302–312. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://www.reading.org/.

Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup, & S. Samuels (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 291-309). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Ruddell, M. R. (2004). Engaging students’ interest and willing participation in subject area learning. In D. Lapp, J. Flood, & N.Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading and learning: Instructional strategies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Singer, H., & Donlon, D., (1989). Reading and learning from text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vacca, R.T. (2002). Making a difference in adolescents’ school lives: Visible and invisible aspects of content area reading. In A.E. Farstrup, & S. Samuels (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 184-204). Retrieved 1/12/08 from http://www.reading.org/Library/Retrieve.cfm?D=10.1598/0872071774.9&F=bk177-9-Vacca.html .

Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (2005). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Reflective Practice

“Inexperienced” and “Dumb” Are Not Synonyms, but…

Think about your first day at your first job — desperately trying to not look “new” and yet, hoping to spot a face in the midst that could be the source of support you might need? We don’t like being new, because when we are new, we often are also inexperienced — and that can cause us to feel “dumb” (a word I hate, but it best describes the feeling I’ve had when I’ve been this person). We quickly learn from experience that “inexperienced” and “dumb” are not synonyms, and that we need to seek out support systems if we want to succeed. Continuing my look at Langston’s 6 Success Attributes, I want to share about how I’ve considered the presence and use of effective support systems in my work with high school kids.

My supervisor of 7 years at is now headmaster at a school in Oregon this year, and he is working to establish means of supporting students at his new school similar to how we support them at the school I am continue at as Learning Specialist. He called me one day to ask me what seemed to make the biggest difference in whether or not a student progressed and succeeded in my program. At first, I said something that was pretty general and vague because I hadn’t really thought about it. Later that night…well, in the middle of the night because I couldn’t sleep and I was still thinking about his question…it hit me – it’s relationship! Every student who has succeeded in becoming an independent learner is one with whom I had developed a close, trusting relationship. When I couldn’t connect with a student, I lost him – and felt like I had failed. I know that we can’t connect with every kid, but in my particular school environment and being the only one in this role of Learning Specialist (not tutor), I feel that I need to connect and help each student who is referred to me because I want each one to develop the big picture skills of metacognitive thinking and strategies, rather than just leave with a finished homework assignment. The key goal of each session, in terms of my work, is to “focus on islands of competence” and maintain a positive, safe environment for my students (Ficksman & Adelizzi, 2010, p. 35). The most important message I need to convey to my students is that they can trust me enough to be honest with me. If something I suggest doesn’t work for them, then they can tell me and we’ll try something else. Early on, this is difficult for kids to do – there is a lot of “nodding and smiling” during those first sessions and then a lot of “nothing gained” as a result. Once I’ve gained the student’s trust, however, and have a rapport with him, they will tell me, “you know, I hate having to write stuff into a planner just because the school gave me a planner; can’t I use an app on my phone?” We weigh the pros and cons of each system and the student tries out the app for a week, and then lets me know at the next session if it worked better for him than the planner book.  When I see a student has a backpack bulging with loose papers, I joke about it and then offer to help “toss and file.” Some are hesitant, but usually with a few more jokes, I can get them started, and we start piling, and filing, and tossing, with me explaining the how-to’s and the why’s of the process as we each score “free-throws” into the trash or recycling baskets.

What I try to be is what Langston describes as the “Charismatic Adult” in each of my student’s lives. Langston believes that “the charismatic adult does more for a child with a learning disability than just offer support, foster good self-esteem, and help discover the child’s strengths. The charismatic adult teaches that child the power of human relationships. That child realizes that to make it, he or she will have to continue to partner with other people.” Just as I partner with my student to help him toss and file, my student can learn to partner with others to tackle tasks and activities and to engage with others socially. This relates to our discussion of pro-activity because helping students recognize when they need help and how to accept that help means that I often serve as a “bridge” between a student and the source of help so that student gains confidence in the help offered and learns to trust that others will support him.

Sometimes, as a bridge, I connect students to each other for support. This past year, I worked with two students who are autistic. Both of these students, Matt and James, struggle socially, so the first action I took was to introduce them to each other because they both like video games. I scheduled their meeting times with me for the same period so that they would have time to talk with me, but also to have time to talk with each other. After each seemed more comfortable with informal conversation, I introduced them to a third student, Cameron. Cameron, a senior, had worked with me for a couple of years so he knew why Matt and James were meeting with me, and not only that, he also played video games. As it turned out, Cameron was also in two of James’ classes and they ended up working on group projects together. When James needed to get involved in a community service activity for graduation requirements, Cameron encouraged him to join the Interact Club, and he did! I loved coming in one Monday and hearing James tell me about how he, Cameron, and the other kids made care packages on that Saturday at one of the kids’ homes. I believe that all of this happened because Matt and James learned to value each other’s support and social acceptance as we worked together, and because for Cameron, I was an adult whom he knew he could count on so he visited my room often, and he was willing to support two of my students because he understood the need for support from his own experience.

Look around…someone in your midst, whether a colleague or a student, may feel inexperienced in some area, and as a result, may feel “dumb” — I encourage you to be that source of support, that “charismatic” person in someone’s life.

Leave a comment

Filed under Passion and Purpose, Recommended Reading, Reflective Practice

GOOOOAAAALLLL!!!!

goal   In keeping with the sports world’s focus on the World Cup, this week’s post discusses “Goal-setting” and “Perseverance” – two more of Langston’s 6 Success Attributes. When my students look in the “mirror” of self-assessment, the natural next step is to set goals for moving forward. I shared this with a dozen 6th-graders taking my summer school “Study Skills” class. The first day, the kids completed an “Interest Survey” and answered the question “Why are you taking this class?” Kids are honest, and this bunch didn’t lie: “because my mom made me.” Okay, so do I tell them why they need the class? Nope, that’s not going to work. So I gave them a self-assessment sheet and they rated themselves on various academic strategies such as “I write my assignments on a calendar” or “I look up words I don’t know when I am reading.” After they finished their assessments, I wanted them to see their strengths, so I wrote on the board, “Academic Skills for Success.” I then asked them to put a “Star” by each item they had rated as “Almost Always.” I looked around the room to be sure that every student had at least one star, and then I said, “Okay, I’d like each of you to pick one of your starred items and write it on the board under ‘Academic Skills for Success.’” They eagerly raised their hands to volunteer, and after the first student wrote her skill on the board, I suggested, “If you do what’s already listed on the board, go ahead and put a check-mark by it before you write down your own starred item.” In this way, all twelve students recognized their own successful activities and those of their peers. The students were now ready to look at areas for improvement. The next day, I asked the students to review their assessments and choose one of the areas rated as “Almost Never” to focus on for the day’s activity. Using the acronym “SMART”, I explained that goals can help us improve if we make goals that are specific, measurable, achievable, rewarding personally, and timely. The kids shared their understanding of each of those words as each was presented, and I gave examples as needed. Then they wrote one Academic Smart Goal, and we put these goals on the board as our objectives for why we are in the class.

My Academic Success Program students are used to SMART goals, as we start the year in a similar way after they complete their self-assessments. I really like the 5-step process that Langston presents and plan to share it with my students. When they set that goal, we’ll note how they can also become educated on the best way to achieve the goal, then visualize taking the steps necessary to reach it, focusing on the path to getting what is desired), and then taking whatever physical steps are necessary to reach the goal. This process fits with the mini-goal setting we do each week, as well, when students look at upcoming assignments and tests. If, for example, the student has a unit test coming up in a week, we will look at the study guide and set goals for incremental preparation. I show the student how to determine what he feels most confident about and least confident about, and then how to break the guide down into manageable sections to work with over a period of days before the test, setting a goal date on his calendar for completing each section. My students by setting SMART Goals and incremental goals are able to as Langston points out, “distill small goals from a big goal and then educate, reinforce, focus, and act on each smaller goal that’s necessary to reach the big goal.”

Langston observes that “successful people with learning disabilities often possess the ability to learn from mistakes and pursue goals despite difficulties, as well as the flexibility to find alternate pathways to a goal or modify that goal as needed” and I capitalize on that when I meet with my students. When I meet with a student who has been knocked down so many times that he just wants to stay on the ground rather than try again, I can’t just say to him, “toughen up, cupcake” or “rub some dirt on it” – the kid is down. I need to get back to that first attribute of self-awareness. The student who is down is not self-aware of what he needs and what he can do; he is only aware that he has “messed up again.” One of the ways that I help these kids re-see themselves and revise their perceptions is by holding up the “mirror” again and showing them their strengths that we identified when we began meeting together. For example, in a school of gifted students, great significance is placed on grades. For many of my students at the end of each quarter, when grades come out, the need to look in the mirror proves essential to moving on into the next quarter.

I also created a “Strengths Evaluation” that I send to the teachers of each of my students at the end of the first semester. The form asks, for instance, the following:

Meaningfulness: Consider the following areas and check each area in which the above-named student exhibits strength:
Meaningfulness (emotions) Overview: Does the student find the learning interesting and/or meaningful? Does the student care about the content being learned? Does the student find the experience of learning valuable or worth the effort? Is the learning relevant?

  • Relates Content to Personal Interests/Experiences/Skill sets
  • Imaginative Thinking
  • Cares About the Content Being Learned
  • Other strength related to emotions

This is the type of strength that may not be evidenced by the letter grade on a grammar test or on a math quiz. When the first semester grades reflect deficiencies in achievement, I show the student the teachers’ evaluations of his strengths. When a student is aware that others see his strengths, he is reminded of them himself – then he is ready to persevere. At that point, we can discuss setbacks in terms of what can be learned from the experience. For example, when Brett, whom I mentioned in the first post in this series, came to me for help at the end of third quarter, he had many missing assignments in several classes. He could have given up. Instead, he knew from experience with me that when an assignment is missed, rather than reproving the student, I help the student trace back, through questioning, and determine what got in the way and then how to take steps to repair the damage. In Brett’s case, we saw a pattern of postponed assignments during the weeks he was involved in an extra-curricular activity. We could therefore identify the cause as a response to an external situation, rather than a response to an internal lack of knowledge or skills. At that point, Brett could put the problem in perspective and could work on setting goals and taking steps to complete assignments that would still be accepted and get on track with his current work, and persevere. And with that, Brett and those like him,

GOOOOAAAALLLL!!!!

Leave a comment

Filed under Passion and Purpose, Reflective Practice

Relationships are the means and the end…

Teaching high school English and creatively approaching curriculum has always been a passion, and I am a task-oriented person; as I reflect on my position, now, as a Learning Specialist, however, I am seeing that my priority is my relationship with each of my students. When my focus is on achievement, the daily activities spur me on and provide a sense of accomplishment, but in truth, “the desire to achieve and to see ourselves mirrored in achievement” does not fulfill at the end of the day (Tompkins, 1996, p.199). Sonia Nieto (2003) quotes Karen Gelzinis who writes, “the older I get, the less it is about me feeling good about what I do” and then Karen concludes that the students are the most important (p.114). “Mindfulness” is the buzzword of the season, and yes, this must be my focus; “being in, being for, and being with” my students (Kottler, et al, 2005, p. 49).
 
My renewed mission for next year, as I reflect this summer, is to develop my understanding of my students, collectively as learners and individually as gifts in my life; to prepare my students for life, showing them how to establish their own values and modeling respect and integrity; and finally and most importantly, to nurture relationships with my students that will grow out of my commitment to them as learners and contributors to my life. My specific goals, as I focus on this mission, will be to provide a safe environment for students; to establish personal relationships with each student; to establish personal relationships with their parents, to the fullest extent possible; to provide additional resources to my school’s students and parents, via web site, email and mailings; to learn more about student-motivation and learning so that I can more effectively affirm students in meeting academic responsibilities and in becoming independent learners.
 
My first goal is to provide a safe environment for students to come during their hectic day, to study, get homework help, and to work with peers. My classroom is actually designated the “Academic Success Center”. The Academic Success Center provides students with a place to study individually and with peers, in an informal environment. Students use the room as a student lounge throughout the day. I strive for comfort in the room set-up; I group tables, offer cushioned swivel chairs, and keep a never-ending supply of Hershey’s Kisses and the makings for hot cocoa available. As the students spend open periods and lunch periods in my room, I hope to develop relationships of trust and respect with them, that they will feel safe and see me as a “teacher who went beyond academics and became a mentor, confidant, and positive model for personal identification” (Vitto, 2003, p.4).  In addition, I want students to build safe relationships with each other as they collaboratively study or meet with peer tutors. I plan to set up a board for sharing “Secrets to Success” on which students can write study strategies that they have found helpful and that they want to share with their peers. If students eagerly add their advice, then we have established a non-threatening environment and relationships that encourage learning together. I want all students who enter the Academic Success Center to believe they are successful and can contribute to the success of others.
 
I meet with students individually. As my second goal, I resolve to celebrate students’ successes and to “assist them in coping with failure” (Kottler, et al, 2005, p. 41). The Academic Success Program provides academic support to individual students who struggle with executive functioning. Within the program, my role of Learning Specialist includes providing individual instruction, encouragement, and accountability over the period of a full semester to a year, depending on the individual student’s needs. As I meet with a student, I want to listen more than talk, and ask more than answer. In the same way that I am learning about my teaching through reflection, I want my students to understand how they learn by reflecting on their actions as learners. All students have the capacity for success, given that they exhibit curiosity, demonstrate potential to learn, experiment with new ideas, ask questions, and examine ideas. Not all students succeed, however, due to attention issues, poor or ill-timed questions, lack of organization, inability to complete tasks, inappropriate participation or lack of participation in discussion, lack of discernment as to what information is important. I hope to ask questions that prompt each student to “be aware of the state of one’s own mind and the degree of one’s own understanding. The good student may be one who often says that he does not understand, simply because he keeps a constant check on his understanding” (Dembo, 2000, p. 23). I talk daily with students who believe they cannot learn, that they are unintelligent. These students have repeatedly struggled in school due to the issues mentioned earlier in this paragraph. My goal is to develop a relationship of trust with each  student so that when I affirm that the student is capable and gifted and will succeed, he or she will know it is true. It has been noted that “some students believe that ability or intelligence is fixed. That is, people are born with a certain amount of ability and there is not much that can be done about it” (Dembo, 2000, p. 7). My mission is to change that misperception and to advocate for, encourage, and celebrate each success. With that in mind, I will have each student compile a “Success Portfolio” to share with their parents at the end of the semester. Each student will share how they have developed their learning skills, and the parents and I will cheer and applaud.
 
Nurturing this team-spirit and including students’ parents is vital and is my third goal. Currently, I email each parent weekly after meeting with their son or daughter. My emails are chatty in nature, sharing the progress of the student and indicating areas we will work on that week. I need parental support, but I’m finding that my weekly encouragement is valued by the parents. When a child struggles with “doing school,” the whole family is affected. Every dinner conversation is punctuated with “why didn’t you do that assignment” or “you forgot that paper at home again” or “how could you not know about the test today.” Students who struggle with school struggle with life; and that is what truly frightens their parents and prompts the angry reactions to the child’s mistakes. A student who struggles in math can get help and will improve in comprehension. A student who struggles to remember to do assignments and then where he put them and when to turn them in lives life like a pinball, batted from one mistake to the next. These are the students with whom I work. Their parents are the ones I understand because I am one also. My goal is to decrease the number of angry or painful conversations at home while I help students develop strategies for handling school. I hope to serve as a facilitator / negotiator during conferences between students and parents. I promise to offer empathy when frustrations build and to “appreciate rather than to evaluate families’ successes and struggles with their children” (Kottler, et al, 2005, p. 77).
 
Relationships are the means and the end. Soren Kierkegaard was noted as saying, “The irony of life is that it is lived forward but understood backward” (Loughran, 2002). So reflecting and then looking forward, I set this mission before me to know more about my students collectively and individually, to support students and parents as I model my belief in my students’ ability to succeed and to continually nurture these relationships in my life.

References
Dembo, M (2000). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A self-management approach . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 
Frank, P. (1999). Becoming a reflective teacher: Define your teaching goals and continue to reevaluate them. ASCD Catalyst. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/teachexperience/tresk030605.html?mode=print
 
Intrator, S & Scribner, M (Eds.). (2003). Teaching with fire: Poetry that sustains the courage to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
 
Kottler, J. A., Zehm, S. J., & Kottler, E. (2005). On being a teacher: The human dimension (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
 
Loughran, J (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education53, Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/read/5000686594
Nieto, S. (2003). What keeps teachers going? New York: Teachers College Press.
Ritchhart, R (2002). Intellectual character: what it is, why it matters, and how to get it . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
 
Tompkins, J (1996). A life in school: What the teacher learned . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
 
Vitto, J (2003). Relationship-driven classroom management: Strategies that promote student motivation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

4 Comments

Filed under Passion and Purpose, Reflective Practice

Thinking About Authentic Literacy…

Authentic literacy is defined as “text-based discussion, dialogue, and argument” and provides the focus of any study of literature in which my students participate (National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges, 2003, p. 65).

When I taught high school English classes, I loved exploring literature with my students as we read, wrote, discussed, wrote, read, discussed, and well, you get the idea. In fact, I cannot imagine reading a novel such as William Golding’s (1954) Lord of the Flies using the approach of my high school teachers thirty-five years ago, which was the routine of read, discuss, and write, the end. Reading and writing, with discussion, are so interwoven that they happened simultaneously, and even spontaneously, in my classroom. Using Lord of the Flies as my core text, for example, my students found themselves journaling from the point of view of one of the characters, explaining the irony of characters’ words, and writing from the point of view of the philosopher Hobbes about the novel’s themes in a response to Hobbes of Calvin and Hobbes. These activities lead us through the course of knowledge and comprehension, application and analysis, and synthesis and evaluation (Benjamin, 1999, p. 10).

When reading a novel, teachers desire that students understand the sequence of events, the setting, the conflicts, and the characters. According to Benjamin (1999) this is level one thinking and includes recall of facts, summarizing, retelling, and asking “what?” (p. 10). To achieve this purpose with Lord of the Flies, after we read the first two chapters, I asked students to choose one of the characters to be for the rest of our reading. Each day, students wrote a journal entry from their chosen character’s point of view, sharing what happened to them or what they observed or what they thought as that character during the day’s portion of reading (we did something similar with Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar because the activity so succeeded in engaging the students with the text). The journal writing required students to consider the text and explain it in their own words. As students wrote, I moved around the room, reading over their shoulders, and positively commenting on interesting entries. I also asked students to share their entries with their group members (my students always sat in base groups) and to discuss the text from the various viewpoints represented. This provided me with a quick means of assessing students’ comprehension and enabled me to clarify or answer questions as needed. As students read the novel and wrote their journal entries, they “made knowledge their own” as they “struggled with the details, wrestled with the facts, and reworked raw information and dimly understood concepts into language they could communicate to someone else” (National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges, 2003, p. 9).

Furthering the process of making knowledge meaningful and providing my students opportunity to deepen that knowledge through application, I asked them to consider the words of characters and discuss the implied meanings. For example, on a test, I asked students to write a paragraph explaining why the following words spoken by Jack are ironic: “I agree with Ralph. We’ve got to have rules and obey them. After all, we’re not savages” (Golding, 1954, p. 42). This lead students into higher level thinking as they analyzed the quote, considered the use of irony, and then related the two. The prompt clearly framed the task by providing students with the needed guidelines of length, focus, task, detail, language, tone, and terminology. In this way, students could show what they knew, and I could assess their understanding as they gave examples, analyzed and defended, and engaged in literate thinking.

The writing activities that I enjoy most are those moving students into even higher level thinking, synthesis and evaluation. Often I asked my students to interact with additional related texts through discussion and writing. For example, we read the words of philosopher Thomas Hobbes who wrote that the “natural condition of mankind, a state of violence, insecurity and constant threat” and then discussed how Hobbes’ view related to Golding’s view as conveyed in the novel. After discussion, I gave the students a Calvin and Hobbes comic, in which the young boy, Calvin, asks the tiger, Hobbes:

“Do you think human nature is good or evil? I mean, do you think people are basically good, with a few bad tendencies, or basically bad, with a few good tendencies? Or, as a third possibility, do you think people are just crazy and who knows why they do anything?” (Watterson, 1988, p. 71)

The prompt with the comic states:

  • After discussing the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, write an answer to Calvin from Thomas Hobbes’ point of view.
  • Your answer must show an understanding of the key points discussed, must be written in 1st person as if you are Thomas Hobbes, and must be at least one paragraph in length.

This writing task scaffolded students’ thinking by developing complex activities and by asking questions that required that the students look more deeply and more critically at the content of lessons. As my students analyzed the philosophy of Hobbes and applied it to the question in the prompt, they also explored the relationship of those ideas to the text of Lord of the Flies, and “exercised the most relevant intellectual capacities–the ability to detect patterns of meaning and to weigh words and evidence for specific purposes” (National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges, 2003, p. 61). This prepared them for a culminating writing task of an essay in which they agreed or disagreed with Golding’s view of human nature.

Currently, I am not teaching high school English, but as I reflect on these activities that I have used in previous years, I find myself wishing to return to that teaching role. I love hearing my students interpret the text from the view of a character; I enjoy the AhHa! moment when students identify later uses of irony themselves; and I enjoy modeling how to write an essay agreeing with or disagreeing with Golding’s and Hobbes’ view of mankind. Too often, instruction in English classes “focuses on content or skills rather than on the process of learning” as “teachers concentrate on covering the required information;” I much prefer integrating reading, discussion, and writing and helping my students “internalize the methods and strategies for accomplishing tasks” and enjoying literature (Langer, Close, Angelis, & Preller, 2000, p. 10).

References

Benjamin, A. (1999). Framing the task: Be careful what you ask for . . . you just might get it. In Writing in the content areas (pp. 3–26). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Golding, W. (1954). Lord of the Flies. UK: Faber and Faber.

Hobbes, Thomas (1994 [1651/1668]) Leviathan, ed Edwin Curley. IN: Hackett

Langer, J. A. (with Close, E., Angelis, J., & Preller, P.) (2000). Guidelines for teaching middle and high school students to read and write well: Six features of effective instruction. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement.

Langer, J. A. (2004). Developing the literate mind. http://cela.albany.edu/researcher/langer/IRA_Develop.pdf

National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution.  http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf

Sanchez, S. (2001). Using journals for a variety of assessments. In C. R. Duke & R. Sanchez (Eds.), Assessing writing across the curriculum (pp. 109–118). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Watterson, S. (1988). Something under the bed is drooling. NY: Andrews and McMeel.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Passion and Purpose, Reflective Practice

Dyslexia and Implications for the Classroom

Cerebrodiversity:

A Discussion of the Research on Dyslexia and Implications for the Classroom

Laurie Hagberg

Research has determined that observable differences in brain structure and function exist in the brains of those with dyslexia. Though I found some of the explanations complex, generally speaking, I understand that in the dyslexic brain, the magnocellular system, or pathway, functions differently. It is made up of large cells which carry out fast visual processes and appears disorganized with groups of smaller cell bodies than the magnocellular system in non-dyslexic brains. These disorganized bunches of cells and nerve fibers are called ectopias (“ectopic” meaning abnormal position). Scientists believe that ectopias occur in the developing brain of the fetus before its sixth month, and this belief coupled with the observation that dyslexia often runs in families, leads to the belief that genetic differences affecting early brain development cause ectopias. The differences in the magnocellular system may cause interference with the rapid processing required for changing visual signals such as those involved in reading changes in the cortex. Interestingly, the system that performs slower visual processes, the parvocellular system, is similar in both types of brains.

In addition, researchers have discovered a cortex difference. The planum temporale, an auditory region that is part of the language network, is typically larger on the left side of the brain, and it is believed that the asymmetric brain design provides for efficient processing of sequential information and for learning certain language skills, including reading, writing, and spelling. Studies show that the planum temporale is the same size in both sides of dyslexic brains. In other words, dyslexic brains are more symmetrical. Symmetry of this area may interfere with learning to read and write.

The primary similarity between the brain of the dyslexic and the non-dyslexic is that in both the brain of the dyslexic and of the non dyslexic, processing activity occurs in Broca’s area, though to varying degrees; a key difference is that activity is also occurring in the Parieto-temporal and Occipito-temporal regions of the non dyslexic brain. Even when subjects used the same brain regions that non-impaired readers typically use, the time it took for different areas to become activated, as well as the order in which they became active, was still noted to be different.

The purpose of most research on dyslexia is to establish the entire chain of causal links between certain genes, certain parts of the brain, certain cognitive functions, and the ability to read and write; Gordan Sherman emphasizes that no two brains are alike, with variations of variations among brains (Sherman & Cowen, 2003).

Sherman defines cerebrodiversity as “the collective neural heterogeneity of humans as well as individual neurocognitive profiles of strengths and weaknesses,” and then continues the explanation with this fantastic sentence: “the underlying neural design may embody wonderful even pivotal possibilities” (Sherman & Cowen, 2003). The idea behind cerebrodiversity, and that I completely agree with, is that we want to view dyslexia in a larger context and understand the implications beyond its negative impacts. I enjoyed reading about this idea in other publications and found Sherman’s and Cowen’s (2010) discussion of Geschwind and his work really interesting. They write that Geschwind “often spoke and wrote about – what he called ‘the advantages of the predisposition to dyslexia’ or ‘the pathology of superiority” (Sherman & Cowen, 2010, p. 14). Sherman explains this as the brain developing in a subtly different way, but not in a deficient way, and that the negative impacts of this difference play out in the context of learning to read. He believes that in other contexts, this negative consequence might almost be considered negligible, but the fact is that we operate in a society that not only values literacy, but demands it. Sherman states that this conflict between what society demands and how the dyslexic brain processes is due to how reading is taught — or more accurately, how it is not taught. Sherman says that “for the most part we do not teach reading in ways that play to the strengths of people with dyslexia” (Sherman & Cowen, 2003).

So what are these strengths? I wanted to learn more so I kept reading. I learned that a British neurologist named Macdonald Critchley, who personally examined more than 1,300 patients with dyslexia, found that “a great many” of these patients had shown exceptional abilities in spatial, mechanical, artistic, and manual activities, and that they often pursued occupations in these areas of strength (Eide, 2011, p56). In his book Thinking Like Einstein, author Thomas G. West shares a conversation with dyslexic computer graphic artist Valerie Delahaye, who specializes in creating computer graphic simulations for movies. She told him that at least half the graphic artists she’s worked with on major projects like Titanic and The Fifth Element were also dyslexic. I actually laughed out loud when I read that West also quotes MIT Media Lab founder and dyslexic Nicholas Negroponte as stating that “dyslexia is so common at MIT that it’s known locally as the ‘MIT disease’” (Eide, 2011, p55). I had fun sharing these findings with a student today – he told me that indeed his ability to mentally visualize 3 dimensional spaces, objects, angles, and trajectories gives him a definite advantage on the hockey rink.

As Sherman points out, it’s all about context and I agree that this view helps us move beyond the disability mindset. We need to view dyslexia as “a dynamic gene-brain-environment interplay” that “yields tiny neural differences (anatomical, cellular, and connectional) that, depending on environmental demand, can translate into socially defined talents and disabilities” (Sherman & Cowen, 2003). For example, one may have “strength in the big-picture reasoning needed to combine multiple perspectives into a complex, global, interconnected, 3-D model of a virtual house” while struggling with memory and processing of fine details: this shows “the pattern of trade-offs” (Eide, 2011, p52). Geschwind (2010) put it succinctly: “Context determines advantage versus disadvantage.”

With this in mind, teaching matters, and clearly we need a paradigm shift among classroom teachers regarding delivery methods, assessment procedures, and reasons for what is being taught. As Sherman asserts, “We must understand the complex interplay between unique brain designs, environmental variables, and resulting learning differences” (Sherman & Cowen, 2003).  We have overlooked the significance of environment and thus missed recognizing the elements of effective reading instruction and the part played by ineffective reading instruction in general education classrooms. What have resulted are misdiagnosis or missed diagnoses, inadequate interventions, and frustrated students, parents, and teachers. I thought it interesting that it’s been noted that the IDA took this into consideration when revising the definition of dyslexia as (underlining mine for emphasis):

“characterized by difficulties with accurate and / or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.” (IDA, 2007)

Implied here is that if there is not effective classroom instruction then these difficulties are expected in the classroom.

When Sherman discussed this, he used the word “contaminated” to describe the impact on research into the prevalence of learning disabilities and in particular, estimates of developmental dyslexia; that is a loaded word, carrying much more connotative significance than other words he might have used such as “skewed” or “influenced” or even “distorted”!  As a result of Sherman’s work and the work of others, it is clear that children with the following weaknesses or deficits are not adequately identified, understood, or helped:

  • executive/metacognitive skills such as setting goals, initiating, monitoring behavior, organizing, planning, anticipating, and adapting
  • social communication skills
  • adaptive functioning in predictably challenging environments, such as adopted status and socioeconomic disadvantage (Dickman, 2008)

We need to have a better understanding of the complexities and the inter-relationships of genetic factors, brain differences, and environmental influences because “things are as they are because of their relationships with everything else. You can’t just look at anything in isolation.” (Eide, 2011, p79).

For this reason, teaching matters; more accurately: appropriate, purposeful, research-based teaching matters.

All this leads to the belief that we must weigh the risk of altering programs now in place to provide help to students with dyslexia vs. the risk of doing nothing at all in terms of change. As Sherman cautions, this does not mean throwing out the “disability model” — it is valid in some contexts, and we recognize that literacy is and will continue to be integral to the lives of individuals (Sherman & Cowen, 2003).  The fact that we all value literacy and want the best for our students’ lives in and beyond the classroom is the binding similarity that keeps many striving for change and improvement through organizations such as IDA. What we need to do is ensure evidence-based instruction in every classroom.

As I thought about this, I contemplated what this would look like in the general classroom here in southern California, in both public and private institutions. Here’s what I see:

  • assistive technology the norm in the general education classroom as a means of enhancing instruction and learning for all students (not yet in our local public schools)
  • all content delivered in multiple ways using multiple modalities (increasing in our public schools)
  • emphasis on quality of instruction over coverage of content (depends on the school’s overall test scores)
  • emphasis on training teachers to recognize signs of dyslexia and how to effectively teach phonological awareness in the general education classroom (still a weakness in credentialing programs, in my opinion, and limited in scope in public schools due to funding issues)

I know I should conclude with my own words, but the following quote sums up the topic so much better than I can:

“The unexpected consequence of attempts to standardize educational practices has been to handcuff our educators, stifle creativity, create conflict and competition between general education and special education, and deny our children access to meaningful early intervention. If the system is indeed ‘broken,’ as seems to be the political consensus, then the injury is self inflicted. In this case top down problems need bottom up solutions. We must reject that which is ineffective and immoral and we must demand the knowledge, training, and freedom to be effective. The “we” of whom I speak is parent, advocate, teacher, principal, and everyone who is in the position to see, touch, and influence the life of a child” (Dickman, 2008).

References:

Dickman, G. Emerson. “Roads Less Traveled,” Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Fall 2008, 5, http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-1639897981

Eide M.D. M.A., Brock L.; M.D., Fernette F. Eide (2011-08-18).   The Dyslexic Advantage: Unlocking the Hidden Potential of the Dyslexic Brain. Penguin Group US. Kindle Edition.

Geschwind, Norman. “Pathology of Superiority: A Predisposition to Dyslexia May Have Advantages,” Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Winter 2010, http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-1995238211

IDA web site: http://www.interdys.org/FAQWhatIs.htm

Sherman, Gordon F. and Cowen, Carolyn D. “Neuroanatomy of Dyslexia Through the Lens of Cerebrodiversity,” Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Spring 2003,

Sherman, Gordon F. and Cowen, Carolyn D. “Norman Geschwind: A Man out of Time,” Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Winter 2010, 14, http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-1995238201

 

2 Comments

Filed under Reflective Practice