David G. O’Brien University of Minnesota, Twin Cities February 22, 2011 dobrien

David G. O’BrienUniversity of Minnesota,

Twin CitiesFebruary 22, 2011

Adolescent Literacy PD: MSSPA

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~dobrien/

1. What would you offer as the reason, based on a national NAEP data, that adolescent reading has not improved in over 35 years?

2. What is the expected percentage of a “typical” high school population that struggles in reading due to specific learning disabilities that impact language processing?

3. In focus group interviews, individual interviews, and surveys, what are three themes that emerge when you ask high school students to comment on reading in school?

4. One solution to the “crisis in adolescent literacy” is to ask all teachers to be “teachers of reading.” What is the response to this request from teachers across the disciplines?

5. How well do you believe you read? And on what do you base your self appraisal?

A Pre Quiz

Every teacher a teacher of reading?

Students reading scores are downHow can their reading be improved?How can students raise their performance on

MCAII?What is the role of reading process and

strategies instruction in improving reading school wide?

What is the role of new media in engaging (and disengaging) adolescents?

Focus of Session

String Theory 101

A Reading Proficiency Assessment

String Theory: A Theory of EverythingFrom Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe1

The fundamental particles of the universe that physicists have identified—electrons, neutrinos, quarks, and so on—are the "letters" of all matter. Just like their linguistic counterparts, they appear to have no further internal substructure. String theory proclaims otherwise. According to string theory, if we could examine these particles with even greater precision—a precision many orders of magnitude beyond our present technological capacity—we would find that each is not pointlike but instead consists of a tiny, one-dimensional loop. Like an infinitely thin rubber band, each particle contains a vibrating, oscillating, dancing filament that physicists have named a string.In the figure, we illustrate this essential idea of string theory by starting with an ordinary piece of matter, an apple, and repeatedly magnifying its structure to reveal its ingredients on ever smaller scales. String theory adds the new microscopic layer of a vibrating loop to the previously known progression from atoms through protons, neutrons, electrons, and quarks.

Although it is by no means obvious, this simple replacement of point-particle material constituents with strings resolves the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity (which, as currently formulated, cannot both be right). String theory thereby unravels the central Gordian knot of contemporary theoretical physics. This is a tremendous achievement, but it is only part of the reason string theory has generated such excitement.String theory proclaims, for instance, that the observed particle properties—that is, the different masses and other properties of both the fundamental particles and the force particles associated with the four forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity)—are a reflection of the various ways in which a string can vibrate. Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have resonant frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate—patterns that our ears sense as various musical notes and their higher harmonics—the same holds true for the loops of string theory. But rather than producing musical notes, each of the preferred mass and force charges are determined by the string's oscillatory pattern. The electron is a string vibrating one way, the up-quark is a string vibrating another way, and so on.

1accessed at Nova: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

1. String theory could be called a theory of everything because

a) all particles have elements like strings

b) strings, given different loops, account for all matter

c) we know little about subatomic matter, so we speculate that

particles represent everything we know

d) an infinite number of strings account for all matter

2. Just like anything is made up of crucial parts, the fundamental particles of the universe are like

a)the “letters” of all matter

b)the notes on a musical scale

c)points on a line

d)seeds in an apple

3.Strings do not negate the idea of particle physics altogether because

a)strings still represent the functions of the particles

b)strings are hypothesized to be series of particles end to end

c)strings and particles are both hypothesized to vibrate

d)strings, unlike particles, include vibrating loops

4. String theory posits that the observed particle properties, like

mass and other properties

a) are reflected in the ways strings vibrate

b) do not really exist because they are too small to measure

c) have no internal substructure

d) can be explained by quantum mechanics, but not general relativity

5.Which of these is the best explanation for why string theory is

hypothetical but not speculative?

a)string theory could account for how assumptions of quantum

mechanics and general relativity could be resolved

b)there is nothing that can see or measure below 10-30 magnification the

microscopic world where strings are believed to exist

c)just as in the case of musical harmonics, it is mathematically and

physically possible that strings vibrate at different oscillations to

represent particle properties

d)we can prove the existence of subatomic particles and string theory

provides a theory for how they work

6. String theory, as one example of a paradigm shift

demonstrates how scientific hypothesizing

a)leads to both new questions and new ways of thinking about

the universe

b)falls short due to a lack of empirical evidence to back up the

c)can account for many principles of science by sticking with one

idea over time

d)leads to testable questions

1. String theory could be called a theory of everything because

a) all particles have elements like strings

b) strings, given different loops, account for all matter

c) we know little about subatomic matter, so we speculate that

particles represent everything we know

d) an infinite number of strings account for all matter

2. Just like anything is made up of crucial parts, the fundamental particles of the universe are like

a)the “letters” of all matter

b)the notes on a musical scale

c)points on a line

d)seeds in an apple

3.Strings do not negate the idea of particle physics altogether because

a)strings still represent the functions of the particles

b)strings are hypothesized to be series of particles end to end

c)strings and particles are both hypothesized to vibrate

d)strings, unlike particles, include vibrating loops

4. String theory posits that the observed particle properties, like

mass and other properties

a) are reflected in the ways strings vibrate

b) do not really exist because they are too small to measure

c) have no internal substructure

d) can be explained by quantum mechanics, but not general relativity

5.Which of these is the best explanation for why string theory is

hypothetical but not speculative?

a) string theory could account for how assumptions of quantum

mechanics and general relativity could be resolved

b) there is nothing that can see or measure below 10-30 magnification

the microscopic world where strings are believed to exist

c) just as in the case of musical harmonics, it is mathematically and

physically possible that strings vibrate at different oscillations to

represent particle properties

d) we can prove the existence of subatomic particles and string theory

provides a theory for how they work

6. String theory, as one example of a paradigm shift

demonstrates how scientific hypothesizing

a)leads to both new questions and new ways of thinking about

the universe

b)falls short due to a lack of empirical evidence to back up the

c)can account for many principles of science by sticking with one

idea over time

d)leads to testable questions

Basic(265)

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to demonstrate an overall understanding and make some interpretations of the text. When reading text appropriate to twelfth grade, they should be able to identify and relate aspects of the text to its overall meaning, extend the ideas in the text by making simple inferences, recognize interpretations, make connections among and relate ideas in the text to their personal experiences, and draw conclusions. They should be able to identify elements of an author’s style.

Proficient(302)

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to show an overall understanding of the text which includes inferential as well as literal information. When reading text appropriate to twelfth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas of the text by making inferences, drawing conclusions, and making connections to their own personal experiences and other readings. Connections between inferences and the text should be clear, even when implicit. These students should be able to analyze the author’s use of literary devices.

Advanced(346)

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to describe more abstract themes and ideas in the overall text. When reading text appropriate to twelfth grade, they should be able to analyze both the meaning and the form of the text and explicitly support their analyses with specific examples from the text. They should be able to extend the information from the text by relating it to their experiences and to the world. Their responses should be thorough, thoughtful, and extensive.

Grade 12

Missed 3 Items

Missed 1 Item

Missed 2 Items

NAEP Definitions

What Does Reading Proficiency Mean?

Main Street School 2009-2010 Grade 10

Why are reading scores down?By Subgroup

Advice from key research/policy reports

Advice from the key research synthesesO’Brien’s advice from a synthesis of all

other syntheses

How can Adolescents’ Reading be Improved?

Key Research/Policy Reports

IRA (1999) Position Statement on Adolescent Literacyhttp://www.reading.org/Libraries/

Position_Statements_and_Resolutions/On_Adolescent_Literacy.pdf

Alvermann’s (2002) White Paper: Effective Literacy Instruction for Adolescentshttp://www.middletownk12.org/leads/files/Alverman,

%20Effective%20Literacy%20Instruction%20for%20Adolescents.pdf

AEE (2003) Adolescents and Literacy: Reading for the 21st Centuryhttp://www.all4ed.org/

filesAdolescentsAndLiteracy.pdf

What is the Research/Policy Base that Informs Programs and Instruction?

AEE (2004) Reading Nexthttp://www.all4ed.org/files/ReadingNext.pdf

National Governors’ Association, Center for Best Practices (2005) Governors’ Guide to Adolescent Literacyhttp://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0510GOVGUIDELITERACY.PDF

IRA (2006) Standards for Middle and High School Literacy Coacheshttp://www.reading.org/downloads/resources/

597coaching_standards.pdfACT (2006) Reading Between the Lines

http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/reading_report.pdf

AEE (2007) Literacy Instruction in the Content Areashttp://www.all4ed.org/files/LitCon.pdf

Carnegie Corporation of New York (2010 , Lee, Spratley) Reading in the Disciplines: The Challenge of Adolescent Literacy http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/tta_Lee.pdf

1. Research/Policy reports documenting a “crisis” in adolescent literacy exaggerate the data

Adolescents read no worse now than 30 years ago and, overall, adolescents meet the demands in higher education and workplace

The dire economic and social consequences of adolescent “illiteracy” cannot be documented as a cause, since social and economic factors are predictive of low literacy levels of adolescents

Assertions Grounded in Research Data

2. However, adolescent literacy pedagogy does call for more sophisticated assessments, interventions and strategies in classrooms, schools, and districts

3. The “infusion” model of content area reading has proven ineffective after about 30 years of research and implementation (e.g., telling every teacher that they are “teachers of reading” and giving them strategies does not work)

4. Research/policy reports have recommended skills and strategies instruction as the solution to adolescents literacy problems, yet . . .

Adolescents’ perceptions of their competence may be a more important predictor of whether they will engage with difficult texts across the disciplines than their past reading performance (Alvermann, 2001; Anderman et al., 2001; Bean, 2000; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000)

5. Struggling adolescent readers have disengaged from reading and choosing to read early in their academic careers and are unlikely to re-engage with strategies instruction alone (Alvermann, 2001; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Jetton & Dole, 2004; RAND Study Group, 2002). Clearly. . .

Strategies instruction has rarely provided enough explicit instruction with guided practice, and independent practice with monitoring, to ensure that students can read strategically (Dole, 2003; Duffy, 2003, Palinscar, 2003)

6. Adolescents respond best to complex demands of reading across the disciplines when they are interested, have appropriate strategies, and can use multiple forms of print text and media to engage with content, yet. . .

Most students don’t expect to learn important concepts from reading, and teachers, who also don’t expect students to engage with texts, talk around the texts (20 years of research, using a range of research methods: e.g., Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Wade & Moje, 2000; O’Brien, Moje, & Stewart, 2001)

Most instruction in school is still traditionally organized around single print texts, such as textbooks, with little student choice (e.g. RAND Reading Study Group, 2002)

7. Adolescents who struggle with reading in middle/secondary schools (depending on data and definition, possibly 50% of students in high schools) in subject area classrooms are positioned as lacking in requisite skills unable to engage in and strategies needed to

succeed in their content classrooms, yet. . .

These adolescents seldom receive culturally, linguistically, and academically responsive instruction, and such instruction is seldom embedded in the regular curriculum (Moore & Hinchman, 2003; Moje & O’Brien, 2001; ) and instruction is seldom tailored to their range of abilities with a range of texts and tasks

8. Adolescents’ are interested in media texts and digital media (e.g., the internet, chat, video, digital music, media authoring tools) and there is evidence that these media texts can be used to engage them with print literacy (e.g., Alvermann, 2001, Lankshear & Nobel, 2003; Semali & Pailliotet, 1999), yet. . .

Most of the texts they encounter in school are print texts in traditional formats (textbooks, worksheets, handouts)

9. There are sets of skills and strategies “best practices,” offered in national reports as a definitive solution to adolescents’ achievement and engagement--yet. . .

The research leads to little consensus on which practices are most likely to produce an understanding of content area materials (RAND Reading Study Group)

10. We have only a partial research base and we have not adequately synthesized research in a coherent national research agenda to have more definitive answers about how to improve adolescents’ literacy achievement and engagement (RAND Study Group, 2002; Sweet & Snow, 2003)

– what is effective comprehension instruction– and which classroom factors best promote

comprehension

Most adolescents, by the time they reach high school, do not read nearly as well as they could because we, as teachers, neither require them to nor tie key curricular tasks to deep or critical reading and writing

We fail to support students’ much needed practice with disciplinary texts and academic language because we falsely assume that they know how to read (and write) after 4th grade

We fail to expose our students to engaged, purposeful reading of a range of genres of texts across the disciplines

We are good at teaching strategies but fail to provide students practice in using a range of strategies across the curriculum to meet curricular goals

We lack the knowledge and know-how or are afraid to engage adolescents with the multimodal affordances of new media and digital literacies practices they often use outside of school

O’Brien’s Advice: A Brief Synthesis of all Other Syntheses

Contrasting Roles of Text: Mr Keating and Helton

Making Meaning: Accessing Content

Content Literacy: From Process to Strategies



What processes do students need

• To engage in reading to understand texts

• To meet your goals for a lesson or unit

• To meet their own goals

2. How do you promote the processes students need?

• to access and understand a range of text varieties

• text varieties

• text structures

• Text levels in relation to reader ability

Process before strategies!

Different levels of understanding

Reading with purpose

Reading with self-efficacy


Process before strategies!

Different levels of understanding

Reading with purpose

Reading with self-efficacy and self-regulation

Goals determine process


Pickett’s ChargeThe target of the Confederate assault was the center of the Union Army of

the Potomac's II Corps under Maj. Gen. Winfield S. Hancock. Directly in the center was the division of Maj. Gen. John Gibbon with the brigades of Brig. Gen. William Harrow, Col. Norman J. Hall, and Brig. Gen. Alexander S. Webb. To the north of this position were brigades from the division of Brig. Gen. Alexander Hays and to the south was Maj. Gen. Abner Doubleday's division of the I Corps, including the Vermont Brigade of Brig. Gen. George J. Stannard. General Meade's headquarters were just behind the II Corps line, in the small house owned by the widow Lydia Leister.

From the beginning of the planning, things went awry for the Confederates. While Pickett's division had not been used yet at Gettysburg, A.P. Hill's health became an issue and he did not participate in selecting which troops of his were to be used for the charge. Some of Hill's corps had fought lightly on July 1 and not at all on July 2. However, troops that had done heavy fighting on July 1 ended up making the charge.Although the assault is known to popular history as Pickett's Charge, overall command was given to James Longstreet, and Pickett was one of his divisional commanders. Lee did tell Longstreet that Pickett's fresh division should lead the assault, so the name is appropriate, although some recent historians have used the name Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Assault (or, less frequently, Longstreet's Assault) to more fairly distribute the credit (or blame). With Hill sidelined, Pettigrew's and Trimble's divisions were delegated to Longstreet's authority as well. Thus, General Pickett's name has been lent to a charge in which he commanded about one third of the men and was under the supervision of his corps commander throughout. Pickett's men were almost exclusively from Virginia, with the other divisions consisting of North Carolinians, Mississippians, Alabamans, and Tennesseeans. The supporting troops under Wilcox and Lang were from Alabama and Florida.


Goals/Purposes for ReadingRead to recall who the primary military

leaders were on both the Confederate and Union sides

Read critically so that you can offer an explanation for why the assault went awry

Read to formulate two explanations for why the charge was called “Pickett’s charge”


Process: Reading with self-efficacy and self regulation

You know when you are understanding

You know when you are not understanding

You know what to do when you are not understanding

You feel competent about knowing what to do to meet your goals and purposes and confident that you can understand challenging texts!!

Teacher-directed text-based strategiesIndependently employed strategies

Monitoring

Self-Efficacy and Self- Regulation



Question Answering and Question Generation

Constructing, posing, and answering questions related to text is a powerful key to comprehension

Engaging in questioning helps teachers construct critical reading goals for students

Engaging in questioning guides students’ reading at multiple levels and builds student competence


Summarizing and Synthesis

Summarizing taps gist-level understanding, which is a key comprehension component

Gist-level syntheses helps students distinguish between importance levels—e.g., main points, supporting details

Contrary to popular belief (and standards statements) finding the main idea is often not possible, but synthesizing it is almost always possible


Comprehension Monitoring

“Online” processes attend to whether a text is making sense or not

Always tied to a goal and purpose: “Am I reading to find out why Pickett’s charge failed?” Do I know who the key military leaders were in the battle?”

Always tied to “fix-up” strategies: Teacher directed, text based, independently employed.


Use a Combination of Processes

Focus on critical reading and deep understanding

Always tied to a goal and purpose: Read to evaluate the authors purpose, to draw conclusions, to compare perspectives across texts, to understand key concepts

Always tied to combinations of strategies: “to evaluate, I need to summarize the two perspectives, then compare them. To draw conclusions, I need to synthesize the main points in each section, then make inferences about them.



What ARE Strategies?

Strategies are PLANS for helping students engage in processes to access texts

Instructional Strategies are plans you direct (explicit instruction) with students while they read with your support

Independent Strategies are plans students have for accessing texts on their own

Text-based strategies can be used as part of instruction or part of independent reading


Secondary Literacy

Programs

Comprehensive

Assessment

Developmental Programs

Content Reading and

Academic Literacy Support

Support for Struggling

Readers

O’Brien/UMN/2009

Assessment: General Screen(Reading subtests

of MCAs or Other School wide Assessments)

Reading DiagnosticGroup Administered

(Stanford Diagnostic; Gates MacGinitie)

Content Literacy Group Administered: Content reading ability; domain

knowledge (Content Reading Inventories; Authentic classroom

assessments )

Look for differences in patterns in subcomponent processes

(decoding, fluency and compare with

comprehension)

Look for instructional levels across content areas—compare comp and

vocabulary with reading diagnostic tests to confirm proficiency

Individually Administered Diagnostic Assessments (Woodcock-Johnson, IRIs leading to classification of struggling readers (“garden variety”; specific LD,

non L.D. with socio-cultural issues)

O’Brien/UMN/2009

Word level intervention, plus

fluency and comprehension

Comprehension intervention,

including fluency

Comprehension intervention,

focus on strategic reading

Comprehensive Secondary School Wide Programs


Content Reading and Academic Literacy

Support

Support for Struggling Readers

English/Language Arts or Developmental

Reading Classes

Motivation and Engagement Component

Wide range of Accessible Print and

Media Texts

Culturally, linguistically, academically

responsive instruction

O’Brien/UMN/2009

Comprehensive Secondary School Wide

Programs

Developmental ProgramsContent Reading and


Support for Struggling Readers

Academic Literacy Support in Content

Classrooms

Literacy Apprenticeship Freshman Academies

Teacher Learning Communities with Literacy Agenda

Secondary Literacy Coaches

Integration of Motivation and Strategies

Support for ELLs

O’Brien/UMN/2009

Comprehensive Secondary School Wide

Programs


Content Reading and


Support for Struggling

Readers

Specific Interventions

Tied to Assessments

Content Classroom Support

Word Level Fluency Comprehension Strategies

Academic Apprenticeshi

pMotivation

Accessible Texts

O’Brien/UMN/2009

Tests as Genres:

NAEP released items in reading: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/search.aspx?subject=reading

MCA II item sampler: http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Accountability_Programs/Assessment_and_Testing/Assessments/MCA/Samplers/index.html

Documents

David G. O’Brien University of Minnesota, Twin Cities February 22, 2011 dobrien