The Right to Be Literate by Solution Tree

“This book is professional development at your fingertips! These strategies can be used by teachers for all students at any grade or socioeconomic level. Brian Pete and Robin Fogarty have again shown us that every student can think deeply to succeed!” — Patti Jarabek, Instructor, World Languages, University at Albany SUNY, University in the High School Program, New York “Drawing on current research, Robin Fogarty and Brian Pete guide teachers through an input-output framework of integrated teaching strategies that engage students in deep, critical thinking through both receptive and expressive language. An enjoyable and informative read with activities to put to use in the classroom today!” — Suzy Quiles, Literacy Specialist and Supervisor of Language Arts, Manalapan-Englishtown Regional Schools, New Jersey

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE

“The Right to Be Literate is a must-read for all educators, as it provides a concise and user-friendly framework for literacy in response to the ever-changing world, its technologies, and its challenges.” — Anthony Brazouski, Executive Director of Academic Achievement, Whitnall School District, Greenfield, Wisconsin

The Right to Be Literate: 6 Essential Literacy Skills by Brian M. Pete and Robin J. Fogarty presents K–12 teachers and administrators with research-based support and standardsaligned strategies to develop the literacy skills students will need to think critically and communicate collaboratively in the 21st century. With the book’s guidance, educators can lead all students, no matter their circumstances, to grow in literacy and mindfulness. Readers will: • Explore elementary-, middle-, and secondary-level examples for each strategy • Contemplate standards-based strategies and the thinking skills they target • Answer study discussion questions and review literacy strategies to use in a professional learning community • Consider what parents can do to support students’ literacy skills

solution-tree.com

Pete • Fogarty

• Learn about receptive language and expressive language

Copyright ÂŠ 2015 by Solution Tree Press All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction of this book in whole or in part in any form. 555 North Morton Street Bloomington, IN 47404 800.733.6786 (toll free) / 812.336.7700 FAX: 812.336.7790 email: info@solution-tree.com solution-tree.com Printed in the United States of America 19 18 17 16 15

1 2 3 4 5

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Pete, Brian M. The right to be literate : 6 essential literacy skills / by Brian M. Pete and Robin J. Fogarty. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-936763-79-5 (perfect bound) 1. Literacy--United States. 2. Reading--United States. I. Fogarty, Robin. II. Title. LC151.P478 2015 302.2â&#x20AC;&#x2122;244--dc23 2015016536 Solution Tree Jeffrey C. Jones, CEO Edmund M. Ackerman, President Solution Tree Press President: Douglas M. Rife Associate Acquisitions Editor: Kari Gillesse Editorial Director: Lesley Bolton Managing Production Editor: Caroline Weiss Production Editor: Rachel Rosolina Text Designer: Rian Anderson Cover Designer and Compositor: Rachel Smith

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Introduction: Receptive and Expressive Language. . . . . . . . . . . 1 Logic and Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A Note From the Authors: A Standard Is a Standard Is a Standard! . . . . . . . . . . 4 Chapter Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter 1: Read Fast: Read With Reason and Purpose. . . . . . . 7 Expanded Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Close Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Standards-Based Reading Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Echo Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Bluetooth Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Pair-Share Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Readerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Theater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Choral Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter 2: Write Well: Write Every Day in Every Way. . . . . . . 25 The Bookends Writing Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 vii

viii

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE

Beginning Bookend. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Between the Bookends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Closing Bookend. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Types of Writing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Standards-Based Writing Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 One-Minute Write . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Mediated Journal Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Edit Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Feedback With Rigor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Color-Coded Rewrite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Formative Assessments: Reading and Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Routine Formative Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Reflective Formative Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Rigorous Formative Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Parental Involvement: Reading and Writing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Chapter 3: Listen Hard: Hear What Is Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Principles of Cooperative Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Task Complexity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Defined Roles and Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Relevant Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

PACTS Cues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Standards-Based Listening Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 The 2-4-8 Focus Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 The AB Pyramid Game. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Five Minutes of Metacognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Serve and Volley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Debate Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Chapter 4: Speak True: Say What You Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 The Power of Speech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Standards-Based Speaking Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 The Elevator Pitch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Panel of Experts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table of Contentsďťż

The Three Musketeers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Cooperative Tear Share. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 People Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Formative Assessments: Listening and Speaking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Routine Formative Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Reflective Formative Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Rigorous Formative Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Parental Involvement: Listening and Speaking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chapter 5: View Always: Picture It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 The Screen Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Standards-Based Viewing Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Hanging Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Below the Cloud. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 YouScreen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Graphic Mania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Collegial Theater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Chapter 6: Represent Often: Show, Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Tell. . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Standards-Based Representing Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Do It Yourself. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Digimatic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Real to Reel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 On the Move . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Klever Kid Flicks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Formative Assessments: Viewing and Representing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Routine Formative Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Reflective Formative Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Rigorous Formative Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Parental Involvement: Viewing and Representing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Afterword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Thinking Skills and Acronym Tools for Each Area of Student Proficiency . . . 131

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE

Appendix: Strategies to Use in a Professional Learning Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Standards-Based Reading and Writing Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Study Discussion Questions for a PLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Standards-Based Listening and Speaking Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Study Discussion Questions for a PLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Standards-Based Viewing and Representing Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Study Discussion Questions for a PLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

About the Authors

Brian M. Pete comes from a family of educators—college professors, school superintendents, teachers, and teachers of teachers. He has a rich background in professional development and has worked with adult learners in districts and educational agencies throughout the United States, Europe, Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. He has an eye for the teachable moment and the words to describe skillful teaching. He delivers dynamic, humorfilled sessions that energize the audiences with engaging strategies that transfer into immediate and practical onsite applications. Brian is coauthor of How to Teach Thinking Skills Within the Common Core, From Staff Room to Classroom: A Guide for Planning and Coaching Professional Development, From Staff Room to Classroom II: The One-Minute Professional Development Planner, Twelve Brain Principles That Make the Difference, Supporting Differentiated Instruction: A Professional Learning Communities Approach, The Adult Learner: Some Things We Know, A Look at Transfer: Seven Strategies That Work, and School Leader’s Guide to the Common Core. Brian earned a bachelor of science from DePaul University in Chicago and is pursuing a master’s in fiction writing from Columbia College Chicago. To learn more about Brian’s work, visit www.robinfogarty.expert or www.robinfogarty.com or follow @brianpete on Twitter.

xii

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE

Robin J. Fogarty, PhD, has trained educators throughout the world in curriculum, instruction, and assessment strategies. She has taught at all levels, from kindergarten to college, served as an administrator, and consulted with state departments and ministries of education in the United States, Puerto Rico, Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Great Britain, Singapore, Korea, and the Netherlands. Robin has written articles for Educational Leadership, Phi Delta Kappan, and the Journal of Staff Development. She is author of Brain-Compatible Classrooms, 10 Things New Teachers Need to Succeed, and Literacy Matters: Strategies Every Teacher Can Use. She is coauthor of How to Integrate the Curricula, The Adult Learner: Some Things We Know, A Look at Transfer: Seven Strategies That Work, Close the Achievement Gap: Simple Strategies That Work, Twelve Brain Principles That Make the Difference, Nine Best Practices That Make the Difference, Informative Assessment: When It’s Not About a Grade, and Supporting Differentiated Instruction: A Professional Learning Communities Approach. Her work also includes a leadership series titled From Staff Room to Classroom I and II and School Leader’s Guide to the Common Core. Robin earned a doctorate in curriculum and human resource development from Loyola University Chicago, a master’s in instructional strategies from National-Louis University, and a bachelor’s in early childhood education from the State University of New York at Potsdam. To learn more about Robin’s work, visit www.robinfogarty.expert or www.robinfogarty .com or follow @robinfogarty or @RFATeachPD on Twitter. To book Brian M. Pete or Robin J. Fogarty for professional development, contact pd@solution-tree.com.

Preface

If literacy consists of processing codified text as a way to communicate via reading, writing, listening, speaking, and viewing and representing, then 21st century literacy is literacy on steroids. In a world where the sheer volume of text is overwhelming and the speed of communications and digital interactions is blinding, 21st century literacy is about how students learn to process this avalanche of information, not just for edutainment but also for honing their academic literacy skills in all content areas. They must learn to think, question the author, wonder about a confusing statement, hypothesize why the author has taken a specific stance, draw inferences about tonality and mood, and appreciate good literature in all its forms. Twenty-first century literacy is the expansive scope that takes a close look at the roles language and literacy play in our world. And the “right to be literate” implies that students will be able to participate fully in these endeavors as contributing members of an educated and literate society. In this predominantly digital century—less than 1 percent of information currently generated is on paper (Sasseen, Olmstead, & Mitchell, 2013)—students are actually doing much more with literacy tools than ever before. The amount of time they spend watching television and videos and playing on the Internet, all while processing information critically, creatively, and comprehensively, is remarkable. Students aged eight to eighteen spend seven hours a day behind a screen of some sort, sending 3,417 text messages a month. They use, consume, and produce twenty billion photos on Instagram and upload 350,000 photos each day on Facebook (Lella & Lipsman, 2014). Students might actually be more literacy savvy than ever before. Yet, their literacy experiences look dramatically different than those of their teachers or parents. They are not likely to be sprawled on the overstuffed chair reading a book, nor are they sitting at a desk, writing a letter to Grandma. Rather, 21st century students are most xiii

xiv

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE

likely to be huddled together over a digital device, viewing the latest YouTube video, walking while texting, or tweeting their friends in a never-ending stream of abbreviated and tween-coded communications. However, positioned obscurely alongside this digital phenomenon is the daunting, yet undeniable, socioeconomic effect of these changes. The call for an equal opportunity to be literate brings to light the lopsided, polarizing forces that inhibit opportunities for all students to become competent, proficient, and literate young people in a digital world. For further confirmation of the inequities in the U.S. education system, see Alfie Kohn’s (2011) article “How Education Reform Traps Poor Children.” (Visit go.solution-tree.com/literacy for a link to this article.) Luis Machado, former Venezuelan minister of intelligence, published his seminal book The Right to Be Intelligent in 1980. He addressed theories of modification of intelligence, stating that people are not born with an IQ number that represents a fixed intelligence. Rather, he believed that people’s intelligences change as they learn within an environment that nurtures what nature has provided. Our title is inspired by Machado’s book and the passion of its message. Every child has the right and the capacity to be intelligent, just as every child has the right and capacity to be literate! This is not a rite of passage secured for the prosperous and privileged. It is a promise and a pledge for all children in U.S. schools, privileged or poor. So why can’t we teach all students to read and write, to speak and listen, and to master the skills of the truly literate person? If literacy is really our priority, then there is no logical, rational, or plausible reason why all students cannot attain these most basic, foundational goals. Sue Duncan, founder and head teacher of the Sue Duncan Children’s Center, says it best: “I have never found a child I could not teach to read” (as cited in Kolb, 2014). Her words signal the determination and commitment of dedicated teachers across the United States. It is an unrelenting journey of labor and love to move all students, regardless of their station in life, toward literacy success. As the implementation of literacy standards continues, the need for highly engaging, standards-based instructional strategies are needed now more than ever before. Upon further examination of this uneven literacy landscape, we find reasons that tend to perpetuate this dilemma. For instance, while every student has a right to be literate, not all teachers are trained as reading teachers. Similarly, elementary teaching certifications require what are traditionally considered the language arts courses, rich in skills of reading, writing, speaking, and listening, while middle and secondary coursework often focuses on the specific subject matter of the degree program. However, recent and emerging standards present literacy as the premiere skill across all subject matters, content areas, disciplines, domains, and grade levels. In effect, these standard frameworks call on every teacher to be a teacher of literacy,

Preface

including the middle and high school department teams. Grounded in this overriding belief that the skills of literacy are tools that thread through every academic and life endeavor, all teachers should be expected to explicitly advocate, support, and reinforce the foundational communication and collaboration skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking, as well as the 21st century skills of viewing and representing. There is no argument that change is occurring or that literacy skills are critical in every field of study. Therefore, an explicit focus must fall on these areas of expertise as well as on the discipline-specific content of the course. As Kâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;12 teachers accept their new role in growing the communication and collaboration skills of their students, the eventual impact will be one of an expanded society of literate and confident citizens. Constant and varied reinforcement of literacy skills across content areas deepens student effectiveness with literacy in all its forms and provides levels of proficiency that become permanent tools for a lifetime of effective communication and productive collaborations.

Introduction

Receptive and Expressive Language The right to be literate, the unequivocal what of this book, comprises six comprehensive skill areas: reading widely, in all the many formats; writing to communicate clearly; listening to garner other perspectives; speaking with confidence and presence; viewing intently in the digital age of computer screens of all sizes and shapes; and representing ideas graphically through the powerful medium of visual literacy. The big-picture vision of language is, above all else, about communication. It’s about the back and forth of receptive and expressive language. Receptive language consists of three critical skill areas—(1) reading, (2) listening, and (3) viewing. Expressive language includes the three complementary skill sets—(1) writing, (2) speaking, and (3) representing—as shown in table I.1. Receptive skills are ways learners gather information, discover ideas, and take in the thoughts of others. Expressive skills, on the other hand, are the exact opposite. They are modes used to communicate the learners’ own ideas to others, and they encompass the sense of audience that permeates discussions of student work.

Table I.1: Receptive and Expressive Language Input: Receptive Language

Output: Expressive Language

• Reading/Deciphering

• Writing/Composing

• Listening/Hearing

• Speaking/Articulating

• Viewing/Visualizing

• Representing/Symbolizing

While each of these areas is fully discussed in dedicated chapters, a quick glance here sets the stage for deeper analysis. 1

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE

Moving along the developmental spectrum of language skills, when learners are reading-ready, they begin experiencing reading input from many realms: from stories read to them, from pointing to words they recognize and can say, from consolidating the listening, and from speaking about these earliest reading episodes. Likewise, the skills of writing output emerge over time, beginning with scribbles, drawings, and some indecipherable pictures. Then, as more formal exercises are introduced, students begin to actually write, moving from words and sentences to phrases and paragraphs. Listening input is a modality developed at birth as infants respond to the sounds of language. Soon, their speaking skill kicks in, and they begin babbling and yammering, which eventually transforms into a distinguishable speaking output, consisting of words, phrases, and sentences. Thus, the yin and yang of listening and speaking begin to connect. Viewing input begins early as well, similar to listening input. As soon as infants’ eyes can focus, they are privy to the colors, shapes, shadows, and images around them, both in the real world and in the virtual world of our screen age. Representing output grows from this stage. Consider a toddler pushing objects into abstract arrangements and naming her creation, saying “hat” as she points to it with gleeful squeals. Thus, our vision is to provide all teachers with explicit research-based evidence and with active, engaging learning strategies focused on these inputs and outputs of literacy instruction. The strategies included in this book are also aligned to all standards and help students think with logic and reason.

Logic and Reasoning The brain/mind connection, that inextricable link between literacy learning and thinking, is a critical part of a student’s right to be literate. The basis of all literacy skills is knowing the how, the what, and the why, and fortunately, such thinking is what the brain is wired to do (Sylwester, 1995). In fact, the brain/mind connection is what allows humans to think broadly, deeply, and divergently, as well as think in more convergent ways for focused, targeted thinking. Students may not all read confidently or write swiftly at grade level, but they have a range of abilities to think, reason, problem solve, draw conclusions, and make sense of things at their developmental level for the various stages of schooling. If you doubt this, consider the following story: A fifth grader noticed that all of his teachers were giving skilland-drill test prep worksheets. He asked, “When are we gonna meet this teacher?”

Receptive and Expressive Language When asked what he was talking about, the student reasoned that it seemed like all the teachers were working together on these sheets, and that one of them was doing most of the work. As he pointed to the corner of one sheet, he explained, “Look here, his name is on most of the sheets: Ed Leader. I’d like to meet him.”

It would be easy to simply correct this misconception, but better still, giving coaching feedback to this fifth grader about the logic and reasoning exhibited by his observation and conclusion would strengthen his confidence as a good thinker. In fact, upon closer analysis, there is clearly abundant evidence of thinking and reasoning on his part. He does all of the following: • Determine: A pattern of all teachers and test prep skill-and-drill sheets • Associate: Source and author in many instances is Ed Leader • Hypothesize: Teachers must be working together • Infer: One (Ed Leader) is doing most of the work • Justify: He sees the name on many sheets • Inquire: Student-initiated question To become close observers of rigor and thinking in the classroom, this is the kind of analysis that allows teachers to give students valid coaching and feedback about their reasoning skills and their ability to think well, which is the exact message from the Common Core State Standards and Partnership for 21st Century Skills (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGA] & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010a; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, n.d.). If the consensus across sets of standards is that higher-order thinking is critical to student success, it makes sense to explicitly teach students how to think. Even though many states are designing their own standards, most are still more than 85 percent Common Core. Thus, the research on thinking skills that dominates the Common Core is still as valid and as applicable. To further this conversation, we’ve included a list of thinking skills in the back of the book. These thinking skills align to each standards-based strategy as noted at the end of the chapter. This is not to say that each strategy only addresses these individual thinking skills. Rich, multifaceted instructional strategies can be customized to address a variety of thinking skills. All standards guide learning, and all thinking skills foster rigor in thinking. Using these tools, teachers can pave the way for all students to be literate, mindful, and contributing members of society.

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE

A Note From the Authors: A Standard Is a Standard Is a Standard! The material in this section is adapted from Pete and Fogarty (2015).

With apologies to Gertrude Stein, a standard is a standard is a standard. A standard doesn’t have a point of view. It is a framework that provides guidance for the academic program. Regardless of which state standards are guiding principles for your curriculum, and regardless of the grade or disciplinary areas in the curriculum, teachers have to decide what strategies to use to address the process and content standards. The implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)—which fortyfive states, Washington, DC, and three territories originally adopted between 2010 and 2011—is not going as smoothly as the designers had planned. The political climate has clouded the public’s perception of the national standards, and in debates in state legislatures, the CCSS are being labeled a “federal overreach” (Layton, 2014). There has been a pushback from organizations representing parents (Porter, 2014), and the opinion of classroom teachers about the balance of rigorous standards and high-stakes testing has been very clear and consistent (Lyons, 2014). In addition, the two federally funded organizations created to design tests aligned to the CCSS, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), have seen many states drop out of the consortium, citing high costs and concerns about effectiveness (Gewertz & Ujifusa, 2014). States that signed on to the Common Core State Standards accepted all of the standards verbatim. However, according to the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (2010b), states are “allowed to add an additional 15 percent on top of the core.” Because of this 15 percent rule, many states have their own set of state standards. For example, New York State (New York State Education Department, 2013) added standards primarily under the umbrella of Reading Literature Standards, which require readers to recognize and make cultural connections to the text and to themselves. Indiana and Massachusetts added standards (Indiana Department of Education, 2011; Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2015), including handwriting, to their Writing and Language anchor standards. Minnesota added an additional Speaking and Listening anchor standard on viewing, listening, and media literacy. Other states declined to participate in the Common Core. Virginia’s website, for example, states that the “Standards of Learning (SOL) for Virginia Public Schools establish minimum expectations for what students should know and be able to do

Receptive and Expressive Language

at the end of each grade or course in English, mathematics, science, history/social science and other subjects” (Virginia Department of Education, 2010). Texas also has its own standards, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). In a move that seems designed to solve a politics-versus-education problem, the Texas State Legislature passed a law prohibiting the state or local districts from using Common Core standards (Texas Education Agency, 2015). Despite these concerns, Randy Bomer, chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at University of Texas’s College of Education, told us that the state standards and the CCSS “are really similar in a lot of ways. They emphasize what they call college and career readiness. That tends to be an emphasis on non-fiction texts and writing about texts as opposed to writing about other kinds of topics, like life.” With this range of use in mind, as well as the 15 percent rule, classroom teachers concerned about standards-based instructional strategies can feel confident that regardless of what state they teach in, the ideas in this book are aligned to the standards in use, even if they don’t apply perfectly in every situation. To emphasize this point, Carol Ann Tomlinson (2012/2013) says that “standards are not dinner. They are ingredients” (pp. 90–91). Extending the metaphor, Tomlinson (2012/2013) states that educational standards are like the federal government’s food pyramid—the ideal. With the standards framework in place, the curriculum specifics that teachers decide on are like recipes, aligned to the standards, but different every day, every week, every semester. Similarly, if a chef takes the variety of ingredients in front of him, boils them in a pot, and serves them in a soup bowl every time, regardless of the rich variety of food available to him, it is reasonable to conclude that this chef might want to learn some new recipes. The same is true of teachers. They should be eager to work with fresh strategies that make literacy skills come alive.

Chapter Overview Both the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and the International Reading Association (IRA) list six language arts: reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing, and visually representing. Similarly, in certain provinces of Canada, these six literacy skills take precedence over the more traditional four. Thus, all six skills comprise the chapters of this book. When approaching this book, teachers can read straight through to glean information and insight about these strategies and how they provide sound learning experiences to develop literacy skills. Or they can choose to skim and scan the chapters for new strategies that will punctuate instruction. In either case, K–12 teachers focused on explicitly addressing the skills of literacy across the disciplines will find

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE

prompts for deep thinking and provocative ideas, as well as instructional nuggets to help motivate student reading and writing. Each pair of chapters covers literacy input and literacy output. For instance, chapters 1 and 2 highlight the two skills that epitomize schooled individuals—the ability to read and write. It is widely accepted that this duet of skills carries expectations for the foundation of school success (Allington & Gabriel, 2012; Graham & Hebert, 2010; Mackenzie & Hemmings, 2014). These chapters will refresh, replenish, and renew the depth of understanding of two of the literacy skills. Chapters 3 and 4 discuss listening and speaking in the context of both informal, casual conversations and formal, academic discourse. In turn, the natural connections to reading and writing are supported fully. Just as reading and listening are receptive literacy skills, writing and speaking are expressive language skills. Naturally, it makes perfect sense that these parallel skill pairs support, extend, and enhance one another. Finally, chapters 5 and 6 cover the literacy skills of viewing and representing. The skills of viewing and representing have always been a staple of classroom instruction, yet today’s world of electronic media raises the bar and puts this visual mode at a whole different level of importance in the hierarchy of digitized learning. Student eyes are glued to the screen. Television, computer, phone, tablet—it doesn’t matter what the device is or how large or small it is; it just matters that it is actively flickering during most of our waking hours. So, while these strategies are not confined to an electronic or online medium, that is where the most change has taken place since the turn of the 21st century. We’ve assigned three specific thinking skills to each set of strategies. Use the table (page 131) in the afterword to match these thinking skills with designated areas of student proficiency and acronym tools to get you started. In addition, the output chapter in each pair of chapters closes with assessment ideas and tips for parents. See the appendix (page 135) for strategies to use in a professional learning community.

Chapter 1

Kids, today, have to know how to read fast and write well. —Sandra Day O’Connor

Memory is the only evidence of learning (Sprenger, 1999), but literacy is the vehicle that carries that memory to the world. As such, evidence of learning is manifested in all forms of language and communication: in reading novels and narratives, in writing text and testaments, in sharing orations and lyrics, in presenting drama and documentaries, and in showing art and artistry. Guided by the standards, reading is comprised of constant elements from kindergarten to grade 12 under two umbrellas: (1) narrative texts, which includes poetry, drama, fiction, and lyrics; and (2) informational texts, which includes primary documents, articles, contracts, schedules, and timetables. According to research (NGA, 2013), the development of early reading consumes the better part of the instructional day in preK–2 classrooms. As students arrive in third grade, the emphasis on reading skills remains, but writing takes on a more prominent role in the curriculum. While this duet of skills becomes a prominent learning target throughout the rest of one’s school experience, subtle shifts occur. For instance, reading instruction traditionally focused on narrative text in the elementary level shifts to primarily informational text in middle and high school. Many states now call

Read Fast: Read With Reason and Purpose

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE

for more balance in narrative and informational text across grade levels to replace this earlier model (Alterio, 2012).

• “Achievement on literacy hasn’t risen for seventy years” (Joyce, 1999, p. 129). • “Literacy is vital to all subjects. Reciprocally, all subjects can enhance literacy” (Joyce, 1999, p. 129). • “Forty percent of all mathematics errors on state tests are reading errors” (Joyce, 1999, p. 129). • Reading in elementary schools is 90 percent narrative text. In high school, it’s 90 percent informational text. The change in the type of reading affects students’ scores (Barbara Taylor, personal communication, July 12, 2003). • Algebra 2 is the latest threshold course. The odds that a student will complete a bachelor’s degree more than doubles if that student takes algebra 2. The achievement gap will continue to grow unless more minority students participate in algebra 2 courses (ACT, 2010). • Reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills are needed in the workplace. Yet, speaking is the number one skill for getting a job. Speaking is often overlooked in the classroom prioritization, but it is a critical part of the job interview (Goo, 2015). • One in four children in the United States grow up without learning how to read (WriteExpress, 2014). • Students who don’t read proficiently by fourth grade are four times likelier than their proficiency reading peers to drop out of school (WriteExpress, 2014). • Fifty-three percent of fourth graders admit to reading recreationally “almost every day,” while only 20 percent of eighth graders say the same (WriteExpress, 2014).

In middle and high schools, staff too often turn their focus to the content, assuming that the students’ thinking and literacy processes are fully developed. Fortunately, the recognition that many students still need explicit instruction on literacy skills is realized in these new sets of state and federal standards, with more attention given to rigorous work with complex text and thinking processes across the disciplines. At the upper levels, teachers can successfully use their content to carry the continued development of these universal skills as long as they use more explicit instruction around the process skills applied in literacy tasks. After all, it’s the mission of teaching to ensure that every student enters the world of college and careers grounded in literacy skills because every student has the right to be literate. Yet, that mission is not as simple as it seems, and it is not always easily achieved, as the following data show.

Read Fast: Read With Reason and Purpose

• According to a study completed by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Institute of Literacy in 2013, at least 14 percent (thirty-two million) adults in the United States are unable to read (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad, 2002).

Expanded Reading Reading is a much more substantive and far-reaching skill than the simple ability to decode words for meaning. While critical reading and deep understanding are the ultimate goals for much of the reading students do in school, reading is always quite flexible, depending on a number of variables: the type of text, the purpose for reading, the time available, the skillfulness of the reader, and the diversity of the resources, both media (visual literacy) and text, as well as the familiarity and background of the reader (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a). For instance, Sandra Day O’Connor’s advice to read fast is sound; many times, the faster one reads, the more comprehension one has (Fox, 2010). Fast reading calls into play three interrelated skills for deep understanding: (1) vocabulary, (2) fluency, and (3) comprehension. Vocabulary is about lots of words and their meanings, while the skill of fluency is about flow, phrasing, expression, and diction. Finally, the undergirding skill of comprehension is about understanding what one has read by predicting, visualizing, making inferences, and reflecting on the passage. Of course, the other side of reading fast is that some genres are enhanced by a slower reading pace. Poetry, creative writing, and lyrics might dictate a more lingering pace for the pure pleasure of the words, while train schedules, contracts, legal papers, primary documents of historical significance, or Excel spreadsheets may require a more measured pace to absorb the intensity of the details in the text. Regardless of pace, the goal is the same: teach our students to read all genres so they are connected, informed, and educated. When reading is defined in its absolute broadest sense, such as reading a sheet of music or a painting, the concept of making meaning goes well beyond literacy as it is commonly known. (Visit go.solution-tree.com/literacy for a poem titled “Convention and Innovation” about the broad meaning of reading.) Yet, even with this extreme interpretation of reading, it becomes clear that all reading is for understanding. The deeper and more comprehensive one’s understanding, the more effective the response is to the reading. Thus, comprehension with deep understanding becomes the most fundamental outcome of the actual reading exercise; it is the overarching concern that links reading of all kinds, no matter the genre, no matter the pace.

These data tell educators that there is much to do to turn the literacy landscape around. Ideally, all students would not only be able to read, but would be able to read fast and with reason and purpose!

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE

Unfortunately, developing or struggling readers sometimes think reading is some kind of magical skill that others have and they don’t. Yet, the truth is, good readers read all the time, sometimes all day long. And the more they read, the better they become. For those who are still becoming good readers, however, there are specific skills that, when taught explicitly, help them develop coherent, competent, proficient reading abilities. Close reading, for instance, encompasses a number of such skills.

Reading critically has always been described as sophisticated, analytical comprehensive reading. However, a different term, close reading, has emerged as part of the new literacy standards (Shanahan, 2012). So what does close reading mean? How close do students need to read? How much of close reading is linked to text-dependent questions requiring scrutiny of the actual text to respond accurately? If students are to grasp close reading, defining the skill is a must (Peery, Wiggs, Piercy, Lassiter, & Cebelak, 2011). Close reading involves reading a passage with the analytical eye of a detective searching for the true meaning of the author’s actual words (Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2012). Close reading is reading with intensity, emphasis, and awareness of the impact of word choices, literary structures, purpose, perspective and point of view, tone, tenor, and sense of mission. To introduce rigorous close reading skills to students across the grades, we suggest using a process known as RSVP-E that guides students through a passage (Bellanca, Fogarty, Pete, & Stinson, 2013). • Reading Task: Read silently with focus, listen to the teacher read, read along with the teacher, reread for fluency and meaning • Structure Task: Unpack difficult sentences; talk about compound, complex, and confusing sentences; look at the author’s chosen syntax and format • Vocabulary Task: Note context clues, linger over text for deeper meaning, pay attention to word choice • Purpose Task: Determine the source as well as the author’s purpose, point of view, tone and tenor, validity and credibility, and perspective; read between the lines to understand the author’s intent • Expressive Task: Reread for evidence, discuss, paraphrase in writing, explain for clarity, write to understand

Close Reading

Read Fast: Read With Reason and Purpose

Thommie Piercy (2011) describes the process well: Close Reading is keeping your eyes on the text to read the content very carefully, paying attention to details. Being quite different from a summary or the big idea, close reading requires active thinking and analyzing of the content to make decisions. You can see how text-dependent, discipline-specific questions their text because they must cite evidence directly from the text. This is a skill that will remain one of the students’ most practical literacy skills throughout their college and careers. Few disciplines do not benefit from students’ close reading to achieve understanding. The majority of career paths depend on close reading to remain current in the particular field. For this reason, close reading is a skill that supports students’ comprehension in different disciplines. Elementary, Middle, and High School students benefit from the close reading of complex texts in different content areas. (p. 87)

Now let’s try a close reading of the Piercy quote. First is reading. Do so several times, and read for fluency and meaning. You can also differentiate the reading by trying one of these options: independent reading, read-aloud, buddy reading, echo reading, choral reading, round-robin reading, reader’s theater, or taped read-along. Second is structure. Try unpacking any difficult or complex sentences. Find evidence in the text on close reading that explains what “keeping your eyes on the text” means. Isn’t that the only way to read? What kind of decisions do readers make? Third is vocabulary. Note context clues and linger over the text for any deeper meanings. Why did the author choose the words “career paths”? What are “textdependent questions”? Give one new example of a text-dependent question using Piercy’s paragraph on close reading. Fourth is purpose. Determine the source. Look for the author’s purpose, point of view, and level of credibility. Is there anything being said between the lines? What is the author’s motivation and intent for writing about close reading? Last is the expressive task. Reread the passage for evidence of your previous conclusions. Discuss the text and try to paraphrase it in your own words for clarity. Explain how the author contrasts close reading to a summary or big idea.

support the need for students to incorporate close reading of

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE

Standards-Based Reading Strategies Some teachers wonder how to motivate the effort involved in close reading. To help, we present strategies to invite, involve, and motivate students across grade levels. These strategies are intended to build confidence for students so they catch the reading bug and become readers for academic success and, more importantly, for life.

The five standards-based reading strategies we present are grouped for partner work, small-group interactions, and whole-group involvement. 1. Echo Reading 2. Bluetooth Reading 3. Pair-Share Reading 4. Reader’s Theater Reading 5. Choral Reading Each strategy has a purpose and a benefit, and each addresses the multiple standards for reading from anchor standard one (“Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text”) to anchor standard ten (“Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently”) (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a).

Echo Reading Echo Reading is a specific format for pairs. It is really about one reader echoing the other. One reads, and his or her partner echoes the very same part of the reading. It can be a sentence, paragraph, or section that the partner repeats. The shorter the pieces, the more support there is for the echoing reader. Approaching a text sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph is best when working with struggling readers. The teacher or the student pairs may decide how they will address the text. The only rule is that they must alternate reading. Both partners are responsible for the cycle of reading, listening, and thinking as they complete the piece. Echo Reading

These active strategies engage K–12 students in the act of reading for meaning. Don’t be fooled by the fun or think these are too frivolous for the serious business of the classroom. They are not. Big kids and little kids alike, as well as learning adults, are easily drawn into the dynamics of these reading strategies, especially when tackling difficult and complex text. The hidden agenda is about motivation. How do teachers hook students to do multiple readings so they have a better understanding and can dig deeper into the actual meaning of what they are reading?

Read Fast: Read With Reason and Purpose

pairs can be assigned for the week, the semester, or the year, or they can be reorganized each class.

Echo Reading can use discipline-specific texts to reinforce vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Essentially, the partner configuration provides a social safety net. It is a scaffolding strategy that students at all levels seem to like—even those who read well, since they enjoy the process and know they, too, benefit from the dual input. After all, it’s a novel approach, and novelty excites the brain and heightens the learner’s attention. We’ve included three different grade-level examples—not to illustrate the kinds of texts that teachers should use but rather as suggestions for teachers to use as models for comprehension. Teachers already have sources from their curriculum that are just as appropriate, if not more so, because they tie into a unit of study already in the works. Elementary-Level Example Topic: Poetry

A fourth-grade teacher had students echo read the poems “Two Tree Toads” (Agee, 2009) and “Sarah Sylvia Cynthia Stout Would Not Take the Garbage Out” (Silverstein, 1974). A poem is often the perfect start for Echo Reading exercises with younger students. They are often short, contain rhyming words, and lend themselves to fluent and melodic oral readings. The students are only too happy to read these poems over and over again because they can be successful with this supportive activity. Again, it is a way of developing confident young readers who feel good about their reading skills. Middle-Level Example Topic: Photosynthesis

A seventh-grade science teacher chose the following paragraph for students to echo read. Photosynthesis is the chemical change that produces food. In photosynthesis, carbon dioxide gas and water are combined to

This strategy motivates students to want to read because it is like a game—students enjoy working together and supporting each other in the duet. The echo technique also helps developing readers, struggling readers, and students for whom English is a second language read complex text with fluency, pacing, phrasing, inflections, and expression. The echo enhances comprehension by providing both students with a chance to see, hear, and say the words.

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE produce sugar and oxygen. The sugar may be changed to starch. Sunlight is necessary for photosynthesis. It supplies the energy for chemical change. This energy becomes locked in the sugar and starch molecules that are produced. . . . The heart is the part of the circulatory system that pumps blood throughout the body. The heart is located in the center of the chest behind the for pumping because it is a hollow, cone-shaped, muscular organ about the size of a large fist. Being hollow, the heart can easily fill up with blood. Once filled, the heart muscle provides the power necessary for pumping tile blood through the body. (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985, p. 70)

This passage illustrates the benefits of using an informational text passage from content areas such as science, math, or social studies. Such passages often are filled with academic vocabulary that is difficult for some students to comprehend, even though they may know the words. Multiple readings generate the added advantages of a set pace, steady flow, and actual completion of the piece. Students are proud and feel capable when reading complex text with fluency and comprehension. In many textbooks, sections are followed with pertinent questions that trigger discussion toward accurate understanding of the concepts. Secondary-Level Example Topic: To Kill a Mockingbird

In a high school literature class, the teacher assigns her students the first chapter of To Kill a Mockingbird for their Echo Reading strategy. Using a chapter from a novel provides the broader context of the elements specific to that particular novel: setting, characters, plot, conflict, themes, resolution, and so on. This rich and repeating context affords students a familiarity with the novel and, in the process, enhances vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension opportunities. The thinking skills targeted during Echo Reading are analyze, clarify, and understand. For more detail, refer to table A.1, “Thinking Skills and Acronym Tools for Each Area of Student Proficiency” (page 131), in the afterword.

Bluetooth Reading The Bluetooth Reading strategy is based on a reading technique known as neurological impress (Flood, Lapp, & Fisher, 2005), which is often learned in a reading clinic setting. In this partner configuration, one reader—often the more fluent of the two—sits next to and slightly behind the other reader. The two read together—away

breast bone and between the lungs. The human heart is suited

Read Fast: Read With Reason and Purpose

Intermittently, the readers stop to paraphrase what they have read to ensure they are grasping the meaning of the written text. If they stumble over an idea, they can revisit that section and reread the part that is unclear. It can be used with science, social studies, or even math passages. In terms of real-world application, this strategy works especially well with English learners who can benefit from the supportive voice of a native speaker. Also, the concept of a Bluetooth device is somewhat familiar to young people. They know about Bluetooth earpieces and Bluetooth receptors on their computers, and it implies a tech-savviness that usually has a special appeal to students immersed in digital media. Elementary-Level Example Topic: Clocks

A class of fourth graders splits into pairs and scatters about the classroom. The teacher instructs them to read excerpts from the informational text About Time: A First Look at Time and Clocks (Koscielniak, 2004) during the Bluetooth Reading strategy. The teacher knows that for the more difficult academic language used predominantly in informational texts, the Bluetooth Reading strategy supports both of the readers with vocabulary context clues and, in this case, with key scientific concepts and phrases. It sometimes seems easier to entice students with narrative subject matter, yet when their interest is piqued by fascinating information, such as the origins of everyday clocks, they read with curiosity and motivation. Middle-Level Example Topic: First Amendment of the Constitution

While eighth-grade history students may have preconceived notions about the boring nature of the U.S. forefathers’ historical language in the First Amendment of the Constitution, their teacher decides that Bluetooth Reading can help lead them through the maze of stuffy and often tedious writing style. Again, experience tells us that the real fix with lackadaisical readers is getting them interested, involved, and into the text. Partner strategies have human motivation built in, because students generally like to talk to each other, as evidenced by their incessant chatter before and

from the rest of the class—with the stronger reader taking the lead by reading close to the partner’s ear. This partner reading models the clarity of sound that comes through a Bluetooth earpiece. In essence, the voice input carries the less-skilled reader along the lines of the text. Both readers use three modalities with this strategy. They are hearing, seeing, and saying the words—a triangulated input. The key to this strategy and what separates it from a simpler model of buddy reading is the direct voice input near the ear of the reader sitting in front.

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE

after class. With that and the building interest that grows as they get into a discussion of the text, students keep reading and may not even realize that they are genuinely curious about what comes next in the passage.

Secondary-Level Example Topic: Mathematics

A high school math class uses the Bluetooth Reading strategy to explore the Standard for Mathematical Practice 4: Model with mathematics (NGA & CCSSO, 2010c). The teacher wants her students to understand its purpose and application as well as its connection to the other seven practices that thread through the standards. This provides needed practice reading for tedious informational texts. Mathematically proficient students can apply the mathematics they know to solve problems arising in everyday life, society, and the workplace. In early grades, this might be as simple as writing an addition equation to describe a situation. In middle grades, a student might apply proportional reasoning to plan a school event or analyze a problem in the community. By high school, a student might use geometry to solve a design problem or use a function to describe how one quantity of interest depends on another. Mathematically proficient students who can apply what they know are comfortable making assumptions and approximations to simplify a complicated situation, realizing that these may need revision later. They are able to identify important quantities in a practical situation and map their relationships using such tools as diagrams, two-way tables, graphs, flowcharts, and formulas. They can analyze those relationships mathematically to draw conclusions. They routinely interpret their mathematical results in the context of the situation and reflect on whether the results make sense, possibly improving the model if it has not served its purpose. So, after students have completed the Bluetooth Reading exercise, they debrief their understanding with examples of how they might use this principle. The thinking skills targeted with Bluetooth Reading are analyze, clarify, and understand. For more detail, refer to table A.1, “Thinking Skills and Acronym Tools for Each Area of Student Proficiency” (page 131), in the afterword.

Pair-Share Reading While a teacher is working with an individual or with a small group in a direct instruction or guided reading session in an elementary or middle school classroom,

That is the exact purpose of this strategy. It gives students rewarding experiences in reading and small, step-by-step successes that lead to more positive attitudes about reading. This is particularly important for adolescents reluctant to read anything in the classroom and who instead rely on the teacher to say what the text is about.

Read Fast: Read With Reason and Purpose

the rest of the class can be split into designated pairs that read aloud quietly together. At the upper levels, partners might read silently or aloud and answer discussion questions together in a pair-share approach in which each partner offers a response and then the two synthesize the responses into a shared answer.

This is yet another strategy to provide practice with the fluency, pacing, expression, and phraseology needed to develop a smooth reading flow and to foster increased comprehension. In the world of literacy, words lead to fluency, and fluency leads to comprehension. The more vocabulary students know, the faster they read. The faster the pacing, the more focused the reading becomes. The more focused the reader, the easier and richer the comprehension and understanding become. Any time teachers can incorporate an active, collaborative, and engaging reading interaction, it freshens the rigor and routines of elementary students who are still learning to read well. It also enhances the work of older students who have the mechanics of reading down pat but are reading daily in various subject areas with various foci. These students are no longer learning to read; rather, they are reading to learn. As readings become more complex, it may be difficult to get older students to read text with long passages, few illustrations, sophisticated concepts, and difficult vocabulary. Of course, doing so is a requirement as students move into the middle and secondary grades. To shed some light on the challenge teachers have, it might be prudent to think about typical student experiences with reading. They are weaned on short texts for most communiqués. According to Kevan Lee (2014), “Tweets shorter than 100 characters get a 17% higher engagement rate.” Students are constantly flicking abbreviated messages and photos off to friends using a variety of apps. Under

Again, much like the echo or Bluetooth Reading strategies, partner work can be highly effective in K–12 classrooms when structured properly. Pair-Share Reading is equally effective with two English-speaking students or with one native English speaker and one second language learner. In the latter case, the configuration is referred to as translation partners and can be remarkably valuable for both students as they examine the text more carefully. It provides the needed motivation to do the reading, as students are not always that inclined to read on their own. They take forever to settle down and get started, and once they finally dig into the reading, they are easily distracted by the normal hum and movement of the classroom. Pair-share changes reading routines and elicits interest with a new energy from the students.

THE RIGHT TO BE LITERATE

solution-tree.com

Pete • Fogarty

• Learn about receptive language and expressive language