Blast from the Past: Over the past several weeks I've been contacted by educators interested in addressing the language needs of young children. This is great, but it is important to remember that we still lack direct evidence that improving young children's language enhances literacy. We think it does, and there is a lot of correlational evidence showing a connection between oral language development and later reading comprehension, but none of the studies that have examined interventions that improve language have yet shown consequent literacy improvements for first-language learners. Whether you dedicate specific time to oral language teaching or whether ...
Principal’s question: District leadership has advised primary teachers to focus on the Foundational Skills Strand, and de-emphasize the other strands. The belief is that if students go into Grade 3 having mastered foundational skills, they will be prepared to master the rigor of the other strands. As the principal, the message I'm considering sending is to teach all strands, closely monitoring foundational skills with DIBELS, immediately addressing gaps. Students who are meeting foundational skills standards may spend more time in other strands while those struggling get focused support in assessed areas of foundational skills difficulty. Does that sound reasonable? I'm concerned that de-emphasizing ...
We just started close reading in our district last year. Our second graders were given text that was a grade level above their reading level. We were told to let them figure it out. They could not even read the first sentence it was too hard for their reading level. The reading coaches said they will learn to read it by letting them struggle with it. The kids would become so upset and began to hate reading because of they were so frustrated at how the district was making us implement close reading. For it to be of any value ...
I am a classroom teacher (grade 3) and a follower of your blog. I also have an M.A. in Reading. Last year our new principal told us that our RtI students do not need to be in the classroom during grade level instruction. I strongly disagree. I think that these students benefit from scaffolded grade level instruction and benefit from the kind of thinking and reading the class is being asked to do during this time. Am I wrong to insist my students be in the room during regular reading instruction? If so, please set me straight. Dear Perplexed: The point of RtI is ...
Teacher’s Question: I have read a few articles and books by Daniel Willingham in the past, and I wonder if you are familiar with his work. I recently read an article (attached) about reading comprehension strategies and am curious to know what you think of his ideas. He says that focusing heavily on reading strategies isn’t really necessary. (I often question the need for so many reading strategies, particularly when they take away from reading being a pleasurable activity. I can understand the importance of visualizing, using prior knowledge, and maintaining focus, but teaching the other “strategies”, in my opinion, is confusing ...
Blast from the Past: This entry posted initially on July 10, 2016 and was reposted on June 18, 2022. This blog explores how to teach an aspect of reading comprehension that most teachers have no idea how to teach. It provides an example drawn from the Common Core standards. This might seem out of date since some states have withdrawn from those requirements (or were never part of them) – however, I did a quick check of the states that have made a big deal of not having CCSS standards… all of them (e.g., Florida, Texas, Virginia, Alaska, Nebraska, Arizona, ...
We in education tend to have very strong beliefs. And, those beliefs can overwhelm our knowledge—or even our willingness to gain knowledge. Last week’s entry here focused on teaching kids with more challenging texts than we’ve been told to use in the past. The reason for the change wasn’t some brilliant insight on my part, but a gradual accumulation of direct research evidence. Evidence that shows beyond beginning reading there is no benefit to controlling the difficulty of texts in the way that we have done—matching kids to books with various accuracy criteria. I certainly understand the suspicions of those who have ...
Blast from the Past: This entry posted on June 26, 2016, and was re-posted on January 31, 2018. Since this entry was first posted several states have backed out of their commitments to see that kids are taught to read more complex text than in the past. I certainly understand their fear of having to tell teachers that teaching children to read at "their levels" is not such a good idea for the kids. It makes teaching easier admittedly because it means you don't have to teach very much. But what is easier for the teacher is a rip off of ...
"Summertime and the living is easy, fish are jumping, and the cotton is high..." It is summer and not a good time for a long blog on literacy teaching. So, I took the time to write a short one. I didn't want to get worked up in the summer heat, so have provided a pithy critique of 5 popular myths about reading instruction. 1. No, the fact that you do not use a textbook to teach reading does not make you a good teacher. The idea that good teachers don’t follow a program and weak ones do has been around since ...
Think-Pair-Share in Reading Instruction: Is it Effective? Teacher Question: Our reading coach has encouraged all of our teachers to use a lot of the “think-pair-share” reading strategy. I’m an upper elementary grade teacher. Is “think-pair-share” research based? Shanahan responds: This seems like such a straightforward question, but it has been tying me in knots for days. It all depends on what you mean by “research based.” You might be asking me whether there is there any empirical evidence showing that if you use “think-pair-share” in your classroom your kids will end up with higher reading achievement by the end of the year. If that ...
Copyright © 2024 Shanahan on Literacy. All rights reserved. Web Development by Dog and Rooster, Inc.