This article emphasizes that a key element in reading science appears to be personalized read alouds. Yet even in the best of circumstances teachers can only read aloud so much in one day, and their kids can only absorb so much in one reading. So why not use today's technology to leverage this important part of the school curriculum? My iOS app Read Me A Story was built for this challenge. But it needs educators to try it out in real life. I would love to hear about any leads or ideas from the Minding the Gap community. Jon
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your post and the links included. As a retired educational psychologist who focused on cognition, reading comprehension and motivation I am heartened by the direction of the educators associate with the Science of Reading initiatives. My great fear, having looked over the various curricula included in the materials linked to your post, is that there are growing forces hopping to crush initiatives such as this before they become too strong to be stopped. One example of the forces in opposition would be the governor of Florida and the quest to prevent the teaching of topics related to race or LGBTQ issues, and the elimination of books for school libraries and classrooms. While such efforts may be seen by many as targeting people of color or the LGBTQ community, it is hard to not view the constraints on teachable topics and allowable books as a broader attack on the ability of children to encounter topics they will find engaging, which in turn will limit their knowledge of the world, vocabulary and reading comprehension abilities. It is an affront to those most in need of school-based knowledge development and support for simply being different. My daughters often tell me, "dad, not everything is political." While I am sure that is true, I believe it is also true that many things are political, more so than most of us realize. Advancing the science of reading is one of those things that will take appropriate guided actions at multiple levels: guidance in classrooms, buildings, and districts, but also political action directed at school boards and city, state and federal government. Failing a multi-pronged attack I fear this might be another educational innovation lost in the passage of time.
"Evidence indicates that a different kind of professional learning works much better: ongoing support, such as coaching, that is grounded in the specifics of whatever curriculum a school is using."
I have been reading articles and watching webinars with recommendations about PD that caution against stopping with teacher 'knowledge building' and making sure to embed a coaching model as part of professional development. I have even seen statistics that show that without the latter, most of the knowledge never makes its way into lessons that benefit students. However, if other districts are like mine, leaders either don't have the money or the mindset or the methods (or all three) to make PD stick. And this is an enormous obstacle to systemic change.
This article emphasizes that a key element in reading science appears to be personalized read alouds. Yet even in the best of circumstances teachers can only read aloud so much in one day, and their kids can only absorb so much in one reading. So why not use today's technology to leverage this important part of the school curriculum? My iOS app Read Me A Story was built for this challenge. But it needs educators to try it out in real life. I would love to hear about any leads or ideas from the Minding the Gap community. Jon
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your post and the links included. As a retired educational psychologist who focused on cognition, reading comprehension and motivation I am heartened by the direction of the educators associate with the Science of Reading initiatives. My great fear, having looked over the various curricula included in the materials linked to your post, is that there are growing forces hopping to crush initiatives such as this before they become too strong to be stopped. One example of the forces in opposition would be the governor of Florida and the quest to prevent the teaching of topics related to race or LGBTQ issues, and the elimination of books for school libraries and classrooms. While such efforts may be seen by many as targeting people of color or the LGBTQ community, it is hard to not view the constraints on teachable topics and allowable books as a broader attack on the ability of children to encounter topics they will find engaging, which in turn will limit their knowledge of the world, vocabulary and reading comprehension abilities. It is an affront to those most in need of school-based knowledge development and support for simply being different. My daughters often tell me, "dad, not everything is political." While I am sure that is true, I believe it is also true that many things are political, more so than most of us realize. Advancing the science of reading is one of those things that will take appropriate guided actions at multiple levels: guidance in classrooms, buildings, and districts, but also political action directed at school boards and city, state and federal government. Failing a multi-pronged attack I fear this might be another educational innovation lost in the passage of time.
"Evidence indicates that a different kind of professional learning works much better: ongoing support, such as coaching, that is grounded in the specifics of whatever curriculum a school is using."
I have been reading articles and watching webinars with recommendations about PD that caution against stopping with teacher 'knowledge building' and making sure to embed a coaching model as part of professional development. I have even seen statistics that show that without the latter, most of the knowledge never makes its way into lessons that benefit students. However, if other districts are like mine, leaders either don't have the money or the mindset or the methods (or all three) to make PD stick. And this is an enormous obstacle to systemic change.