What is missing? September 22, 2009

The findings of NRP were vague and ambiguous due to the limited range and number of studies included in NRP report, as well as due to unreliable analytical method. Program effectiveness and achievement seemed to be the words, to me, that represent the findings of NRP because the report is only based on intervention studies without considering the results from other types of studies. Heavily relying on NRP report, NCLB and Reading First seem to deal with educational issues with a functionalistic approach focusing on measurement, effectiveness, reform and intervention. Thus, NCLB and Reading First initiative seem to assume that a certain program can improve low level of reading ability among students ignoring students’ different social/cultural backgrounds, individual differences, and other various factors that affect students’ learning.  In addition, NCLB and Reading First initiative assume that children at the same age go through the same developmental stage regardless of their biological and psychological differences.

Both Stevens’s (2003) and Gerstl-Pepin and Woodside-Jiron’s articles seemed to show how the assumptions behind NCLB and Reading First initiative define readers and the roles of teachers. As for students, Gerstl-Pepin and Woodsid Jiron indicate that NCLB considers students with low reading scores as problematic ones who need intervention in order to fix the problems. The types of readers that NCLB expect students to be is well defined in the Reading First program, as an exemplary intervention program implemented in Laurel Ridge. According o Stevens, Reading First program prioritize decoding fluency over comprehension.  In addition, the program is based on the idea of linear model of reading development according to age which assumes that children’s reading development occur as expected developmental patterns.

As for teachers, Gerstl-Pepin and Woodside-Jiron indicate that NCLB minimize the roles of teachers and their expertise by not including teachers’ roles and by implicitly blaming teachers for school failure. Thus, the roles of teachers implied in Reading First program is to impose knowledge that the program expects students to learn and to follow passively the program directions  rather than to use teachers’ professional knowledge and experiences to develop lessons appropriate for their students.  

What made me sad is that NCLB and Reading First program position students as passive readers not as ones who actively negotiate meaning, interpret and criticize texts using their own experiences and knowledge. In addition, it positions students as mechanical readers who have automatic decoding fluency while completely ignoring affective aspects of readers – motivation, interests, and emotions that influence students’ choice of books, comprehending the texts, and their continuous engagement in further literacy practices. NCLB and Reading First program also positions teachers as passive follower of direction as ones who fail to solve students’ problems properly and effectively while ignoring teachers’ motivation to support students to become competent, engaged and critical readers like teachers in Laurel Ridge.  As Gerstl-Pepin and Woodside-Jiron imply, scientifically-based research may help educators understand children’s weaknesses and strengths in reading skills. However, they also indicate that scientifically-based research limit and minimize important components in reading development (e.g. teachers’ passion and students’ interests and motivation) because scientifically-based research only tries to quantify and measure while avoiding to consider or simply ignoring the components that it can quantify or measure.

Gerstl-Pepin, C. I.,& Woodside-Jiron, H. (2005). Tensions between the “science” of reading and a “love of learning”: One high-poverty school’s struggle with NCLB. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38, 232-241.

Stevens, L. P. (2003). Reading First: A critical policy analysis. The Reading Teacher, 56, 662-668.

NRP report and Allington (2005) September 17, 2009

Allington indicated that NRP report was written under the condition of insufficient fund, time, and staff. As I read this, I came to understand why I couldn’t help but feel that the report seems incomplete in some reasons. In fact, while I was reading NRP report, I could sense that NPR report was based on ‘rigorous methodology research.’ I appreciated that the board was careful to choose and include studies by setting high criteria in order to find more research based evidence.  I also appreciated the board’s effort to listen to the public who would particularly influenced by NRP report. I could see that the board purposefully chose empirical /quasiexperimental studies in order to see the impact of five aspects of reading instruction (Alphabetics, Fluency, comprehension, teacher education and reading instruction, and computer technology and reading instruction). Nevertheless, I was wondering why the board did not broaden search and inclusion criteria depending on the topics that might be less studied in empirical/quasi-empirical way (e.g. teacher education)and why the board decided to focus persistently on intervention studies without getting informed from other types of studies.  If the board could broaden their review of literature, wouldn’t the final report become different from what it is now?

In addition, what made me sad was that NRP report has been misrepresented due to the dominant ideology about children’s reading. As examples, Allington indicated that Put Reading First published by NICHD misused and misinterpreted the information from NRP in order to serve the organization’s ideology. Thus, the reading programs implemented by Put Reading First provide anti-scientific teaching methods and reading materials to the children – such as “whole-class reading instruction using a sicentific’ reading series with remediation”, about which Allington raised awareness that such ‘one-size fits all’ instruction and material could not support children with reading difficulties, as well as teachers. It is so deplorable that NRP’s intention to support teachers and children was distorted to give harms rather than benefits. It seems that continuous skepticism and awareness as researchers, teachers, and teacher educators are possible ways not to fall into the logic of misrepresenting ideas.

What I found interesting in the NRP report about teacher education programs was that  two of the studies included in the review reported the inconsistent effect of in-service teacher education programs on teachers’ behaviors and attitudes. In addition, these studies also reported that teachers reverted the strategies and methods informed from the programs. This made me wonder about the possibilties of other factors influencing on teachers such as teachers’ intial attitudes, the implicit messages from schools and mandates, and students’ characteristics. Such factors might also affect teachers when they decided to choose strategies in order for them to serve their teaching and students’ learning better. This also made me think that the effect of teacher education programs might be one of challening area for researchers to look into not only because of the reasons that the NRP subgroup pointed out, but also because the nature of teaching deals with such a broad range of issues.

High-stakes testing – a necessary evil? September 9, 2009

Hoffman, J. V., Assaf, L. C., & Paris, S. G. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow? The Reading Teacher, 54, 482-492.

The main concern in this article is to raise attention to the impact of High-stakes testing in Texas (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills) on teaching  and learning in reading. According to the authors, the accountability system and standards-based reform of Texas has been considered “a model” for other state in that they were systematic ways of monitoring factors related to students’ status in schools. In order to explore how TAAS  tests impact teaching and learning in reading, the authors used surveys, which were designed to ask specifically about teachers’ responses and experiences to TAAS. A group of teachers who participated in the survey consisted of teachers were members of the Texas State Reading Association and experienced teachers.

Questions from the surveys asking about the following categories: 1) General attitudes and perceptions of others; 2) preparation and administration of the TAAS; 3) effects on students; 4) uses of TAAS; and 5) Overall impressions on TAAS.  The findings revealed that teachers in this study had negative attitudes about TAAS: they thought that TAAS did not support teaching and learning and that it was not an effective ways of measuring achievement of minority and limited English-speaking students. In addition, teachers generally agreed (M = 2.8) to the elimination of TAAS while reporting that TAAS accounted substantially for the curriculum and the time to prepare. Regarding preparation and administration toward TAAS, it was noticeable that teachers took time and efforts to explain how to take tests.  The effect of TAAS on students were psychologically, physically, and emotionally negative.  Teacher’s perception on the administrators’ emphasis on TAAS was confirmed by the responses from school principals. Principals in this study reported that TAAS could be positively used to improve instruction, to categorize children, and to evaluate effectiveness.  The findings from the overall impressions showed that a half of the teachers thought rise in the test scores did not reflect improvement in teaching and learning. Instead, teachers reported possible increase in cheating. In addition, they considered that TAAS controlled what to teach in schools and that TAAS had negative effect on children by giving them pressure. 

The authors concluded that TAAS had negative impact on teaching and learning as other studies on the negative effects of high-stakes testing showed.  They also concerned the detrimental effect of TAAS on minority students. Finally, they suggested possible ways to overcome the problems caused by the overemphasis on TAAS. Their suggestions included: 1) independent research on the effect of high-stakes testing from multiple perspectives; 2) careful examinations and exploration of the alternatives ; 3) advocating reasonable assessment with challenging  to the high-stakes testing; and 4) never being silent about the harmful influence of TAAS on learning and teaching. 

“Silence prevails in educational circles with respect to TAAS-type testing because it is viewed as a necessary evil to achieve other goals (p. 491)”

One thing that shocked me was the way of silencing the teachers and minority groups who are against high-stakes testing. In fact, it actually made high-stakes testing a necessary evil through political and economic forces. As the authors described, such forces are formidable because they made people consider high-stakes testing an effective and necessary means to determine students’ status and to improve instruction despite its harmful effects on teachers and students. As the authors of this article suggested, therefore, it is important for educators to be aware of the harmful effects of high-stakes testing and  to continue challenging while constantly researching on the effects and considering the alternatives.

The results from the survey briefly illustrated students’ affective and physical discomforts caused by high-stakes testing. The results made me wonder how high-stakes testing affected students in terms of their self-images, motivation, and self-efficacy not only as learners but also as people. High-stakes testing does not only control what to teach and how teach, but it also controls what to learn and how to learn. Focusing on tests does not help improve higher-order thinking skills, creative ways of problem solving, and collaboration with others that are necessary and beneficial for students’ future. While learning to the test, how do children see themselves? In addition, considering that high-stakes testing is be used to categorize students, what are the hidden assumptions that standards /policy make? Howare children positioned in standards and policy?

Woodside-Jiron September 3, 2009

When I think of the relationship between practices, research and policy, I guess this relationship is partially reciprocal but policy is more controllable to practices and research. It is reciprocal because policy is built on past practices and research; and research informs policy makers and teachers with information about learners, teaching methods, and effectiveness of teaching and so on. However, policy seems controllable in that it selectively chooses research in order to support particular policy; and in that it controls practices with what to teach and how and when to teach particular knowledge. I remember that when I taught in Korea, teachers had scripted teacher’s manuals for each subject area. Those teacher’s manuals had guidelines about activities, materials, and questions. Most of all, these manuals are highly suggested in order to prepare students to take (standardized) tests because teachers in a particular secondary school are expected to teach same contents emphasized in teacher’s manuals in a given period of time.

 Reading Woodside-Jiron’s article helps me consider more how policy is driven by power and ideology of certain group in society, and such ideology often reflects values and beliefs of a certain group, how research is selectively used to support policy. While it was challenging to read this article, it was interesting to follow through her analysis using Critical Discourse Analysis. I felt that CDA seems a useful tool to look into policy because it allows us to look into embedded meanings of language used in policy and how those embedded meanings were interconnected with significant events around decision making on policy. I appreciate three dimensional ways of analyzing policy in order to show, I guess, how authority is established through language, how policy establishes what is right in reading instruction, and how power and ideology come into play in decision making process.

 In the meantime, I am wondering about Woodside-Jiron’s process of analyzing policy using CDA: how Woodside-Jiron decided the embedded meanings of language and connected the embedded meanings to events or values or beliefs. In addition, I am also wondering how other researchers used Critical Discourse Analysis.