UCF College of Education and Human Performance Morgridge International Reading Center Using Students’ Strengths to Guide Instruction Enrique A. Puig Director UCF Teaching Academy/ Toni Jennings Exceptional Education Institute Morgridge International Reading Center

Why use students’ strengths to guide instruction? 1.Many students have strengths that are unrecognized and neglected in traditional schooling. 2.By becoming aware of those strengths and incorporating them into instruction, teachers can boost student learning. 3.Teaching to students’ strengths can improve student engagement. 4.Capitalizing on the various strengths that all students bring to the classroom can positively affect students’ learning. 5.Students in underrepresented minority groups have culturally relevant knowledge that teachers can use to promote learning.

High Progress Learners Invest most of their time in their areas of strength Have learned to partner with someone to tackle areas that are not strengths Apply their strengths to overcome obstacles Invent ways of capitalizing on their strengths in new situations

Current Deficit-based remediation Focuses most of the time in an area of weakness— while it will improve skills, perhaps to a level of “average”—will NOT produce excellence. This approach does NOT tap into student motivation or lead to student engagement. The biggest challenge facing us as educators: how to engage students.

Guiding rationales for Strength-based Instruction 1. Literacy learning is complex (Clay, 2001) 2. Literacy enterprises are an aesthetic as well as an efferent endeavor (Rosenblatt, 1978) 3. Knowledge is socially constructed (Vygotsky, 1978) 4. Attention, motivation, and situation need to be in harmony for learning to be productive (Csíkszentmihályi, 1997) 5. Opposing views are seen as strengths rather than hurdles towards seeking solutions (Bakhtin, 1981) 6. Universal conditions of learning need to be in place for optimal literacy learning to occur (Cambourne, 1988)

English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects College & Career Readiness Anchor Standards Key ideas & details 1.Read closely 2.Determine central themes 3.Analyze interaction of elements Craft & structure 4. Interpret meanings and tone 5. Analyze structure 6.Assess point of view Integration of knowledge & ideas 7. Integrate and evaluate content 8. Evaluate argument 9.Analyze intertextuality Range & complexity 10. Comprehend increasing complexity

“Going back to definitions is an important operation of the mind. We should know that the power of a word does not reside in its sound, but in the ideas of which the word reminds us and, ultimately, in the facts on which the ideas are based.” ~ G. Polya (1945)

Developing a common language for strength-based instruction Define (talk and share) Text – Is it only print? Confluency – How do learners develop confluency? Strategic activity – Is it an instructional practice or in-the-head call to action? Close reading – Is it an instructional practice or a strategic activity? Text dependent questions – Are they a test or a strategic activity? Transdisciplinary literacy – Is it reading in the content area? Zone of Proximal Development – What kind of learning takes place in the ZPD? Zone of Ventral Development – What kind of learning takes place in the ZVD? Zone of Distal Development – What kind of learning takes place in the ZDD?

Static assessment of learning – summarized appraisal of what a student has learned or done Dynamic assessment for learning – formative appraisal of student’s processing strengths and needs

Outcomes from Using Dynamic Assessments Provides a common language to talk Validates and affirms students’ knowledge, skills, and experiences Jumpstarts the instructional conversation and provides a springboard for discussion

Predicting & anticipating Monitoring Self-correcting Searching Graphophonic Working System context Lexical Working System Schematic Working System Syntactic Working System Semantic Working System Pragmatic Working System context

Surface working systems are: graphophonic, lexical, and syntactic Deep working systems are: semantic, schematic, pragmatic Talk with colleagues… Why are surface working systems considered “surface”? Why are deep working systems considered “deep”?

Materials used need to be at the students’ instructional level. Generally material that they can read with - 90% to 94% accuracy for K-2 91% to 95 % accuracy for % to 96% accuracy for % to 97% accuracy for 9-12.

Composing Constructing EditingRevisioning Graphophonic Working System context Lexical Working System Schematic Working System Syntactic Working System Semantic Working System Pragmatic Working System context

Pause and ponder… (talk at your table) What may be a potential issue with using students’ strengths to guide instruction?

What will it take to use students’ strengths to guide instruction? On-going professional learning opportunities Knowledgeable in-class literacy coaches Informed administrators Reflective, flexible teachers

How do you know if you’re using students’ strengths to guide instruction? 1.Use assessment to determine strengths and needs 2.Match students to text 3.Monitor progress overtime 4.Use dynamic assessment 5.Focus on assisting performance 6.Consider prompting (teacher talk) 7.Zone of proximal development 8.Understand literacy as a process

3 Questions for Responsive Teaching to Students’ Strengths 1.What is occurring with this learner? 2.How do I interact with what is occurring? 3.Am I intentionally assisting or assessing performance?

Broad-spectrum view of literacy learning

Strength-based teaching means: 1.Teaching foundational skills should always include having students read continuous text and engage in meaningful writing (Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, 1998; Lipson & Wixson, 2013). 2.Begin with a holistic task, step out of the task to focus on a particular strategic activity, then return to the original task to apply the strategic activity in context (Valencia & Wixson, 2013). 3.Core standards will not be achieved simply by asking students to engage in more challenging tasks with more challenging texts (Valencia & Wixson, 2013).

Willing to be disturbed.

Influential references: Baines, L. (2008). Mulitsensory Learning: Improving Literacy by Engaging the Senses Cambourne, B. (1988). The Whole Story: Natural Learning and the Acquisition of Literacy in the Classroom Clay, M. M. (2001). Change Over Time in Children’s Literacy Development Keene, E. O.(2008). To Understand: New Horizons in Reading Comprehension Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work Singer, H. (1994). The Substrata Factor Theory of Reading Valencia, S.W. & Wixson, K.K. (2013), CCSS – ELA: Suggestions and Cautions for Implementing the Reading Standards Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language

UCF College of Education and Human Performance Morgridge International Reading Center Using Students’ Strengths to Guide Instruction Enrique A. Puig Director UCF Teaching Academy/ Toni Jennings Exceptional Education Institute Morgridge International Reading Center