Making a Difference Means Making It Different Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago .shanahan@uic.edu .www.shanahanonliteracy.com

We are not all the same.

The Problem Experimental research finds that differentiation and intensification improve reading achievement Descriptive research finds that teachers usually deliver whole class lessons with few adjustments based on student’s needs

How’s that working for you?

Instructional differentiation The provision of varied learning situations to meet the needs of students at different levels of reading competence--Harris & Hodges (1995) Literacy Dictionary

How can we differentiate? There are 4 kinds of instructional adjustment: --Content coverage --Amount of teaching --Level of instruction --Intensity of instruction

1. Content Coverage Literacy has related but separable components: Phonological awareness Phonics, Oral reading fluency Vocabulary (and Oral Language) Comprehension Writing (And each part has parts)

Content Coverage (cont). These components are quite different in their cognitive and neurological underpinnings so students may make differential progress in them They are also impacted by differential experiences (e.g., language experience, home teaching, illness, inattention)

Content Coverage (cont). Two kinds of poor readers: some are low in everything, while others have uneven patterns of performance across the components For students who are low in everything, differentiation for them will likely mean that they need to receive greater amounts of time devoted to literacy For those with uneven patterns of development, differentiation may involve creating special opportunities for students to engage more deeply with a particular component if students have an obvious lack

Content Coverage (cont). Complications: According to NICHD, 86% of elementary students who struggle with reading have decoding problems--thus, any elementary intervention should include a strong dose of decoding support (PA and or phonics) However, while this kind of targeted approach works, it often doesn’t (NICHD found that many primary students had other problems once the decoding problem was conquered)

Content Coverage (cont). Complications (cont.): Similarly, the National Reading Panel found that decoding interventions for students beyond grade 2 tended to improve decoding, but without any commensurate improvement in other reading skills These targeted approaches tend to work to the extent that the extra attention is appropriate Unfortunately, often ELLs receive this kind of instruction when that isn’t what they are struggling with

Content Coverage (cont). Complications (cont.): The DIBELS problem (we give extra instruction where we test, but we ignore it in the other components) This suggests building in vocabulary and comprehension supports whenever kids are struggling With older students who are reading above a 3rd grade level but still evidence poor decoding, try fluency instruction instead (using materials with lots of shared words across texts)

2. Amount of instruction Low performance may indicate the need for more instructional time John Carroll’s model explains teaching in terms of time—aptitude is the amount of time it takes to learn something Why provide equal learning time given the individual differences?

Child’s Cumulative Vocabulary (Words) Disparities in Early Language Experience 30 million word gap 16 mos. 24 mos. 36 mos. Child’s Cumulative Vocabulary (Words) Professional Families Working Class Families Welfare Families Child’s Age (Months) 200 600 1200 Source: Hart & Risley (2003)

Kennewick School Annual Growth for All Students… Catch-up Growth for Those Who are Behind by Lynn Fielding, Nancy Kerr, and Paul Rosier Tells of experiences in Kennewick, WA school that successfully raised reading achievement They estimate that 60-80 minutes of reading instruction (per day/per year) will raise achievement one year So, a youngster who enters 3rd grade 2 years behind in reading, will need about 240 minutes of instruction daily to catch up

Washington Elementary School Growth in % of 3rd grade students meeting grade level standards School Year 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Percent at Grade level Working harder and more effectively at 3rd grade 57 72 72 68 78 94 96 99 94 98 99 98 Baseline year Began providing intensive interventions in the afternoon to many students Result of improvement at both 2nd and 3rd Grade Began testing in 2nd grade and focusing on earlier improvement

Use of School Day Concept of Academic Learning Time (Fisher, Marliave, Filby, 1978) Beat the odds comparison showed that effective teachers in grades K-3 keep students on task/engaged 96% of the time, students of less effective teachers only 63% (Taylor, 1999, 2006). “Bell to bell” teaching (Mel Riddle)

Amount of instruction (cont.) Low performing schools should include a greater amount of learning opportunity Within classroom opportunities (re-teaching) Pull-out opportunities (additional, not replacement) Afterschool & summer opportunities Parent involvement (upper grades)

3. Level of instruction Language is unique among academic subjects in that level of attainment is not defined by content In math multiplication follows addition In reading the components don’t depend on each other to the same extent We use the concept of reading level which describes reading in terms of text difficulty

3. Level of instruction Readability is an estimate of the comprehensibility of text Readability estimates are typically made on the basis of text features like difficulty or complexity of vocabulary and syntax These features predict comprehensibility not learning Guided reading theory (Fountas & Pinnell) tries to provide an especially close match between reader level and text level to minimize the amount of instruction to be provided

Level of instruction (cont.) But not much research on the impact of level of instruction in reading Original theory: Independent, instructional, frustration Newer theory: Fluency comes from work with easy text Mixed research results of how reading level works: instructional level and frustration level both seem work (though, perhaps, is linked to component issues)

Level of instruction (cont.) Original theory is too simplistic Research is not especially supportive of the idea of there being an optimum level of text/student reading level match Learning requires a stretch: Students have to confront some degree of frustration if they are going to make sufficient progress Traditional estimates of frustration level appear to be too easy to provide sufficient frustration for most students Minimizing teaching has minimized learning

Level of instruction (cont.) For differentiation you can vary text difficulty (especially for students who are far off mark) What constitutes being far of the mark is smaller differences in the earlier grades and larger ones in the higher grades But you can also vary the amount of: Scaffolding Encouragement/motivation Repetition

Level of instruction (cont). How about ensuring that students read a range of text difficulties each day –with appropriate amounts of scaffolding for each Since students are at different reading levels using a classroom text or anthology provides one level of reading experience (some children will need different degrees of help with this common reading) Additional texts can be selected to provide students with other kinds of reading experiences (and different levels of teaching)

4. Intensity of instruction It is possible to intensify instruction within the same time amounts and levels Teachers often don’t target core/whole classroom instruction—but they can We can vary intensity in teaching for particular kids

Intensity of instruction (cont.) Attention varies during instruction Some solutions (a) vary numbers of kids (b) seating placement (c) amount of personal interaction

Intensity of instruction (cont.) Engagement varies during instruction Some solutions: (a) Fish-bowl (b) Multiple-response cards (c) Partnering

Intensity of instruction (cont.) Grasp varies during instruction Some solutions: (a) Increased scaffolding (b) Greater amounts of modeling (c) More responses (d) More repetitions (how many times will we read this text?)

Intensity of instruction (cont.) Attentional difficulties: change seating, placement Increase responsiveness Phonological difficulties: reduce noise, make sure child can see teacher’s mouth Reading speed difficulties: Give the student a head start (or preview) Vocabulary, spelling, sight words, etc.: Provide extra practice

Some Resources Gibson, V., & Hasbrouck, J. (2008). Differentiated instruction: Grouping for success. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Haager, D., Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Evidence-based practices for Response to Intervention. Baltimore: Brookes.

RTI on Steroids: Why I Believe in the 9-Tier Model Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago www.shanahanonliteracy.com

Making a difference means making it different! We must devote literacy teaching to the betterment of the lives of individuals. We must sustain the individual dignity and hope of each boy and girl. We want not only to leave our children rich from the economic benefits of reading, but to enrich their lives as individuals with reading as a source of power and joy.

Thank you very much! Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago shanahan@uic.edu www.shanahanonliteracy.com