Overview & Insights

From The Editors

“Don’t join the book burners. Don’t think you are going to conceal faults by concealing the evidence that they ever existed. Don’t be afraid to go into your library and read every book.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Dartmouth College, 1953

“Any book worth banning is a book worth reading.”

Isaac Asimov

“You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.”

Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, 1953

So much more could be said . . .

I don’t know exactly when I began reading, I have no knowledge of not reading. I have loved books for 65 years and counting. I am a JOYFUL reader. I get lost. I travel without leaving my couch. I paint pictures in my head that are priceless to me. I am a PROUDFUL reader. I will shout it from the rooftops. I am a READER. Period. All books are treasures to me, adventures to me, entertainment to me. I want every child, in all parts of the world to be able to read. It will change their lives. Forever.

When Barbara, Susan, and I began this process we didn’t know what to expect. We began just before Covid hit the world. Changed the world. It also changed how we look at the world. We will never look at education through the same lenses again. Education also changed. How we teach and reach students. We have learned so much. So many voices changing how we think about education and how we teach. The advocacies; Black Lives Matter, Critical Race Theory, Equal versus Equitable, Testing, Social Media, The Science of Reading, School shootings, and Book Banning. All of it changed us. It changed who our educational heroes are and what really matters in education today. When I finished my doctorate, I felt like I could change the world, I would be an advocate for children. But, what does advocacy look like today? Martin Luther King said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” I feel like many of us just ride the waves of “wait and see!” “You know education is cyclical, the good parts will right themselves eventually.” After the last few years, do we still feel this way? I don’t want to be a silent partner in education. Anymore.

As this trio moves on to new horizons, we want to leave this world, country, and state a better place. I hope we have helped that process during the last three years as editors of this lovely journal. It has been our pleasure and privilege to be a part of passing on the good news in education. To aid in advocacy for children and meeting their educational needs. Totally.

Speaking of cyclical, was I? Yes! Back to reading . . . reading is the foundation of all education. The foundation of all advocacy. The foundation to better lives, because lives do matter! My personal soapbox is to advocate for free readers, reading whatever feels right. Joyfully!

So we leave you with things to think about and places to go. But before we leave you, here’s an overview of what you will find inside this, our editorial swan song. To open this themed issue, we are excited to share an article related to book banning, penned by Julie Collins and Claudia Swisher. Both of these ladies have spent considerable time and energy learning about censorship and book banning from the historical perspective to the present challenges. You’ll want to spend time with this one.

Following that, Donita Shaw offers us an intriguing insight into a school system who decided to look deeply into their rationale for the kind of reading intervention their were offering their struggling readers. Melissa Brevetti and Joy Thomas lead off our Teacher-to-Teacher section this issue introducing a method for using the classic Harold and the Purple Crayon to support sudents who have suffered trauma. Next, Edward Dwyer and his colleagues at East Tennessee State share how social studies learning can be enhanced by making books. Finally, Stacie Garrett and Michelle Smith share ways to meet the needs of diverse students through digital literature.

Our column writers return us to the theme of this issue as Maribeth Nottingham reviews Book Banning in 21st Century America by Emily Knox, which she tells us helps us understand the mindset of modern-day book challengers, in the Professional Development: Off the Shelf column. Linda McElroy continues the book banning them by sharing the position of the International Literacy Association on book banning and sharing the multitude of resources available from ILA on the website. In her final Tech Talk column (Yes, your read that correctly), Shelley Martin-Young directs our thinking to how we can use technology to address the Universal Design for Learning framework. Rounding out the issue, Julie Collins catches us up on the dizzying world of education policy in Oklahoma and our need to continue advocating. We’re sure you can find something here to dig into!

Letter from Dr. Eileen Richardson Chair, Oklahoma Literacy Association

Last Things, New Things

As we wind down and close out the 2022-2023 school year, we need to reflect on what went well and what we need to do differently in the classroom. I write notes in my textbooks and my lesson binders on what activities were successful and which ones I need to replace. I look over my notes from conferences I have attended and think of ways to incorporate all the wonderful things I have learned.

One important message that I have on several sticky notes is “self-care.” Self-care is important and that should be our number one priority this summer. Every time I fly, and the flight attendant goes over the safety protocols before take-off, passengers are reminded to put their masks on first before helping a child. See, even airlines know that taking care of yourself is important to be able to take care of others! This is especially true for teachers.

My summer challenge for everyone is to write down five things you have been wanting to do. It can be as simple as binge-watching a show, visiting a few museums, or attending a festival. As I finish out my time as the Chair of OKLA, I have one regret. When I took over last summer, I was determined to do a couple of book studies throughout the year. Unfortunately, life happened, and I did not organize one. However, after listening to our wonderful keynote speaker, Dr. Carol Jago, at our annual conference, I felt enlightened and energized! So, I am organizing a book study as one of my “things to do” this summer. Dr. Jago’s book, The Book in Question: Why and How Reading Is in Crisis, is one that I have heard is a game changer for teachers. Who wants to join me? Stay tuned to Facebook and emails for more information. Until then, keep inspiring our Oklahoma children!

Keep being awesome!

Eileen Richardson, Ed.D. Associate Professor, Education Cameron University/RSU Campus

Julie Collins and Claudia Swisher

Getting the Right Books into the Right Kids’ Hands

Teachers have favorite books and think about books they want to share with students. Teachers who have been teaching for many years remember when books did not represent the diversity found in our communities (Bishop, 1990), while newer teachers may see diversity in books, but may wish for more options representing greater diversity (Enriquez, 2021; Johnson et. al, 2017). In recent years, publishing houses have responded to teachers’ and librarians’ calls for more diverse literature, especially for younger readers and teens. While educators may applaud this expansion of representation and subject matter, others are not celebrating. These feelings may arise from the growing diversity of our schools, with many responding by working to limit the books our students can access. This article will examine the process for book selection for school and classroom libraries, concerns about attacks on books read in schools and the teachers who share them, advocacy around banning books, and providing equitable access to appropriate texts.

The History of Book Banning

Challenging and banning books has a long history. Thomas Morton’s The New English Canaan is thought to be the first banned book in the American Colonies based on Morton not being fond of living under Puritan law (Mihm, 2022). In 1885, Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn was removed from a library in Concord, Massachusetts, due to the book’s “…dealing with a series of experiences not elevating, the whole book being more suited to the slums than to intelligent, respectable people.” (Doyle, 2017). In 1929, Jack London’s Call of the Wild was banned in Yugoslavia and Italy, and burned by Nazis in Germany in 1932, due to the author’s socialist views (Doyle, 2017). Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland was banned in 1931 in Hunan, China, due to the governor’s opinion that “animals should not use human language and it was disastrous to put animals and humans on the same level” (Doyle, 2017).

In 1959, the White Citizens’ Council demanded that Garth Williams’ The Rabbits’ Wedding be moved to a restricted shelf in Alabama libraries as the book was thought to promote racial integration (Doyle, 2017). In 1977, Maurice Sendak’s In the Night Kitchen was targeted when a complaint came from an Illinois school library stating the book contained “nudity to no purpose” (Doyle, 2017). In 1987, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou was removed from reading lists in Wake County, North Carolina, due to the depiction of the author’s rape as a child (Doyle, 2017). J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series of books were the most frequently challenged books in the United States and were requested to be removed in 2019 due to the use of magic, witchcraft, and spells (Book and Periodical Council, 2023).

Challenging books has been summed up in this manner, “I cannot stress this enough, but book bans and censorship are almost never about a book. Book bans and censorship are about some people imposing their ideologies on all people” (Thomas, 2022, para. 14, italics in original). Challenges to books continue to be made in increasing numbers, with diverse books often being the ones targeted.

Meeting Students’ Needs in Book Selection

Why is it challenging to find the right books to meet student needs? We know students vary in background, experience, interest, and reading ability. These factors affect the books that students may be motivated to read. While at times specific books are selected for shared experiences and content learning, the true nature of reading is for readers to find books that they are interested in, may be able to learn from, and help them to grow as a person. The key to helping students learn to find the right books for themselves is having skilled teachers and librarians who are well read and have a wide variety of experience with authors and books to draw from when making suggestions.

An inquisitive 5-year-old African American girl asked, “Why are they always white children?” while looking for a book in a library (Larrick, 1965). The children’s literature offered at that time included nearly exclusively white characters. Larrick examined trade books published during the years 1962-1964 by 70 publishers. She found 6.7% of the books included text or illustrations of African American characters, with eight publishers producing books with only white characters. Other research found books about contemporary Mexican Americans, Asians, and Native Americans severely lacking in publications (Bishop, 1990). The lack of books about people in these cultures was seen to not only be a disservice to children in those populations, but also a disservice to the majority population as those children also received a distorted view of their own culture (PEN America, 2016). Bishop (1990) went on to explain the effect that seeing themselves in books has on readers:

Books are sometimes windows, offering views of worlds that may be real or imagined, familiar or strange. These windows are also sliding glass doors, and readers have only to walk through in imagination to become part of whatever world has been created or recreated by the author. When lighting conditions are just right, however, a window can also be a mirror. Literature transforms human experience and reflects it back to us, and in that reflection, we can see our own lives and experiences as part of the larger human experience. Reading, then, becomes a means of self-affirmation, and readers often seek their mirrors in books. (p. ix)

This metaphor of books being windows, mirrors, and sliding glass doors continues to be a guiding principle for teachers and librarians when selecting books for students. Readers need to be able to see themselves in books, as well as learn about people around them from books. Author Walter Dean Myers spoke of the need for diverse books as, “Books transmit values. They explore our common humanity. What is the message when some children are not represented in those books?

Where are black children going to get a sense of who they are and what they can be?” (PEN America, 2016, pp. 13-14).

This metaphor has been further developed throughout the years. Teachers have been praised for their work in knowing their own students as readers and how they fit into a diverse population in terms of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, and using that information to help move readers from looking through windows to stepping through sliding glass doors (Johnson, et. al, 2017; Botelho, 2021). Additionally, Botelho (2021) states that within diverse groups are differences that affect readers’ engagement with characters, and points out that in looking at diversity, European Americans should not be in one group. Enriquez (2021) suggests students need to be more involved with selecting characters who they would be interested in reading about, and books with characters that would offer them windows to the world and mirrors for them to see themselves need to be available.

Standards for Selecting School Library Books

The American Library Association, and its school library division, the American Association of School Libraries (AASL), have created national standards for school libraries, the AASL Framework for Learners, which can be used as models for states as they write their own standards. Their work informs individual state’s work since most states are AASL affiliates.

Oklahoma School Libraries operate within the Standards for Accreditation for Oklahoma Schools for Media Programs, set out by the Oklahoma State Department of Education, as well as state laws. Two recent laws regarding school libraries. HB3092, requiring school libraries to consider community standards when adding to the collection, and HB3702, regarding digital collections, were both passed in 2022. Each district creates their own policies and procedures, including a procedure for responding to a complaint or challenge of library materials. The recent objections to some materials have brought renewed attention to district policies. You should check with your district about the policies for selecting books and materials and the process to follow if any are challenged. Each district should also have a reconsideration policy. Some districts have updated these recently to include areas which may be challenged, such as science, religion, sex, and profanity.

Collection curation is an important responsibility of librarians as they work to reflect the culture of their community and school while respecting the concerns of students, educators, and parents. Critics, politicians, and concerned citizens could benefit from visiting a school library, asking to see selection and reconsideration policies, talking to librarians about the collection, and how they respond to a parent, teacher, or student complaint about a book or a resource. Most would be reassured by the thoughtful professionalism exhibited, and the steadfast support to the educational mission of the school. Additionally, parents should keep in mind that they already hold the power to request that specific books not be shared with their child in class or through the library, without going through the process of trying to challenge a book and keep it from all children (Forkner, 2022; Natanson, 2023).

The Recent Players

The American Library Association (ALA) tracks book challenges and bans each year, and the 2022 results are “stunning” (Albanese, 2023). In 2019, the ALA recorded 377 challenges to library books. In 2021, there were 729 challenges of 1858 titles, a record at the time, but in 2022, 1269 challenges targeted 2571 separate titles. “The vast majority of works challenged were written by or about members of the LGBTQ community and people of color” (Albanese, 2023, para 2).

The Culture Wars have arrived at the school library door in the guise of protecting students from Critical Race Theory (CRT) and pornography. Some observers believe these attacks are spontaneous examples of passion but looking deeper it becomes clear that organization and funding has made the media take notice. Social media has played a part in spreading information and misinformation. Moms for Liberty, a group started during the pandemic to support parental rights, touts its grassroots status (Butler, 2022; Levy, 2022). The group has affiliates in most states and claim their budget is from small donations and t-shirt sales, but others have found it is funded by the Koch Brothers’ Heritage Foundation and affiliates (Butler, 2022; Cunningham, 2023; Levy, 2022). Some affiliates have compiled lists of books to attempt to ban from school and public libraries and may be the source of the record jump in the number of titles challenged. This passion for challenging books is strong in Oklahoma (Palmer, 2022a) Schools across the state have seen angry citizens accuse them of sharing pornography, teaching CRT, and requiring students to read books objected to by parents (Palmer, 2022b). They want to bypass established standards, procedures, and school boards and directly demand books be removed without implementing the reconsideration policies at each school (Little, 2021). Moms for Liberty is one involved group, but there are others, all with their own motivations for challenging library books.

Related Legislation

In Oklahoma, HB1775, passed during the 2021 legislative session, has chilled districts and schools. This bill bans lessons and professional development that imply that, consciously or unconsciously, one race or sex is inherently superior to another; bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; or made to feel discomfort, guilt, or anguish. While these requirements seem to narrow the content, the law states that anything included in the Oklahoma Academic Standards can be taught. These concepts are so vague that educators have been put on hyper-alert, and bad actors have seen a golden opportunity to attack schools with complaints of violations. After the passage of HB1775, the governor-appointed Oklahoma State Board of Education created permanent rules on how to handle violations of these concepts, including that teachers can have their licenses permanently revoked and districts can have accreditation downgraded (Korth, 2022). Two school districts saw their accreditation down-graded almost immediately (Palmer, 2022a), and their appeals to the Oklahoma State Board of Education were unsuccessful

(Palmer, 2022b). Librarians see a loss of professional protections, and some teachers have had to vet their classroom collections to protect themselves and their districts from accusations of violating this state law.

One of the authors of HB1775 seemed to learn about selection and reconsideration policies when he visited with the superintendent of Moore Public Schools: “[Representative Kevin] West said he appreciated hearing from Moore Public Schools’ superintendent recently about a couple of challenged books, and how the district was handling the complaints. “I would much rather people go through the full process before vetting these kinds of arguments in the media or social media because there is a process,” he said (Palmer, 2022c). In the current 2023 session of the Oklahoma legislature, several bills have been filed to label library materials as “pornographic,” especially any books with LGBTQ+ characters or themes. Books about people of color are also being attacked. Recently, the Oklahoma State Department of Education has proposed new library rules that will control definitions of pornography in library books, with consequences for “willful noncompliance.”

Oklahoma is not the only state to directly target books in school libraries and classrooms. Florida requires all books in libraries and classrooms to be vetted by the school librarian, who must undergo state training, which has only recently been available. This has resulted in at least two districts shuttering their libraries and covering classroom collections to make them unavailable to students (Natanson, 2023). Again, the language is vague and confusing enough to make the threats appear ominous. This law requires that all books in a library or collection be appropriate for the students’ ages, free from pornography, and “suited to student needs.” This is the reality educators face in this climate. The risks are monumental, higher than many can afford. At the same time, students are searching for those mirrors and windows.

A Call to Advocacy

In this climate, how do we get the right books into the right students’ hands? Windows, mirrors, and sliding glass doors have not been able to become new windows and mirrors for our students and future readers. Schools and school libraries have, understandably, responded to the new diversity of subjects, characters, and authors of these new books, and teachers have shared them with students. This has, perhaps, contributed to a backlash from policymakers who choose to limit students’ access to those books that will serve their growing self-awareness.

We are now teaching in a different climate than even a few years ago. Embrace that, and plan for ways to protect your curriculum and your reputation. Approach new classes with the intent to get to know students and their families. Respond to concerns quickly without feeling defensive. Understand families will have varied political views and attitudes about public schools. Respect those views and attitudes as you work to build your classroom climate. Do not say something in class you would not want quoted out of context. In secondary classrooms, many teachers will be videoed by students; that is the new reality. Be ready and choose your words with that in mind.

Anticipate! Anticipate! Anticipate!

We suggest teachers and librarians be proactive as we protect students’ rights to read and find themselves in literature. In this current climate, we must assume we will have difficult conversations with parents and administrators about the books students are reading; so, spend some time researching your library’s selection and reconsideration policy. Learn as much as you can before you need to know. School boards will have published policies that are available to all community members. Have a copy of this policy in your classroom files.

If you have a classroom library, you might compare your library against the school’s library catalog. Books that are in the catalog will be well-researched. Books that are not will need more research. Make certain you’ve read the books on your shelves, and you are ready to defend each book for literary value and age-appropriateness. Check with your school librarian to learn which publications they use to review books being considered for purchase. Check these publications if you have a question about a book.

Anticipate challenges you might face about books or assignments, so you can respond professionally. Learn the district’s policy on how parents can request alternative assignments or books. Have some alternative ideas ready if a parent requests. Prepare yourself so you do not take challenges personally. Be proactive about building relationships with families so that, if there is a concern or question, adults feel comfortable coming to talk to you. Be ready to talk about your books, and the books in your curriculum. Write a strong statement in your syllabus about parents’ rights to control what their students read and invite them to contact you if they have any questions or concerns. Stress your shared common goal: to provide the best education for their child. Be open when parents contact you and demonstrate respect for their concerns, even if you feel they may not be substantial. Your district probably has a policy about alternative assignments for students if parents or guardians object to a particular book. Have a plan to support families’ choices for their own students’ reading. Plan for challenges, and your responses.

Have conversations with your school, department, and grade level faculty about the literary value in the books you teach and share with students, so that you can confidently explain why you teach these books, and why they are included in your library. Build on the collective wisdom of your colleagues to create strong rationales for your materials.

Advocate! Advocate! Advocate!

We as educators are the experts on curriculum and child development. Families are the experts on their children, our students. Administrators are experts in school policy. We need to be ready to advocate to all these folks, and to our community and policymakers. Our example of professional knowledge sends a strong message.

Talk to your students about your commitment to their education and to their parents’ participation in that education. Tell students you will support parent choices and accommodate them whenever you can. Share your passion for books and for reading, and your excitement to share books with them. Share the policies you know the district already has in place to encourage parental partnerships in the classroom and in selection of books from the school library.

Be proactive about reaching out to parents early in the year or semester. Build relationships with them so they know you are open to discussing curriculum choices, books, and school policies. Starting early to engage parents may make it easier for parents to come to you with questions, instead of to the superintendent or the media. Inviting a dialogue before misunderstandings become insurmountable allows all parties to approach the education of their students with mutual respect. Think about the various platforms you have where you can fit this message into conversations with the community. Is it your social media? church group? book club? You are an educator, and your neighbors may look to you for answers to questions about book banning in your school and district.

Policymakers hear from those who feel threatened and wish to limit students’ access to books. Please make sure that they also hear from those of us in the profession! Do you know your local school board member? Have you reached out? Get to know your state legislators. Invite them to your class. Let them listen to your students read and interact. Offer to be a source for legislators if they have questions about how proposed legislation could impact classrooms and students. You can call, send emails or letters, or go to the capitol and visit with your Oklahoma Senator and Representative. Advocacy with policymakers is similar to advocacy with parents. Build a relationship, engage honestly with positive intent, and share your common goal of improving their child’s education. Educators are masters of relationship-building. It is time to expand your horizons beyond your classroom. Find social media groups and local media outlets that share accurate information about legislation and the State Board of Education actions. We know it is impossible to be a policy expert and a full-time teacher, so find people you trust to let you know what is happening during the legislative session and help you prioritize your issues.

Be informed. Plan to vote. If you can, find candidates you support and volunteer or donate. Model being a good citizen. While we should never discuss our party affiliation or voting record with students or parents, we can talk about the importance of citizen participation. Policymakers often check voting records not how we vote, but whether we vote when we reach out with questions or to engage on a particular issue. Our credibility is stronger when policymakers know we are voters. Make your voice heard!

References

Albanese, Andrew. (2023, March 23). ALA reports shocking increase in attempted book bans in 2022. Publishers Weekly. Retrieved from https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/bytopic/industry-news/libraries/article/91823-ala-reports-shocking-increase-in-book-challengesin-2022.html

Bishop, R. S. (1990). Windows, mirrors, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives, 6(3), ix-xi. Retrieved from https://scenicregional.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Mirrors-Windows-and-SlidingGlass-Doors.pdf

Book and Periodical Council (2023). Bannings and burning in history. Freedom to Read. Retrieved from https://www.freedomtoread.ca/resources/bannings-and-burnings-in-history/

Botelho, M.J. (2021). Reframing mirrors, windows, and doors: A critical analysis of the metaphors for multicultural children’s literature. Children’s Literature Assembly, 47(1), 119-126. Link to article

Butler, K. (2022). Live. Laugh. Lay. Waste. Mother Jones, 47(6), 30-41.

Cunningham, M.T. (2023). Merchants of deception: Parent props and their funders. Network for Public Education. Retrieved from https://networkforpubliceducation.org/merchants-ofdeception/

Doyle, R.P. (2017). Banned Books: Defending our Freedom to Read. American Library Association. Enriquez, G. (2021). Foggy mirrors, tiny windows, and heavy doors: Beyond diverse books toward meaningful literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 75(1), 103-106.

Forkner, T.A. (2022, July 21). Is book banning really such a bad thing? Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@tinaannforkner/is-book-banning-really-such-a-bad-thing-e6ff7641edc5 Johnson, N.J., Koss, M.D., & Martinez, M. (2017). Through the Sliding Glass Door: #EmpowerTheReader. The Reading Teacher, 71(5), 569-577.

Korth, R. (2022, September 8). FAQ: What we know about teaching since Oklahoma’s so-called critical race theory ban went into effect. State Impact Oklahoma.

Larrick, N. (1965). The all-white world of children’s books. The Saturday Review. 48(2), 63-66, 84-85. Retrieved from https://kgrice3.wixsite.com/lcyadiversity/all-white-world1965

Levy, P. (2022). Surveillance State. Mother Jones, 47(6) 42-27, 65.

Little, O. (2021, November 12). Unmasking Moms for Liberty. Media Matters for America.

Retrieved from https://www.mediamatters.org/critical-race-theory/unmasking-moms-liberty, Mihm, Stephen. (2022, January 22). American book-banning tradition is as old as the Mayflower. The Japan Times. Retrieved from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2022/01/30/commentary/world-commentary/americanbook-banning/

Natanson, H. (2023, January 31). Hide your books to avoid felony charges, Fla schools tell teachers. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/01/31/florida-hide-books-stop-wokemanatee-county-duval-county-desantis/

Palmer, J. (2022a August 4). Education watch: Two districts downgraded for complaints. Oklahoma Watch. Retrieved from https://oklahomawatch.org/newsletter/education-watch-two-districtsdowngraded-for-complaints-under-hb1775/

Palmer, J. (2022b August 31). Education board upholds sanctions on Tulsa, Mustang for conversations on race. Oklahoma Watch. Retrieved from https://oklahomawatch.org/2022/08/25/education-board-upholds-sanctions-on-tulsa-mustangfor-conversations-on-race/

Palmer, J. (2022c September 29). Book ban disputes roiled these Oklahoma communities. Here’s what happened. Oklahoma Watch. Retrieved from https://oklahomawatch.org/2022/09/29/book-ban-disputes-roiled-these-oklahomacommunities-heres-what-happened/

PEN America (2016 August 31). Missing from the shelf: Book challenges and lack of diversity in children’s literature. PEN America: The Freedom to Write. Retrieved from https://pen.org/research-resources/missing-from-the-shelf-book-challenges-and-lack-ofdiversity-in-childrens-literature/

Thomas, P.L. (2022, October 15). Whose rights matter?: On censorship, parents, and children. Be Brave, Be Kind. Retrieved from https://radicalscholarship.com/2022/10/15/whose-rightsmatter-on-censorship-parents-and-children/

Dr. Julie Collins serves as a professor at the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond. She can be reached at jcollins18@uco.edu.

Donita Shaw

The “Why” Behind Your Teaching and The Results of One District That Questioned Their “Why”

As a reading specialist or classroom teacher who loves literacy, you teach children for whom reading and writing is difficult to learn. You are committed, passionate, and a continual learner, always pursuing how to teach students more effectively. It is often challenging to sort through the information about varying instructional approaches, philosophical underpinnings, and what may at times, seem like conflicting research. Too often there is tension or what may seem to be political sides, even in the field of literacy research. We know teachers are often presented with curriculum and instructional approaches; thus, they are given the ‘what’ of their teaching. However, they often need to receive the theory and research, or the “why” behind the approach. The first goal of this paper is to present several literacy theories that guide the philosophical underpinnings of common instructional interventions and approaches. The goal in presenting this information is to help you decide the “why” behind what you do. The second purpose of this paper is to illustrate how one Oklahoma school district evaluated the literacy theories on which they built their early intervention and found a way to more effectively serve first graders who needed a preventive service.

Theoretical Foundations

Many theories and models have served literacy educators in their understanding of instructional practices. While there are too many theories to present in this paper, four of the most popular and discussed theories in today’s educational arena are the Simple View of Reading, the Reading Rope, the Active View of Reading, and finally Literacy Processing Theory.

The Science of Reading has touted the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) as the primary theory behind science. Further, the Simple View of Reading (SVR) is the theory referenced in materials about dyslexia such as the Oklahoma Dyslexia Handbook (2019). The Simple View of Reading (SVR) has been around for over 30 years and still maintains its popularity for two independent components (decoding and listening comprehension) represented by the mathematical formula D (Decoding) x LC (Listening Comprehension) = RC (Reading Comprehension). Decoding is phonetically reading the printed words. Listening comprehension is the ability to hear and understand conversation or books read aloud. It has been believed that if students can decode print and they have adequate listening comprehension that they will be able to understand the text they read. This theory has been broadened (Hoover & Tunmer, 2020) so that the decoding part of the equation is replaced with word recognition because there is more to reading words beyond sounding them out phonetically. Further, the broadened model changed listening comprehension to language comprehension because our language is complex. While the SVR is still conveyed as two independent and sequential components, we know that they are not separate and there is some bridging, much like a Venn diagram rather than a mathematical equation. Overlapping concepts between word recognition and language comprehension include fluency and print concepts.

Science continually progresses, so in 2001, Dr. H.S. Scarborough developed a model that unpacked the complexity of word recognition and language comprehension often known as the “Reading Rope.” (See the link for the Oklahoma Dyslexia Handbook in the references to view Scarborough’s Reading Rope). For word recognition, the rope has three braids: phonological awareness, decoding, and sight recognition. Language comprehension has five braids: background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge. Initially the strands are separated, but the model weaves the braids together as students become more strategic and automatic. The goal is to have language comprehension become increasingly strategic while word recognition becomes increasingly automatic so that skilled reading is a “fluent execution and coordination of word recognition and text comprehension” (Oklahoma Dyslexia Handbook, 2019, p. 24).

Most recently, the Active View of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021) has been presented to help us unpack the multiple contributors to reading and more effectively understand the difficulties students may have when reading and writing. Figure 1 represents the complexity of reading. (For complete information on this model and all theories mentioned thus far, please read the open access Duke & Cartwright reference in its entirety).

We know that any act of reading is influenced by the text, the task, and the sociocultural context. While those are important, they are beyond the proposed model focused on the reader (green circle), who is active and brings motivation and engagement to the reading process. The reader also utilizes executive function skills and strategy use when reading. This self-regulation contributes to the middle part (blue, purple, and pink) that looks most like the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) and Scarborough’s Reading Rope (2001). If you look closely at this model the Simple View and Reading Rope aspects are expanded. Compare aspects listed in the word recognition (blue) and language comprehension (pink) Active View figure to aforementioned information about the Simple View and Reading Rope. Due to limited space, we will skip over the word recognition (blue) or language comprehension (pink) sections and look closely to see how they are more multifaceted. Please turn your attention to the bridging (purple) between word recognition and language comprehension. Within this (purple) bridge are five aspects: print concepts, reading fluency, vocabulary knowledge, morphological awareness, and graphophonological-semantic cognitive flexibility. Foundational skills such as print concepts, understanding the directionality, concept of a letter/word and more are important initially when learning to read. For years, reading fluency has been described as a bridge between word recognition and comprehension; it includes the store of words we know so that we can read words automatically and smoothly with expression and intonation. Vocabulary knowledge is a bridging concept because of its focus on the meaning of words. Morphologically, we need to understand prefixes and suffixes and root words; the history and origin of words and the meaning of small parts of words come together to influence the entire meaning of the word. Then there is a new term presented, graphophonological-semantic-cognitive flexibility that reaches back to the executive functioning skills of our brain and strategy use for reading words (green circle). We need to help our students learn this cognitive flexibility because many words aren’t phonetically decodable, and it is this flexibility that allows students to become skilled, effective and fluent readers.

Literacy Processing Theory (Clay, 2015, 2016) is a cognitive one, focusing on the problem-solving and strategic behaviors that children use when reading or writing connected text. “Literacy processing is a reader’s decision making about what a text says” (Doyle, 2013, p. 646). Literacy Processing Theory explains how the brain searches and picks up information such as phonological, visual, perceptual, orthographic and syntactic information, among other information, and then interconnects the information in the brain’s working system so the child decides, monitors, verifies and produces an oral response to the printed text. According to Bates (2022), Literacy Processing Theory aligns well with all aspects of the Active View of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021) and promotes students’ flexibility for reading continuous text.

Literacy Processing Theory also bridges the connections students make with recognizing words and the meaning of words so there is integration of strategies in students’ brains while they read increasingly difficult text. The goal is to build students’ self-extending system so that they problem-solve independently while reading and writing. A self-extending system is a student’s “neural network of [cognitive] complex working systems that learns to extend itself” (Doyle, 2013, p. 648). This generative process (self-extending system) allows students to continually access new learning.

In this brief review of theories, there is much to consider. While the concise information can be expanded upon, hopefully the overview will help you analyze the information you read, or what may be presented in your district, or what you might hear in the media. Finding your “why” is important for your teaching to be grounded. What follows is the journey of one school district to serve their students more effectively because they questioned their “why.”

A School District’s Quest

District leaders approached me, a university researcher, and wanted to share their story. Through personnel interviews and anonymized district data, what follows is their journey and achievement outcomes.

The Sunflower (pseudonym) school district had been a highly effective school district for many years as indicated by their required reporting to the Oklahoma Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Education. The district began to grow rapidly, and with growth came challenges. The insurgence of special education, under-resourced, and bilingual student populations led to more and more students who were identified as “unsatisfactory” readers on the state of Oklahoma assessments. Moreover, in 2011, Oklahoma amended the existing Reading Sufficiency Act (RSA) to require schools to retain students who do not pass the state’s third grade reading test or meet other criteria or exemptions by the end of the third grade. With total third grade class populations as high as 1500 students, and as many as 300+ students who did not score proficient on the recent state test, educational leaders in Sunflower District began a literacy initiative in the spring of 2012 that included community partners, teachers, parents and recent graduates to identify processes and strategies to ensure all students will have success in reading. The district defined success as a graduate who has options and choices upon high school graduation that will allow the graduate and his/her family to live above the poverty line. The committee’s consensus was that literacy is one of the strongest determining factors of success. The committee’s findings led them to develop Multiple Tiers of Student Support (MTSS) for students as early as pre-kindergarten and first grade to prevent literacy learning challenges long before they affect academic growth. The district used Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), then they changed and allocated significant resources to Literacy First as the Tier 1 approach. Tier 2 was small groups within classrooms with students working on specific skills identified through Literacy First formative assessments, or a pull-out group intervention with a reading specialist. Tier 3 proved the most challenging, as students made academic gains, but were not maintaining their ability to read on-grade level text after the intervention was reduced or discontinued. As a result, the district was not effectively graduating students out of Tier 3, and this also resulted in overidentification of special education students.

The Educational Services division investigated and studied research and theories. They recognized their attempts thus far (i.e., Literacy First) were built on the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) and the Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001). The district’s quest led them to the Literacy Processing Theory (Clay, 2015, 2016), as the Active View of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021) had not been developed yet. Literacy Processing Theory is the basis for Reading Recovery. The district leaders were intrigued by Reading Recovery, which was ranked very high by What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), one of the “leading federal sources of evidence-based information about educational programs, policies, and interventions that show promise for student outcomes” (AIR Equity Initiative, n.d.). District leaders studied Literacy Processing Theory (Clay, 2015, 2016) and the intervention Reading Recovery which was built upon the theory. Both the theory and intervention had decades of research in the short-term (immediately following intervention) and in the long-term (tracking students over time). After careful study, district leaders knew Reading Recovery was their chosen path for first grade Tier 3 literacy intervention. They began to pursue implementation of Reading Recovery in their district. Since then they continue to employ Reading Recovery.

Reading Recovery teachers receive rigorous professional development (6 credit hours during one school year) while they simultaneously teach children. The interventionists are taught what to do, but also “why” they do what they do. Further, interventionists spend time collaborating about their thoughtful moment-by-moment decision making, and their interpretation of students’ behaviors. The teachers receive collegial feedback for their teaching expertise to grow. The early intervention is one teacher and one student, serving first grade students who are most likely to fall behind in academic progress without this support. The students receive this individual intervention 30 minutes a day for 12-20 weeks during their firstgrade year. During the intervention, students read familiar text to build their fluency and confidence, work on words, compose a story, and read a new text every day. To measure progress, students are given pre-post assessments and are followed by the district through fifth grade. What follows is a brief outline of the assessment, and the results of the student data.

The Assessment

An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2019) is a valid and reliable data source that is comprised of six tasks. First is letter identification where students are asked to name the letters of the alphabet. Second is concepts about print. This task asks students to show the front of the book, where to start reading and other directional skills, and to identify the concept of a letter and a word, among others. Third, is writing vocabulary. Students are asked to write the words they know within ten minutes. Fourth, students are asked to write a dictated sentence to represent their knowledge of sounds within words. Fifth is a word test that shows how many of the 20-high-frequency words the student can read. Finally, is a text reading task; students read a leveled book to determine if the student’s reading of that text is easy, instructional (just right), or if the text is too hard.

Data Collection and Analysis

All data were administered individually to the students’ pre-post intervention. Since raw scores are difficult to keep and interpret across tasks with varying point values and administered at different times over numerous years, the raw scores were converted to stanine scores for easy comparison. All data was entered by a literacy leader into a data center and yearly reports were prepared for the researcher. Descriptive statistics were run across the six literacy tasks and first 8 years of intervention (2012-2019) in the district. Data since the pandemic (2019-2020 and beyond) were not included since post-data were not collected in 2020 and the transition back into full-in-person teaching was unreliable for another year.

Results

A total of 1501 students across 15 elementary schools in the district received intervention from 2011 through 2019. Approximately 58% were male and 61% Caucasian. Almost 60% received free/reduced lunch. About 10% had an Individual Education Plan and 11% spoke a language other than English at home.

Preventive interventions are meant to support students before they academically fall behind in contrast to remediation which happens after students show severe difficulty (Pianta, 1990). This way students can accelerate their growth and maintain grade-level averages in their future educational career. Since students may be in this preventive short-term intervention up to 20 weeks, there is insufficient time to completely serve two groups of students during the academic year. Once students completed the preventive intervention in 20 weeks, 65% were either considered to be well on their way to building a self-extending system for literacy without other further support, and 35% were recommended for further intensive treatment intervention. It is very understandable that all students are working towards a common outcome of literacy achievement and success, but they will take different paths and thus need different instructional methods or different amounts of time in an intervention. The district embraces this philosophy. One question is how students continue to academically perform after the preventive intervention has ended, which is called subsequent gains. For the 65% of students who successfully completed the intervention without needing any further support, they were followed and assessed at the end of the year. The following table shows their average beginning-year (before intervention), the mid-year scores (influenced by the intervention), and year-end scores (several months after intervention ended). Also included in blue are the scores of the control group first graders who did not receive intervention.

When looking at the fall scores, there is notable and remarkable difference between the intervention students’ scores and control group (who did not receive intervention). For example, Reading Recovery students initially had much lower performance across the six assessments. They read about a text level 1, whereas the control students read approximately level 5 (out of a

Scores of Students Who Successfully Completed Intervention

The scores show averages across students’ assessment at the beginning, middle and end of the year. Scores in black are for students who successfully completed the intervention. The scores in blue are first graders who did not receive intervention.

gradient where level 18 is the level students are expected to be at by the end of first grade). Further, at the beginning of the year, students who received Reading Recovery wrote approximately seven words when timed for 10-minutes, whereas the control students wrote 21 words. Likewise, the intervention group heard and wrote fewer sounds in words, and they particularly read fewer sight words. However, by mid-year the gains between the Reading Recovery intervention and control group were very comparable, and those gains were maintained at the end-of-the year. Even if the intervention students’ scores were lower on one task at the end of the year, they were not significantly lower. At times, the intervention students’ scores were higher than their peers. When comparing how the Reading Recovery intervention students were considerably lower at the beginning of the year, the amount of gain they made compared to the control group is quite noteworthy.

So short term (at the end of intervention) and subsequent (end of school year) gains have shown remarkable growth for students who successfully complete the Reading Recovery intervention. Another important consideration is the achievement of the intervention students throughout their elementary career, which we will call longitudinal data since the data were measured over time. Reading Recovery students were monitored by a running record to determine if the student read at grade level in second, third, fourth, and fifth grades. Please note that since the previous data in Table 1 and the results discussed above focused on the 65% of the students who successfully completed Reading Recovery intervention and needed no other services, the forthcoming longitudinal data differs. The longitudinal data includes all students who were served, including those who went on to receive other services or were unable to complete the intervention due to lack of time at the end of the school year. Therefore, what follows indicates a consensus across all students, rather than a 1-1 match to the previous data. Further, the longitudinal data were given to the researcher for the last four years. Table 2 shows the years the students received Reading Recovery.

Of the 572 students served in the 15 elementary schools since 2017, 83% of the students who received Reading Recovery were able to maintain grade level through fifth grade. Grade level means they were reading text at the expected level of students in their grade. Approximately 17% of the students who received this first-grade intervention needed further services in second through fifth grade as they were unable to read text at the level expected for their grade. There was variability across schools; some schools had 2-3% of their students who needed more intervention, whereas other schools had 33-38% of the students who needed intervention. The variability indicates the many influences that go into education including student factors, teaching factors and school factors.

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Sunflower School District wondered “why” their students were not performing and maintaining progress as they expected. It was this “why” that led the district leaders to search for and find the Literacy Processing Theory and Reading Recovery (Clay, 2015, 2016) intervention described here. The data from this one school district showed Reading Recovery as a strong preventive intervention that positively impacted many students, regardless of socioeconomic status or race/ethnicity or native language and prevented them from struggling with reading and writing difficulties as well as other possibilities such as being retained or assigned to special education. The Reading Recovery intervention demonstrated the potential to accelerate the students’ learning, based on where the student was in his/her learning journey rather than where the class performed. Further, at the conclusion of the 20 weeks, students were identified who needed additional support. Reading Recovery is based on Literacy Processing Theory (Clay, 2015, 2016) which aligns closely with the Active View of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). At a time when there is so much information swirling around about the Science of Reading and what instructional approach is right for children, as district leaders and reading personnel, we need to ask ourselves, “Why are we doing what we are doing? Does what we are doing match what our students need?” To consider those questions, let’s review some of the information presented in the paper with some additional research. First, “attending to the sounds made by letters in words is a valuable but small part of what a reader has to know” (Clay, 2010, p.8) as evidenced by the Active View of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021) and Literacy Processing Theory (Clay, 2015, 2016). Second, a prescribed curriculum, or the “fixed steps in a teaching plan or a publisher’s worksheet always leaves some children behind” (Clay, 2010, p. 29). Curriculum is important, but ultimately the teacher’s in-the-moment decision making and interactions with students are more powerful than curriculum (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; NAEYC/IRA, 2005). Third, anytime we group learners, there is always a compromise because children are diverse in their academic performance and have differing needs. Research has shown that small group interventions are less effective than individual teaching for children with reading difficulties (Dorn & Allen, 1995; Harrison, 2002; Schwartz et al., 2012). Children are diverse in their literacy learning. Therefore, teaching for individual differences is important, but even more important for students who struggle to read and write (Clay, 2015, 2016). Fourth, a strong preventive intervention supports students who show early signs of potential difficulty and can be supplemented with instruction in a classroom that has quality whole group and small group instruction. The goal of a preventive service is to “reduce the rate of occurrence of a particular problem or strengthen the well-being of the individuals” (Pianta, 1990, p. 306). Reading Recovery delivers. Reading Recovery selects students identified by teachers who do not qualify for services but who show indicators they need further support, so they can accelerate their literacy learning. Further, Reading Recovery can supplement any curriculum currently used in your school. Only if our “why” is based on these considerations can we expect our students to be successful.

In sum, there are so many factors that go into the reading process as evidenced by the presented theories. Serving all of our students, including those who find literacy learning to be challenging, is our responsibility. The ultimate goal is for our students to be self-extending readers and writers. While there is no “one best method,” we can consider all the implications of our interventions, classroom teaching, and most importantly, our guiding theories. It is so important for teachers to know the “why” that informs their teaching. The one controllable factor that most impacts the learning of students is the quality of the teaching (Rickards et al., 2021). So, we have come full circle back to you, the reader of this paper, possibly a reading specialist or classroom teacher who loves literacy. Your beliefs about your teaching matter. Hopefully the information presented helps you articulate your “why” about what you teach and believe. Together, let’s continue to learn and study as science advances and we can embrace the new theoretical updates to serve our children most effectively. Further, let’s keep learning how to teach all our students more effectively, particularly those who need preventive services.

References

AIR Equity Initiative. (n.d.). What Works Clearinghouse: Statistics, website, and training (SWAT). Retrieved from https://www.air.org/project/what-works-clearinghousestatistics-website-and-training-swat

Bates, C.C. (November 2022). Fostering visual and phonological analysis from beginning to end. Presented at the Missouri Association of Reading Recovery Educators Conference, Branson, Missouri.

Clay, M.M. (2010). The puzzling code. Heinemann.

Clay, M.M. (2015). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Heinemann.

Clay, M.M. (2016). Literacy lessons designed for individuals. Heinemann.

Clay, M.M. (2019). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Heinemann.

Copple, C., & Bredeamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Dorn L., & Allen, A. (1995). Helping low-achieving first-grade readers: A program combining Reading Recovery tutoring and small-group instruction. ERS Spectrum: Journal of School Research and Information, 13(3), 16-34.

Doyle, M.A. (2013). Marie M. Clay’s theoretical perspective: A literacy processing theory. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of literacy (6th ed.), 636-656.

Duke, N.K., & Cartwright, K.B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25S44. doi:10.1002/rrq.411. Retrieved from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rrq.411

Gough, P.B., & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104 https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518773154

Harrison, L. (2002). A student on the complementary effects of Reading Recovery and small group instruction for reversing reading failure (Research Summary No. 102-03 Research in Literacy and Teacher Development). University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Hoover, W.A., & Tunmer, W.E. (2020). The cognitive foundations of reading and its acquisition. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Oklahoma Dyslexia Handbook: A guide to literacy development and reading struggles. (2019). Retrieved from chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/Okla homa%20Dyslexia%20Handbook.pdf

NAEYC/IRA. (2005). Where we stand on learning to read and write. Adapted from Learning to read and write: developmentally appropriate practices for young children, a joint position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children and the International Reading Association (1998).

Pianta, R.C, (1990). Widening the debate on educational reform: Prevention as a viable alternative. Exceptional Children, 56(4), 306-313.

Rickards, F., Hattie, J., & Reid, C. (2021). The turning point for the teaching profession. Growing expertise and evaluative thinking. Routledge.

Scarborough, H.S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 97–110). Guilford.

Schwartz, R.M., & Schmitt, M.C., & Lose, M.K. (2012). Effects of student-teacher ratio in response to intervention approaches. Elementary School Journal, 112(4), 547-567.

Dr. Donita Shaw is Professor of Literacy Education at Oklahoma State University – Tulsa. She can be reached at Donita.shaw@okstate.edu

Teacher to Teacher

Melissa Brevetti and Joy Thomas

How Trauma-Informed Teachers Build Problem Solving Skills

Using the Classic Story Harold and the Purple Crayon

When students returned to in-person learning after the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a rise in behavior problems within public schools. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2022), 87% of public schools reported that the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted student socio-emotional development during the 2021–22 school year. Many students struggle to manage their emotions well, and, in turn, teachers are affected by this issue in the classroom.

Without clear knowledge about how to address this concerning trend, teachers cannot implement instructional strategies targeting this phenomenon, and students are not given another opportunity to thrive in the classroom. If teachers are provided with specific, targeted traumainformed classroom strategies and resources, with consistent professional development during their teaching career, the rise in behavior problems in schools could see a decline.

This article will provide teachers with specific, targeted trauma-informed classroom strategies, which highlight the use of children’s literature, and address this issue while making the classroom conducive to emotional safety, increased student engagement, and further development of critical thinking skills.

Providing a Trauma-Informed Classroom

As educators, many of us were taught to respond to the behavior exhibited in front of us and to associate behaviors with choice (Souers & Hall, 2016). Students arrive at school in survival mode and are unable to manage their stress. What these manifestations can look like in the classroom are types of misbehaviors: avoidant, disengaged, disruptive, attention-seeking, or manipulative. When building relationships with students, it is essential to recognize the reasons why negative behaviors are manifesting in the classroom, instead of responding to the behavior in front of us. This is the first step in providing a trauma-informed classroom – a mindset change to approaching negative behaviors. A trauma-informed classroom and an educator using traumainformed instructional approaches allows students to thrive (Souers & Hall, 2016, p. 32).

A trauma-informed classroom environment that sends the message that students are in a safe space, the teacher is trustworthy, and the student feels cared for while promoting belongingness, will have the following (Flannery, 2019):

• Dim lighting

• A cool-down corner with stress-relieving sensory tools that help regulate emotions

• Posters that prompt students to discern what you are feeling today with different emoji faces

• Flexible seating

• Mindful breathing and minute meditation

Instructional strategies include student choice, shared responsibility, student-led discussions and activities, fostering a discovery-filled environment, and peer collaboration (Flannery, 2019).

A trauma-informed educator has the ability to understand learners’ needs and how to meet them for intellectual growth. The purpose of this article is threefold so that our learners: 1) value imaginative freedom in their lives and for others, 2) benefit from trauma-informed instructional approaches, and 3) discover problem-solving skills for self-empowerment.

One of the most charming and imaginative books in all of children’s books holds the great idea of adventure using a simple purple crayon. The classic story Harold and the Purple Crayon shows how young Harold can draw his world with such wonder, critically think, and thus solve his own problems when life happens. How can teachers use Harold and the Purple Crayon to promote critical thinking skills, providing ways for trauma-impacted students to effectively learn strategies of self-regulation and deep thinking?

Engaging Students in Meaningful Activities

First, the class can read Harold and the Purple Crayon in a group setting. Then students can discuss book themes in small groups or pairs. This discussion can help students brainstorm why and how Harold makes sense of the world around him, and they can decide if these problem-solving skills could apply to their everyday lives.

Second, students can then start considering, “What Is My Story?” This activity will help students to consider themselves from new perspectives, looking at qualities that they admire and/or value in others (i.e. mentors, classmates, parents, etc.) and themselves.

Teachers can ask:

• How are you similar to Harold?

• Do you know someone who has a sense of wonder like Harold?

• What adventures/travels do you enjoy?

• Do we have ethical responsibilities when we go to new places or different places?

• Why does Harold like to draw?

• How can we also show openness and excitement to explore our world?

• What are the advantages of bringing a friend with you on an adventure?

• Where would you like to go and discover new sights?

• How can you keep an open mind to evaluate reality and move forward in positive ways?

“But, luckily, he kept his wits and his purple crayon” is a line that resonates since Harold has to stay level-headed to find solutions. Allow students the time and interactions to ponder how to make choices that lead to positive outcomes, as well as having reasonable expectations for self and others. Learners can explore why circumstances exist, which can often be more powerful than the physical manifestations. Furthermore, this is an opportunity to let students consider how to stay rational, examine potential choices, and be confident as they make decisions. Indeed, it is important to keep our wits and our purple crayons as we go up and down together through life’s adventures.

Evaluating with Project-Based Learning

To see what students learned, teachers will have each student create a project: a book of their own adventures. For example, a student might call her book “Joy and the Pink Crayon.” In fact, students do not necessarily have to use “crayons” as their artistic device to see and explore the world that they are creating. Other tools can be considered! However, learners will draw themselves as a person who is exploring the world around them with imagination and the power to transform their surroundings. Students can pick the color of their own story and decide what adventures will come their way. Students will also make videos of live reading presentations to practice public speaking/communication skills.

For evaluating the students’ projects, teachers can evaluate the overall books with a rubric or for certain elements of the writing project. For instance, five areas featured on the rubric could look like this: story plot, visuals and illustrations, text mechanics/grammar, creativity, and delivery during the live reading presentation. Each of these five areas can be on a 20-point scale, so the overall point scale is 100 points.

Conclusion

All educators must consider how to make meaningful shifts to a trauma-informed paradigm, creating an environment of safety and modeling ways to manage stress in healthy ways. In particular, Harold and the Purple Crayon is an ideal story with a protagonist who has an attitude of autonomy and positivity, developing his problem-solving skills as he encounters adventures. Moreover, Harold shows a meaningful archetype of a motivated, curious, confident child, as he explores his world with an unbridled love for learning.

It is also important to keep in mind that psychologists have identified two main factors the ability to regulate emotions and optimism lead to lifelong resiliency (Sporleder and Forbes, 2016). We can hold our students’ hopes and stories with clear purpose by having safe spaces where students practice problem-solving. And yet, these educative moments happen naturally in literature, because stories open that door to real conversations and meaningful examples. Literature helps us to connect to others and to see compassionate ways of being. That being said, educators can thus remember and prioritize what we hold most dear: our children. As Harold demonstrates, we all can live more fully by taking new paths and building problem-solving skills with the confidence to go out and chase dreams–and while also remembering the accolades of any given adventure are less important than how we help others along the way.

References

Bashant, J. (2020). Building a trauma-informed, compassionate classroom: Strategies and activities to reduce challenging behavior, improve learning outcomes, and increase student engagement. PESI.

Flannery, M. (2019). Inside a Trauma-Informed Classroom. Retrieved from https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/inside-trauma-informedclassroom

Johnson, Crockett (1955). Harold and the Purple Crayon. HarperCollins Publishers. National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). More than 80 Percent of U.S. Public Schools Report Pandemic Has Negatively Impacted Student Behavior and Socio-Emotional Development. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press_releases/07_06_2022.asp

Souers, K., & Hall, P. (2016). Fostering resilient learners: Strategies for creating a traumasensitive classroom. ASCD.

Sporleder, J., & Forbes, H. (2016). The Trauma-Informed School: A Step-by-Step Implementation Guide for Administrators and School Personnel. Beyond Consequences Institute, LLC.

Dr.

Teacher to Teacher

Lorie T. Meier, Natalia A. Ward, Lindsay Lester, and Edward J. Dwyer

Encouraging Literacy and Social Studies Learning through Making Books

Abstract

Social studies and literacy instruction pair together in preparing informed citizens. Emphasis placed on high stakes testing in literacy and mathematics often leaves the social studies shortchanged in elementary and middle schools. The authors propose a model for integrating literacy studies and social studies in an enjoyable format for making books. Strategies presented herein are easily adaptable to a wide variety of learning environments.

Through comprehensive analysis of research based on literacy studies, Morrow and Dougherty (2011) determined that quality instruction takes place in a literacy rich environment involving social interaction, collaboration in production of meaningful products, and exploration of engaging learning opportunities beyond the classroom. In this era of high stakes testing, we see the social studies teacher as a vital contributor to enhancing literacy achievement among students as well as providing instruction in social studies.

Terry (2021) determined that increasing levels of civic unrest must be met with enhancement of classroom experiences that encourage positive social interaction with strategies that provide all students with positive instructional experiences. Further, Terry (2021) stressed the importance of activities that encourage “diverse perspectives” (p. 88) in light of the large number of English language learners in elementary schools. Perspectives presented by Terry (2021) align elegantly with guidelines presented by the National Council for the Social Studies (2011).

However, an extensive review of research led Fisher and Frey (2015) to conclude that “in the push to increase students’ reading proficiency, some schools and districts have cut down, or entirely removed blocks of time for social studies” (p. 524). On the other hand, the authors propose that competencies in both the social studies and literacy can be enhanced through strategies presented in a variety of applications in many different learning environments. In this light, Tunnell, Jacobs, Young, and Bryan (2016) determined that elementary level students must be engaged in meaningful activities that encourage intrinsic motivation to learn the material at hand.

Rasinski (2010) defined reading fluency as smooth and effortless reading with appropriate pace, inflection, and attention to conventions of print such as commas, periods, bold lettering, and exclamation points. The authors propose that reading fluency is just as important when students are engaged with reading in the social studies as it is in classes focused on literacy instruction. Many students often read in a monotone and rarely add inflection in their voices without prompts. On the other hand, as Rasinski (2010) determined, with guided practice and repeated readings fluency can be readily enhanced.

An approach that we have found successful for fostering reading fluency in an enjoyable format is through producing comb-bound books based on information about the individual states in the United States of America. Comb-bound books can be easily made using a comb-binding machine such as the Ibico. In this learning activity, students research facts about their assigned states and prepare a book about the state on which they have focused. They work toward the goal of fluently delivering an oral presentation relative to the contents of their book. Students appear thoroughly delighted with the opportunity to share what they have learned about their state. As proposed herein, focusing on a particular state reflects guidelines presented by the National Council for the Social Studies (2011) advising social studies teachers not to “diffuse their efforts by covering too many topics superficially” (p. 1). All of the students, some with more support than others, produce an elegantly crafted book about a state with accurate content. As proposed by the International Literacy Association (2019), the authors are not concerned about creating a rubric for grading but, rather, on the concept of having all of the students enjoy success.

We encourage social studies and literacy teachers to work together to creatively employ the strategies presented in this paper in a variety of learning environments and with a variety of topics. In this light, a social studies teacher and literacy instructor might focus on countries rather than states. The science teacher might work with the literacy teacher to produce books that focus on animals or climate. The math teacher and the literacy teacher can produce a math book that contains word problems. The literacy teacher(s) can encourage students to write and illustrate their own stories and poems.

The students in grades four and five that we worked with on this project were ethnically diverse and from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds. We contend that this activity fosters a highly positive and low-stress learning environment in accord with principles presented by the International Literacy Association (2019).

Teachers can obtain hard copy colorful packets of information for the states. For example, the teacher might have 50 packets and have a class of 25 students. Each student can draw the name of a state from an opaque container with the names of the states on pieces of paper. The surprise element adds excitement as students draw the states and then check the wall map or on-line map to determine the location. We avoid having the students’ home state in the drawing because all of the students study their home state extensively. The material packets for every state include photographs of people who live in the state including people of color and welcoming messages for the students to feel personally involved in their states. During the activity, we were surprised to find that most of the students had never seen a paper roadmap. The students were especially delighted with the maps. However, one student wanted to trade in her state, because “There’s no map with my stuff.”

We use the published text and/or summarized information to encourage reading fluency. We like the coffee shop strategy (Rasinski, 2010) where the students write their summary about their state and work on oral presentations while using their own books for reference. When ready, the students read their prepared text to the class while sitting in the reader’s chair and invite the audience members to read their book after the presentations. The students practice to ensure fluency and an engaging reading performance before presenting to the group (Rasinski, 2018). The presentation includes information about the population, location, state motto, industries, and other items of interest. For example, on the http://alaska.gov site there are numerous references, including but not limited to: state government, local government, population, geography, political leaders, a large map of Alaska, and the economy. There is even a separate link for information on the indigenous people of Alaska.

The presentations take place in what Rasinski (2010) described as the coffee shop. The audience at the coffee shop enjoys fruit punch or hot chocolate during presentations. The coffee shop is usually a collaborative effort between the social studies teacher, literacy teacher, parent volunteers, older students, school librarian, and instructional assistants. Friday afternoon is a particularly good time for the coffee shop. The school library is often a good location for the coffee shop. After the formal presentations by each of the students, the state books are left on tables in the library for display purposes for class members and others to see. As mentioned above, all of the students have an elegantly prepared book with accurate information at the time of presentation.

In addition, we invite the students to record the presentation about their state onto an audio/visual recording using a phone. The students practice their presentation, and when they and their coach determine they are ready, they record. The reading coach can be the social studies teacher, literacy teacher, older student, instructional assistant, or volunteer. The recording is made before the group coffee shop presentation in a relaxed atmosphere. The audio/visual recording is made available on-line to parents/caregivers who can share it with relatives and friends. For example, a student was delighted to share her presentation with her grandparents who lived nearly 200 miles away.

We especially like this activity because the students get to build a product that they can keep and share with family and friends. The states book is enthralling because the students believe they are authorities within their classroom and school about a relevant topic. In addition, the students come to appreciate what people do in places that are far from their home, some of which affect them directly. For example, many students take agricultural products for granted, and then they learn about how the food they eat is grown and prepared for the market in another state. Some students made observations that the school cafeteria’s food had likely come from several states. For example, a student looked at a one-serving size cereal box and determined that it came from, “Battle Creek, MI.” He read each letter aloud, “M” and “I” and seemed puzzled, so he asked a classmate who said the cereal came from “Mississippi.” Later, the students determined that it was, in fact, Michigan. Through this type of interaction, students can enhance literary skills while fostering learning in the social studies.

Preparing Books about the States

1. The teacher is in charge of creating each state’s primary packet of materials and keeping a substantial supply of packets on hand. Early in the academic year, teachers can stock up on packets from the states. The teacher needs to obtain the brochures and other pertinent materials by delving into the state.gov web sites to find the helpful information. For example, in the Oklahoma.gov site there is a section titled Travel Oklahoma and an option for obtaining hardcopy brochures.

2. The packets prepared by the teacher usually contain brochures highlighting places of interest likely to attract visitors. Every state has colorful and descriptive materials they share at no charge through the mail with potential visitors. In addition, there is abundant information and photographs on their state.gov websites. Some states have an additional link specifically for tourists.

3. Ideally, we would invite the students to select a state that they would like to learn more about and procure the materials; however, this is impractical. School personnel gather the hard copy materials. As mentioned above, we eliminate our home state from this project since much information is already available and is studied in depth by all of the students.

4. The materials needed are: Information about the state, scissors, glue sticks, colorful paper for framing the text and pictures, blank pages, front and back covers for the book, nameplates, six-ring combs, and any additional materials you would like to add. Be sure that the combs are compatible with your comb-binding machine. Use .75” combs or larger depending on the number of pages you will be using.

5. Provide a model of the finished product, Figure 1. We like to add a photograph of the student who creates the book on the inside front cover. This is not essential, but it adds a personal touch to the book as presented in Figure 2. Students include substantial information about the state taken from materials received and possibly from other sources such as an encyclopedia or from the Library of Congress (https://www.loc.gov). This information might include data on population, information on manufacturing, and agriculture. Please see Figure 3. Students include the Web reference for the state so that others can easily access the state site as presented in Figure 4.

6. Invite the students to collect pictures and information about the state, make frames for text and pictures, and affix the framed pictures and text to the pages using a glue stick. In addition to the materials presented in the packets obtained by the teacher through the mail, pictures and text can be printed directly from the Internet during class or individual research. Students can use colored pencils to liven up pictures when color printer cartridges are not available. Some students obtain information from study at home; however, we make sure that all students have adequate opportunities to access information (International Literacy Association, 2019).

7. Another suggestion is to make a larger book and work collaboratively as a class or in small groups. For example, the comb-binding machine can be easily adjusted to make a book with 8.5” by 5.5” pages with 9” x 6” covers. Teachers can determine what to include in their books and in the oral reports.

How to Make a Comb-Bound Book with the Ibico Comb-Binding Machine

1. Make pages for the books from 110 lb. or 67 lb. cardstock. Start by cutting the pages into fourths (4.25” x 5.5”) using a paper cutter. The basic materials are presented in Figure 5.

2. Line up the pages on the Ibico comb-binding machine, so that you can punch six holes. For example, this can be done by placing the 4.25” side on the right side of the triangle just to the left of the C in the word CENTER on the machine. Then pull out the nearby tabs so you do not get extra holes. You can place tiny stickers on the correct tabs to make it easier to locate them on the base of the machine. Punch six holes in about five pages at a time. The comb-binding machine is easy for students to operate safely and efficiently.

3. Make covers by cutting mat board 6.75” x 5” using a sturdy paper cutter. Place the 6.5” side of the mat board adjacent to the sticker marked 6.75” x 5.” When punching the front cover and the back cover, be sure to reverse the punching procedure for each cover so they will match perfectly when aligned. That is, punch the front cover with the colorful side facing upwards and the back cover with the colorful side facing downwards. Punch six holes in the mat board that will align with the holes punched for the pages. We recommend sturdy mat board that can be found in a variety of colors. Frame shops often have scrap mat board that is wonderful for making covers. The students can easily operate the comb-binding machine and enjoy putting together the final product and presented in Figure 6.

4. If a comb-binding machine is not available, you may punch the holes with an electronic hole-puncher, and the pages and cover can be secured with loosely tied yarn. However, we strongly recommend obtaining a comb-binding machine of the type mentioned herein. These machines were extensively used in schools and businesses to bind reports but have been largely replaced by on-line formats. Check your school and you might find one!

Conclusion

We have made comb-bound books with students in a variety of learning activities, including writing a book of poems, mathematics facts and word problems, literacy sight words, and biographies. The books add a level of interest to learning activities that might otherwise seem mundane. Producing a book about the states while integrating the social studies and literacy learning encourages enthusiasm among learners. We like that the book is a physical product that the students can take home and share. Harvey and Ward (2017) described this type of activity as fostering a desire among students to engage heartily and thrive as readers. Our guiding principles for this project are based on the International Literacy Association (2018) statement titled, The case for children’s right to read, with emphasis on the principle titled, “Right to supportive learning environments and high-quality resources.” (p.2) These principles and the social studies standards mentioned above are mutually complementary. Our overarching theme is reflected in the words of John Knowles in his book titled A Separate Peace: “So much of learning anything depends on the atmosphere in which it is taught.”

References

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2015) Selecting texts and tasks for content area reading and learning. Reading Teacher, 68 (7), 524-528.

Harvey, S. & Ward, A. (2017) From striving to thriving: How to grow confident, capable readers Scholastic.

International Literacy Association (2018): The case for children’s right to read. Retrieved from http://www.literacyworldwide.org. (Click “Get Involved” and then click “Children’s Right to Read” and then click “The Case for Children’s Right to Read.” https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2010

Manyak, P. Manyak, A., and Kappus, E.M. (2021) Lessons from a decade of research on multifaceted vocabulary instruction. Reading Teacher, 75(1), 27-38.

Morrow, L.M. & Dougherty, S. (2011) Early literacy development: Merging perspectives that influence practice. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.) Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts. (3rd ed. pp. 39-45) Routledge.

National Council for the Social Studies (2011) A vision of powerful teaching and learning in the social studies: Building social understanding. A position statement of the National Council for the Social Studies. Retrieved from: http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/powerful Rasinski, T. (2010) The fluent reader (2nd ed.). Scholastic.

Rasomsli, T. (2018) The megabook of fluency: Strategies and texts to engage all readers Scholastic.

Terry, N. P. (2021) Delivering on the promise of the science of reading for all children, Reading Teacher, 75(1), 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/trt.2031.

Tunnell, M.O., Jacobs, J.S., Young, T.A., and Bryan, G. (2016) Children’s literature, briefly. Scholastic.

Dr. Lori Meier is an associate professor who teaches social studies classes in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction (CUAI) at East Tennessee State University. She can be reached at Meier@etsu.edu

Dr. Natalia A. Ward is an assistant professor in literacy studies in the CUAI Department where she teaches classes focused on English Language Learners. She can be reached at WardNA@etsu.edu

Lindsay Lester teaches fourth grade students at University School, the on-campus public professional development school at ETSU. She can be reached at LesterL@etsu.edu.

Dr. Ed Dwyer is a professor emeritus in the CUAI department who has taught classes in literacy development. He can be reached at dwyer@etsu.edu.

Teacher to Teacher

Stacie Garrett and Michelle Smith

Meeting Diverse Students’ Needs through Digital Literature and Resources

Students have always brought unique differences and individual needs to the reading classroom. Teachers provide differentiated instruction and offer supportive resources to ensure all children are developing literacy skills accordingly. Effective reading instruction typically begins with some sort of assessment process to determine specific needs within each student (Nese et. al., 2019). From this point, teachers develop plans of action to focus on individual levels and abilities. Often, teachers will select appropriate leveled children’s literature and meet with students in small groups to reinforce and instill reading skills. Teachers may also facilitate student-led centers to support these needs. These approaches have been proven to be effective at reaching struggling readers (Rasinski, 2017). However, after the pandemic, many teachers no longer are teaching in the traditional classroom and instead are teaching through hybrid, remote, online and a combination of these virtual formats. Thus, there is a need to provide teachers with effective digital resources.

Since 2020, there has been an increase in virtual classrooms across the country (Suryanto, 2021). Many teachers are faced with learning to use digital literature and online resources to assist with the instructional process. Although the learning formats and platforms may have changed for many students and teachers, the needs of students continue to be a priority in all classrooms. Addressing students’ needs through virtual resources could be difficult for teachers as they navigate through learning to teach through virtual instruction (Buhl & Andreasen, 2018). Teachers need to create experiences that allow their students to have those same moments as they have in traditional classroom settings.

Teaching virtually has raised common concerns among teachers. “How can digital methods improve my students' reading skills?” “How can digital resources hold my students accountable for reading independently?” “How can I ensure my students are getting exposure to quality virtual literature?” These questions and many others like this have been on the forefront of educators’ minds. Through high-quality virtual resources and literature, supportive learning environments, and a little creativity, teachers can get these questions answered and learn how to meet their students' individual needs regardless of the classroom environment being traditional or virtual.

The learning environment should be a place where literacy is supported and is often where children develop an interest in books. Creating an engaging and collaborative environment to support young readers is more challenging in the virtual setting (Wright & Bartholomew,

2020). Teachers must be creative when planning for learning. The role of the teacher must switch from “learning provider” to “learning facilitator” (Trautwein, 2018). This means the role transitions from providing or conveying information to engaging students with information through activities and collaboration. As the learning facilitator, the teacher monitors students’ involvement and engagement through virtual, ongoing guided practice (Al Mamun et. al., 2022). This article provides specific virtual strategies and digital approaches to guide any teacher with supporting diverse reading needs.

How Can Digital Methods Improve My Students' Reading Skills?

A significant aspect of meeting diverse reading needs is the use of assessments. Many virtual resources offer digital assessments teachers can implement in any learning environment. SplashLearn (www.splashlearn.com), is a free online assessment resource that students can engage in similarly to playing a video game. Students progress through skills by achieving milestones throughout the game levels. Educators review this interactive site positively because students learn, while monitoring their skills through gamification. The gamification process is motivating for students. There is positive correlation data to indicate as motivation increases, effort from the student also increases (Uz Bilgin & Gul, 2020). Educators get accurate data on each of their students because students are interested and applying their best effort when engaged in the assessment (Al Mamun et. al., 2022). Students read and answer questions while interacting with a game. The scores provide the teacher with reading levels and information on specific skills the student is lacking. This information allows the teacher to quickly diagnose reading skill needs. From gathering this quantitative information, teachers can easily create groups for students with similar gaps in their learning.

Literacy centers are a highly effective approach to increasing student achievement while increasing motivation for learning (Wright et. al., 2013). Teachers can emulate literacy centers by using interactive websites such as MakerSpace. Virtual MakerSpace is a resource which some teachers have begun dabbling with recently to integrate classroom centers in a virtual environment (Ciecierski & Stylers, 2020). The utilization of this approach is two-fold: teachers can create a MakerSpace to engage learners with various types of literature or it can be studentdriven for students to explore, collaborate, and learn by “making” or creating things of interest. The MakerSpace is similar to literacy centers found in a traditional classroom because students are strategically assigned to small groups based on student interests or to focus on specific skills through interaction and exploration (Wright et. al., 2013). For example, students who have an interest in learning about a topic can design a plethora of virtual resources to explore and share their newfound knowledge of the topic. This approach creates an enrichment activity for students. Students with reading needs can be challenged to participate with a “space” another student created, or the teacher prepared to target a needed skill. Specifically, students can embed videos, add texts, and incorporate games on a topic to their MakerSpace site and share these spaces with others to explore.

There are some noted challenges with embedding MakerSpace into a virtual learning environment. It may be difficult to align the learning activities to the content standards because there are no specific resources designed for MakerSpace currently. Teachers and students have to locate resources while considering the content standards. Teachers should expect longer preparation time due to MakerSpace being student and teacher created. In addition, MakerSpace could have added costs depending on how elaborate the teacher designs the learning experience.

According to Wright et. al., (2013), reading skills increase for all ages of students when there is frequent exposure to appropriate-level text. Literacy-rich environments encourage students to explore an array of literature. This type of environment entices students to frequently make selections based on their interests, learning preferences, and reading needs (Rasinski, 2017). A resource that offers students an opportunity to interact with literature is through virtual book bins (Landrigan, n.d.). Teachers sort digital texts by theme, reading level, genre, and special interests. The digital book bins are sorted in desktop folders and easily shared with students in their class. Teachers embed reading activities in the digital book bins to support the student-text connection. For example, a student can select books of interest and place them in a virtual book bag, or a teacher can place recommended readings in the students’ virtual bags. This will encourage the child to explore through their selection throughout a given time period. Students are supported through hyperlinks to resources added in the book bins which offer extended assistance with difficult concepts and texts. Teachers design the book bins to have digital books, supporting PDF articles, audio resources, images, and short video clips to engage the reader (Landrigan, n.d.).

“Many students associate technology with fun, play, and leisure, and have positive feelings about digital learning activities” (Figg, et.al., 2020, p.26). An approach teachers take to create engaging, literacy-rich environments is using the Bitmoji Classroom (Minero, 2020). A Bitmoji Classroom allows teachers to create a fun virtual representation of their classroom for students to use online and engage with text. Students can navigate through a virtual environment and select books from an actual bookshelf! Students get to experience navigating through books which are organized by genres and interests. They can flip through pages and look at covers of books before making a selection. Teachers can encourage students to read specific books which will be supportive of their reading needs. As students with reading deficiencies engage with appropriate text, reading abilities can improve (Rasinski, 2017). Multiple interactions can occur in the virtual environment: teacher-to-teacher, student-to-teacher, student-to-content (Farrell et.al., 2017).

How Can Digital Resources Hold My Students Accountable for Reading Independently?

One of the most effective ways to hold students accountable for reading literature is through ongoing formative assessments. Formative assessments are necessary because teachers need to be able to identify when students have misinterpretations of text and develop appropriate redirection as soon as possible. Websites such as Pear Deck (www.peardeck.com) and Ed Puzzle (www.edpuzzle.com) provide students with embedded checkpoints created by the teacher to monitor comprehension aligned to the literature. Pear Deck allows educators to add openended and multiple-choice questions within the slide presentations. Eliciting questions is a standard way to determine the pace and level of the instruction (Nappi, 2017). Questions created in Pear Deck can be pre planned or added during a “teachable moment” in a lesson. An immersive reader feature will help scaffold diverse learners when working independently by providing options to change the text to audio, size of font, and color of background. Ed Puzzle enables educators to turn any video into a lesson. Teachers can adapt the video and embed their own questions or audio to ensure students are understanding the content.

The concept of community is at the center of learning (Sapon-Shelvin, 2010). A digital book report is an interactive way to monitor if students are reading and understanding the text while creating a sense of community. Padlet (www.padlet.com) is a digital corkboard where students can post personal reflections on a topic, embed videos and images, and link websites on the same board. Students can interact through the corkboard community. Padlet can be an easy and effective way to determine if students understand a text through collaboration. For example, students could reflect on the book, Charlotte’s Web (White, 1980) by posting a link to a video showing life on the farm, images of real animals who fit the traits of the characters, and links to sites, which relate to the overall theme of friendship. Students interact with peers’ corkboards and deepen their understanding of the text. Teachers are able to monitor student understanding based on their responses and make necessary instructional adjustments.

Another mode to facilitate students’ reading is with videos. Flipgrid (www.flipgrid.com) is a free, video, discussion platform used by students to reflect on open-ended questions posed by the teacher, share opinions of texts, discuss their ideas and experiences with their peers, and so much more. For example, students could submit a 1-3 minute Flipgrid (www.flipgrid.com) video-reflection of their understanding. This approach is similar to the traditional method of question and answer, but it has an added engagement because students are having to interact through videos. This site provides students with opportunities to edit their videos, add emojis, preview other students’ responses, and respond to a standard question through a playful dialogue.

Student engagement increases when technology interactions are simplified. Results of a recent study revealed student engagement increased when instruction incorporated the simplified technology (one-click technology) app, SnapChat (Kerr & Faulkner, 2020). Flipgrid is a oneclick technology site that has similar features to SnapChat. Embedding Flipgrid into the learning will improve engagement due to the simplicity of it.

Teachers are often concerned about holding struggling readers accountable through virtual learning (Al Mamun, 2022). Screencastify (www.screencastify.com) can offer a solution to this problem. Screencastify helps students who struggle with reading or speaking fluency by embedding speech and language practice through recorded readings. A script is placed on the screen and students read aloud the words exactly as printed while being recorded. Teachers are able to observe the students’ reading accuracy, rate, and prosody. Another embedded activity in Screencastify is comprehension exercises. The teachers post questions and students orally respond to the prompt. This approach allows teachers to accurately monitor students’ responses by listening for accuracy, along with determining how long the student took to respond. Another great aspect is students who are not proficient in typing or spelling can still be actively engaged with the learning and assessment process.

Google Suite is a free interactive platform with many accountability features. Google Suite is the one stop shop for teaching and learning (Fuentes & Grimes, 2020). One of the features, Google Classroom, is a platform in itself. Teachers can post assignments, activities, grades, and announcements. Students access their Google Classroom through a passwordprotected sign in from any computer with internet. For example, a teacher can monitor dates, times, and time spans when a student is logged into the platform. Students can upload their assignments through the Classroom icon and expect to receive a grade and feedback through a digital comment box. Students are accountable for participating through the Jamboard by responding to prompts. The Google Jamboard is similar to a digital whiteboard. Students and teachers can communicate with peers through digital sticky notes posted on the Jamboard. Teachers can monitor class learning and engage in discussions in real time. One idea is the teacher posts a prompt about a book the class is reading currently and students share their perspectives on the Jamboard. One of the most popular reasons teachers and students use Google Suites is because of the widespread accessibility and diverse icons.

How Can I Ensure My Students are Getting Exposure to Quality Virtual Literature?

According to Urlica et. al. (2021), virtual learning became a sustainable option for students because of the individualized learning options and flexible environment. This transformative learning option offers many advantages that traditional learning does not. Students no longer have to carry around books and binders of school resources and materials. All content is hosted and stored in virtual management systems. Another option is that students can learn through different locations. The availability and choices of digital resources is amplified compared to a traditional classroom since the literature selection is global. Students can have enriched experiences with digital resources beyond what traditional learning offers through simulations and explorations.

Students can navigate through multiple resources and utilize up-to-date tools by just clicking on their computers. For example, We Are Teachers (www.weareteachers.com), is a wonderful site where the authors read aloud their works in a brief video. Students can select from a plethora of titles, authors, and genres to gain exposure with quality literature. This site also offers digital activities which accompany the author and support the literature with handy teacher guides to assist with instruction.

Expository text can be especially challenging to expose to children because of the lack of interest in new topics and readability. Virtual field trips are a great way to expose students to literature and ignite an interest in new topics. Readers can travel to different places and times to engage in concepts related to texts. Teachers can use virtual field trips to provide students with a positive and realistic experience, while inspiring readers to explore deeper into the topics especially in social studies and science. For example, if the students are studying about amphibians, they could be assigned an expository text about amphibians and then take a virtual field trip to a science museum to explore the topic more fully, such as the Ruth Patrick Science Education Center channel located on YouTube (Ruth Patrick Science Education Center, 2020).

Socratic Seminar (Filkens, n.d.) is a collaborative strategy that supports student discussions through digital literature while increasing student motivation. Teachers create essential higher-order thinking questions and students respond by reflecting on their experiences and learning from their peers’ perspectives. A powerful feature of this digital approach is how communication skills are strengthened because students are expected to use rigorous dialogue with each other. Teachers assign small groups, ask the groups to discuss the reading and create essential questions about the books. Questions and answers serve as accountability checkpoints because students must answer the questions correctly before moving forward. Cultivating student discussions is a quality way to measure students’ understanding of the reading (Nappi, 2017).

Another great resource teachers can use to engage students in text is through direct websites. Reading Rockets (www.readingrockets.com) offers suggestions of children’s literature accompanied by direct links to websites which supplement the content with virtual field trips, activities, assessments, and so much more (e.g. NASA and the Boston Museum of Science). When deciding on using content from a website, the research should be taken into consideration Reflection on the quality of the resources is vital to meeting needs.

Digital book clubs produce opportunities for students to collaborate with their classmates. One way book clubs can be explored is through scavenger hunts. Book Riot (www.bookriot.com) provides readers with literacy prompts to challenge students to explore a range of texts. For instance, this site lists specific tasks such as asking students to find a character with their own name and suggesting readers document their findings in a set amount of time. Teachers have also been known for creating virtual scavenger hunts using the slideshow feature on Canva (www.canva) to expose students to new literature. Teachers Pay Teachers (www.teacherspayteachers.com) and Pinterest (www.pinterest.com) are sites which supply teachers with pre-made worksheets, activities, and games that enhance the scavenger hunt exploration.

In conclusion, effective reading strategies were once perceived as an easy task to incorporate into the classroom. However due to the recent virtual movement in education, teachers have a need to learn different approaches to teaching reading. Challenges that are expressed commonly are “How can digital methods improve my students' reading skills?” “How can digital resources hold my students accountable for reading independently?” “How can I ensure my students are getting exposure to quality virtual literature?” The websites and resources shared in this article will hopefully spark creativity in teachers and give them immediate access to virtual activities. All of the suggested resources can be used to inspire ideas in the classroom and be adjusted to meet the needs of any student. These sites support literacy by instilling enthusiasm for reading and exposing students to quality literature and meeting diverse students’ needs through digital resources.

References

Al Mamun, M. A., Lawrie, G., & Wright, T. (2022). Exploration of learner-content interactions and learning approaches: The role of guided inquiry in the self-directed online environments. Computers & Education, 178, N.PAG.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104398

Buhl, M., & Andreasen, L. B. (2018). Learning potentials and educational challenges of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in lifelong learning. International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 64(2), 151–160. https://doiorg.ezproxy.cameron.edu/10.1007/s11159-018-9716-z

Book Riot. (2020, April 16). Bookish virtual scavenger hunt ideas: Social distancing for book lovers Retrieved from https://bookriot.com/literary-virtual-scavenger-hunt/ Ciecierski, L. M., & Stylers, J. (2020). Interdisciplinary Makerspaces: A Stone’s Throw Away.

Teacher Librarian, 47(5), 21–25.

Classroom Instruction and Promotes Collaborative Learning. Journal of College Science

Teaching, 43(2), 44

53. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst13_043_02_44

Farrell, J., Manion, C., & Rincon-Gallardo, S. (2017). Reinventing schooling: Successful radical alternatives from the global south. In K. Bickmore, R. Hayhoe, C. Manion, K. Mundy, & R. Read (Eds.), Comparative and international education (pp. 59-87). Canadian Scholars

Figg, C., Crawford, K., Lu, C., & Lu, O. (2020). E3Cs: A research-based model for effective digital learning for K-6 schools. Brock Education Journal, 29(2), 24-29.

Filkins, S. (n.d.). Strategy guide: Socratic seminar. ReadWriteThink Retrieved from https://www.readwritethink.org/professional-development/strategy-guides/socraticseminars

Kerr, G. W., & Faulkner, S. (2020). Dog filters & flower crowns: Using Snapchat as a pedagogical tool in higher education. The Journal of Social Media for Learning, 1(1), 147-157.

Landrigan, C. (n.d.) Missing your classroom library? Here’s how to create a virtual one! Clare Landrigan. Retrieved from https://www.clarelandrigan.com/blog/missing-yourclassroom-library-heres-how-to-create-a-virtual-classroom-library-booklove-kidlitbookaday

Minero, E. (2020). Educators turn to Bitmoji to build community and engagement. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/article/educators-turn-bitmoji-buildcommunity-and-engagement

Nappi., J.S. (2017). The importance of questioning and developing critical thinking skills. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 84(1), 30-41.

Nese, Joseph F. T.; Farley, Dan; Anderson, Daniel. (2019, May). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 34(2), 97-109. DOI: 10.1111/ldrp.12191.

Reading Rockets. (n.d). Virtual field trips. Retrieved from https://www.readingrockets.org/article/virtual-field-trips

Rasinski, Timothy V. (2017). Readers who struggle: Why many struggle and a modest proposal for improving their reading. The Reading Teacher, 70(5), 519-524. DOI: 10.1002/trtr.1533.

Ruth Patrick Science Education Center. (2020, April 11.) Virtual field trip - Amphibians [Video]Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QD5-sgU6B4

Sapon-Shelvin, M. (2010). Because we can change the world: A practical guide to building cooperative, inclusive classroom communities (2nd ed.). Corwin.

Suryanto, I. D. L. (2021). Efficacy and knowledge of conducting CPR through online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A literature review. Journal of Public Health Research, 10(2), 104-108. DOI: 10.4081/jphr.2021.2208.

Trautwein, C. (2018). Academics’ identity development as teachers. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(8), 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1449739 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00442-x https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst13_043_02_44

Urlica, A.-A., Coroama Dorneanu, L., Iosim, I., Savescu, I., Lungu, M. R., & Pascalau, R. (2021). Is Virtual Education a Sustainable Option: Insights from Online Communication Classes. Research Journal of Agricultural Science, 53(2), 115–119.

Uz Bilgin, C., & Gul, A. (2020). Investigating the Effectiveness of Gamification on Group Cohesion, Attitude, and Academic Achievement in Collaborative Learning Environments. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 64(1), 124–136.

White, E. B. (1980). Charlotte's web. HarperTrophy.

Wright, G. A., & Bartholomew, S. R. (2020). Hands-on approaches to education: During a pandemic. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 80(4), 18–23.

Wright, L. K., Zyto, S., Karger, D. R., & Newman, D. L. (2013). Online Reading Informs Classroom Instruction and Promotes Collaborative Learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(2), 44–53.

Dr. Stacie Garrett is chair of the Education Department at Cameron University, Lawton, Oklahoma. She can be reached at sgarrett@cameron.edu

Dr. Michelle Smith is an associate professor in Cameron’s Education Department She can be reached at michells@cameron.edu.