1 / 61

iRead, iThink, iComprehend, and iLearn

iRead, iThink, iComprehend, and iLearn. Donald J. Leu The New Literacies Research Team The Neag School University of Connecticut. The New Literacies Research Team. Nicole Timbrell. Elena Forzani. Clint Kennedy. Cheryl Maykel. What I Would Like To Present Today.

tejano
Download Presentation

iRead, iThink, iComprehend, and iLearn

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. iRead, iThink, iComprehend, and iLearn Donald J. Leu The New Literacies Research Team The Neag School University of Connecticut

  2. The New Literacies Research Team Nicole Timbrell Elena Forzani Clint Kennedy Cheryl Maykel

  3. What I Would Like To Present Today • Share the thinking that informs our work at the New Literacies Research Lab within a CCSS Context. • Introduce A New Form of Authentic Assessment: ORCA (Online Research and Comprehension Assessment). • Present results from several recent studies. • Provide instructional suggestions for new literacies in a time of State Standards/CCSS.

  4. Thoughts That Inform The Work We Do for Teachers and Children

  5. 1. We Live In New Times • Rapid, Disruptive Changes To Literacy Are Happening All Around Us. • Never before has a generation lived through such a period of profound change to literacy, learning, and life.

  6. Traditional,Print Newspapers are Disappearing

  7. 2. New Technologies Require New Literacies:“Literacy is not just new today; it becomes new every day of our lives.”

  8. 3. New Literacies Are Required by Everyone

  9. 4. The Internet Is This Generation’s Defining Technology For Reading and Learning

  10. One Third of the World’s Population Is Connected to the Internet

  11. 5. The Internet is Used Extensively in the Workplace to Increase Productivity. Recent productivity gains are due to using the Internet to share information, communicate, and solve problems (van Ark, Inklaar, & McGuckin, 2003; Friedman, 2005; Matteucci, O’Mahony, Robinson, & Zwick, 2005). The Internet Team Team Team Team Team • Online Research and Comprehension • Define problems • Locate information • Evaluate information • Synthesize and solve problems • Communicate solutions

  12. 6. Our Focus Is Online Research and Comprehension • Defines how we read online when we conduct informal and formal research to learn and develop new knowledge. • Identify the problem/question • Locate • Evaluate • Synthesize • Communicate Castek, 2008; Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Henry, 2007; Leu, Castek, Hartman, Coiro, Henry, Kulikowich, & Lyver, 2005; Leu, O’Byrne, Zawilinski, McVerry, & Everett-Cacopardo, 2009; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2013

  13. The Common Core State Standards and The Pennsylvania Common Core Standards: Three Major Changes • An Increase in Informational Text Reading. • Higher Level Thinking is Emphasized. • New, Digital Literacies are Integrated For the First Time. 13

  14. These New Literacies Appear at Every Grade Level in CCSS and PCCS Kindergarten (WS 6 and CC.1.4.K.U) With guidance and support from adults, explore a variety of digital tools to produce and publish writing, including in collaboration with peers. Grade 3 (WS 8 and CC.1.4.3.W) ...gather information from print and digital sources; take brief notes on sources and sort evidence into provided categories. 14

  15. Grade 6 (RS 7 and CC.1.2.6.G) Integrate information presented in different media or formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively) as well as in words to develop a coherent understanding of a topic or issue. 15

  16. We Should Read The Standards with Both a “Lens to the Past” and a “Lens to the Future”

  17. 1. “Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.” or CC1.2.4.B /E03.B‐C.2.1.1“Refer to details and examples in text to support what the text says explicitly and make inferences. • A Lens to the Past • Narrative Text • Inferential Comprehension • A Lens to the Future 17

  18. 6. “Assess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a text.” orE03.B‐C.1.2.3 B Explain the point of view of the author. • A Lens to the Future • Web site reliability • Who is the author • Is the author an expert? How do you know? • What is the author’s point of view? How do you know? • Is this site reliable? How do you know? • A Lens to the Past • Narrative text • What was the author’s point of view? • What was Jacob’s point of view?

  19. How We Read PCCS Will Determine What We Teach + A “Lens to the Past” + a “Lens to the Future”

  20. How Do Students Read Online and Conduct Research: Results From Several Research Projects • The ORCA Project: New performance based assessments of online research and comprehension. • Students are only minimally prepared for online research and comprehension. • There is an achievement gap for online research and comprehension in schools, separate and independent from the reading achievement gap. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer because of public policies.

  21. Current Graduate Research Assistants Elena Forzani, Clint Kennedy, Cheryl Maykel, Nicole Timbrell, The University of Connecticut Previous Graduate Research Assistants Lisa Zawilinski, University of Hartford Ian O’Byrne, University of New Haven Greg McVery, University of Southern Connecticut Scientific Advisory Board P. David Pearson, The University of California, Berkeley Irwin Kirsch, Educational Testing Service Rand Spiro, Michigan State University Elizabeth Stage, Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley Glenn Kleimann, Friday Institute, NCSU

  22. Locate Can the student locate the correct email message in an inbox on the first click? Can the student use appropriate keywords in a search engine? Can the student locate the best site for a task from a set of search engine results on the first click? Can the student locate and communicate the correct website addresses from two different search tasks.

  23. Evaluate Can the student identify the author of the website? Can the student evaluate the author's level of expertise? Can the student identify the author's point of view? Can the student evaluate the reliability of a website?

  24. Synthesize Can students provide a summary of one important element from the first website? Can students use their own words to integrate one detail from each of the first two websites? Can students use their own words to integrate one detail from each of the second two websites? Can students use their own words to develop an argument after reading all four websites?

  25. Communicate: Email (Wiki) Does the student include the correct email address in an email message? Does the student include an appropriate subject line in an email message? Does the student include an appropriate greeting in an email message to an important, unfamiliar person? Does the student compose and send a well-structured, short report of their research in an email with sources and appropriate argument structure, containing at least one relevant claim and at least two pieces of evidence.

  26. Reading to Locate Information Online

  27. Reading to Locate Information Online

  28. Reading to Synthesize Information Online

  29. Reading to Critically Evaluate Information Online

  30. Reading and Writing to Communicate Information Online: Email Task

  31. How Well Do Students Conduct Online Research and Comprehend? Students are only minimally prepared.

  32. What Can We Conclude For Literacy Education? • Integrate The New Literacies of Online Research Into Our Reading and Writing Programs. (Total = 54%) • Focus Particular Attention on Evaluating the Reliability of Online Information. (39.5%) • Focus Particular Attention on All Aspects of Online Communication. (44%)

  33. A Second Study: Students in Rich and Poor School Districts Leu, D. J., Coiro, J., O’Byrne, W. I., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, J. G., Cacopardo, H., Kennedy, C., & Forzani, E. (2011). Online reading comprehension assessment (ORCA): A preliminary study of online reading comprehension ability in rich and poor school districts. Paper presented at the meeting of the Literacy Research Association. Jacksonville, FL.

  34. In the U.S., The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer in Offline Reading. OFFLINE READING COMPREHENSION: 90/10 Income Achievement & Black-White Gaps in Reading, 1943-2001 Cohorts *Adapted from: Reardon, S.F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In R. Murnane & G. Duncan (Eds.), Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality and the Uncertain Life Chances of Low-Income Children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press. Average Difference in S.D. Units on National Assessments Reardon, S.F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In R. Murnane & G. Duncan (Eds.), Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality and the Uncertain Life Chances of Low-Income Children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press. Years

  35. Our Study’s School District Differences

  36. A Significant Achievement Gap Existed in Offline Reading(CT Mastery Test: Reading) • t (237) = 14.34 p = .000 • eta squared = .466 (large) 282.6 215.1 • West Town (Rich) Mean = 282.6 (SD = 41.54) • East Town (Poor) Mean = 215.1 (SD = 31.07)

  37. A Significant Achievement Gap Existed in Online Research and Comprehension Abilities...ORCA-Closed • t (255) = 9.80, p = .000 • eta squared = .319 (large) 15.00 7.65 • West Town Mean = 15.00 (SD=5.69) • East Town Mean = 7.65 (SD=4.39)

  38. ...Even When an ANCOVA Analysis Was ConductedDifferences Controlled: Offline Reading + Prior Knowledge • F (1,234) = 15.84, p = .001 • partial eta squared = .063 • (medium) 12.96 9.27 • West Town (rich) adjusted mean = 12.96 • East Town (poor) adjusted mean = 10.27

  39. What Can We Conclude? • A separate achievement gap appears to exist between these rich and poor districts in their ability to conduct online research and comprehend. • It may very well be that current policies at the state level are actually helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

  40. A Third Study: Comparing Online Research Skills in Two States (n=1,129) State 1: 4th in Median Family Income/ Few Laptops State 2: 32nd in Median Family Income/1 to 1 Laptops

  41. Adjusted Total Mean Scores When Covariates of SES and Prior Knowledge Controlled *p < .05 F (1, 1021) = 14.854, p = .000 44

  42. What Can We Conclude? • Students in a poor state (ranked 32nd in median family income), with a 1-to-1 laptop initiative, performed as well as students in a rich state (ranked 4th in median family income) in online research and comprehension. • Laptop initiatives for students in our poorest school districts may help to overcome current achievement gaps in online research and comprehension.

  43. INSTRUCTION: How Can We Prepare PA Students for a World of New Literacies During a Time Of CCSS?

  44. Two Classroom Models of Instruction

  45. Grades 2-3: Internet Morning Message of the Day http://www.epals.com/find-classroom.php

  46. Grade 7: Online International Projects Hey! Gary Paulson??? We’re on it! Making a web page now. O yeah! I got some grat idea. Let me send them to Tomas and Ben in the US Jose, Costa Rica Ben and Tomas, Connecticut Monique, South Africa

More Related