Developing an Action Plan: How the survey data can help

1. Developing an Action Plan: How the survey data can help Carol Gordoncarol.gordon@rutgers.edu

2. 8:30-9:30 • The Agenda • Update: What does the reading research say? • Guiding Questions • Survey Results and the Action Plan (Goals and Objectives) • Advice for the N Teams: What would the E Teams do differently?

3. What does the research say? Whose research? Literacy researchers? Information scientists? School library researchers?

4. What do the reading reseachers say?

5. Reading research • Less than half of American over the age of 18 read books, novels, short stories, or plays. (National Endowment for the Arts, 2004) • Half of four-year college students and 76% of two-year college students are lacking crucial literacy skills (National Survey of America’s College Students, 2009) • Are e-books part of the problem or are they the solution? A number of studies have shown that the majority of college students are not accepting of e-books (Mash, 2003; Rogers & Roncevic, 2002). • The overall time spent pausing between movements when reading digital text was the best predictor of comprehension (Dyson & Haselgrove, 2005). DeSalas & Ellis (2006) recommend chunking text by topics. National Endowment for the Arts. (2004). Reading at risk: A survey of literary reading in America. Retrieved 3 March 2007 from www.arts.gov.

6. Free Choice • Determines the breadth and width of reading; • The amount of free reading done outside of school relates to growth in vocabulary, reading comprehension, verbal fluency, and general information (Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding 1988; Greaney 1980; Guthrie and Greaney 1991; Taylor, Frye, and Maruyama 1990). • Students who read independently become better readers, score higher on achievement tests in all subject areas, and have greater content knowledge than those who do not (Krashen 1993; Cunningham and Stanovich 1991; Stanovich and Cunningham 1993).

7. Engagement Model of Reading Comprehension • The engagement model posits that reading comprehension is the consequence of an extended amount of engaged reading (Guthrie, et al., 2006). • Engaged reading is motivated, strategic, knowledge driven, and socially interactive (Guthrie, et al., 2000). • Reading motivation constructs are multidimensional (interests, perceived control, collaboration, involvement, self-efficacy). • The theory provides guidelines for the design of an interactive, student-generated, web-based summer reading program that offers open-ended lists of reading materials, alternative media, and reviews of reading materials supplied by teens. • The theory provides a framework for studying the effects of the digitized summer reading program on adolescent reading behaviors and dispositions.

8. Developmental view of reading • Clay (1966), a leader in the field, introduced the concept of emergent literacy–the idea that learning to read and write begins very early in life and follows a continuum instead of appearing in distinct stages. • Research in emergent literacy shows that children acquire considerable knowledge about language, reading, and writing before coming to school. By the time they are two or three years old, many children can identify signs, labels, and logos they see in their homes and communities (Goodman 1986; Kastler, Roser, and Hoffman 1987; Strickland and Morrow 1989). • Emergent literacy researchers found that reading and writing develop concurrently and interrelatedly (Clay 1966, 1991; Sulzby 1985). Children learn to read through active engagement and construct their own understanding of how written language works. • Adults help learners by modeling behaviors, such as writing a shopping list. Even more important than the demonstrations of literacy are the occasions when adults interact with children around print, reading together from pictures and text

9. Who are the adolescents who say they hate to read? • The literature says they have low intelligence and low reading levels • (Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000, p. 102). • “Traditionally, the struggling reader has been viewed as a low achiever.” (Guthrie & Davis, 2003, p. 60). He is seen as lacking the defining attributes of the struggling reader: poor reading comprehension, study skills, word recognition, and reading fluency (Vacca & Vacca, 1999), who presents an unmotivated, disinterest- edaffect to school and school work.

10. Self-efficacy • Struggling readers resist reading or are apathetic about it. (McCabe & Margolis, 2001). • Students who say they hate to read are not likely to believe or have confidence that they can read (Wigfield, Eccles, & Rodgriguez, 1998). • Self-efficacy is the student’s belief that he can succeed. Students who have low self-efficacy in reading believe that they cannot read even if they work hard (Zimmerman, 2000). It is tempting to reach the conclusion, as some researchers have, that the struggling reader “… is disengaged from literacy (Moge, et al., 2000).

11. What do the information scientists say?

12. What does information behavior look like? • Using libraries less since they first began using internet research tools • Low levels of starting search from a library web site • Spend very little time on e-book and e-journal sites, and databases in school libraries • Library users demand 24/7 access, instant gratification at a click, and are looking for THE answer. • Search engines are the primary starting point 89% of college students start their search with a search engine; (2% start from a library site) • Preference for natural rather than controlled language; • Tendency to use simple search strategies; Make little use of advanced search capabilities • Horizontal information seeking: skim viewing a small number of pages then bounce out , often never to return. Rowlands, I. & Nicholas, D. (2008). Information behaviour of the research of the future. A CIBER Briefing Paper. Commissioned by British Library & Joint Information Systems Committee. Centre for Information Behaviour & the Evaluation of Research (CIBER), University College of London (UCL), 11 January, Retrieved 2 February 2008, http://www.bl.uk/news/pdf/googlegen.pdf

13. What does their information literacy look like? Unsophisticated mental map of the Internet; They do not review information retrieved from online databases for relevance; did unnecessary searches when they had already obtained the information required; Squirreling behavior: stockpiling content in the form of downloads 93% are satisfied/very satisfied with the results; Very little evidence that the Google generation is fundamentally different; Little improvement in information literacy capabilities, evaluating & authority of sources. Rowlands, I. & Nicholas, D. (2008). Information behaviour of the research of the future. A CIBER Briefing Paper. Commissioned by British Library & Joint Information Systems Committee. Centre for Information Behaviour & the Evaluation of Research (CIBER), University College of London (UCL), 11 January, Retrieved 2 February 2008, http://www.bl.uk/news/pdf/googlegen.pdf

14. Do we read digital text differently? • Speed: Reading from the screen is 20-30% slower than reading from paper (Alshaali & Varshney, 2005; Dillon, 1992). Text on a computer screen should contain at least 25% less text than on a printed page. • Comprehension: Contradicting findings: YA and older adults’ reading performance (under self-paced conditions) have better comprehension on a computer (Moore & Zabrucky, 1995). Poon & Meyer (1997) found older adults’ comprehension was better with print; younger adults were better with computers. • Preference: When asked whether they like to read from computer screens, 67% of younger and 46% of older adults said yes.

15. How is reading digital text different from reading print text? • Readers have developed new strategies for handling the huge volume of information. Our attentions spans are shorter and reading is increasingly shallow; • The role of paper is changing; • People are reading on their screens; • Mobile devices provide a better medium for reading; • Reading is passive and less interactive.

16. Interacting with text: Let them print! • Annotation • Gathering • Clipping • Sharing

17. Does Summer Reading Matter? The Faucet Theory • During school year learners gains remarkably similar for students from diverse socio-economic backgrounds (Entwistle, Alexander & Olson, 1997, 2000) • Family income was best predictor of reading comprehension and word recognition loss (Cooper et al, 1996) • Middle, upper class showed one month loss; Disadvantaged children showed three months of grade-level equivalency (ibid.) • Achievement gap increases throughout elementary years. Difference between high- and low-income in CAT reading scores (as % of sd);1st grade: 68% 3rd grade: 98% 8th grade: 114% (Alexander & Entwistle, 1996) • SPED/ELL children experience greater effects (Cooper et al., 1996; Sargent & Fidler, 1987)

18. Does summer reading matter? • Cooper’s meta-analysis of 39 studies of reading loss in summer • Loss equaled one month to three months as measured by grade level equivalents on standardized test scores • Family income is best predicator of loss word recognition, comprehension • Greater effect on children with special needs, ELL students

19. What does the school library research say?

20. School library research brings the research from information science and reading together • Free voluntary reading • Free choice • Reading motivation • Reading engagement • Access to reading materials

21. Barnstable school library research

22. Why summer reading needed to change: Some teachers disliked: Uneven student participation Lack of assurance that students students read the books Not enough “good literature” Poor quality of projects Other teachers disliked: Regimentation Lack of flexibility Reading was not fun Not enough young adult titles Grading of the projects Students disliked: Graded lists Lack of choice Emphasis on classics

23. Guiding Principles • Committee of Seven made research-based decisions: Choice is an important element in reading engagement (Schraw et al. 1998). Recommendations collected through surveys for students; emails to staff • Projects that accommodate multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1993), thinking styles (Sternberg, 1997) and writing options • Projects that are reading responses that reflect leisure activities (Aesthetic stance in transactional theory (Rosenblatt, 1978). • Web-based environment because "virtually all Net Gen students were using computers by the time they were 16 to 18 years of age ... Among children ages 8 to 18, 96 percent have gone online. (Jones, 2002) • Rich graphics. In a study that altered text instructions in an assignment to a graphic layout, there were fewer refusals to do the assignment and post-test score increased (Prensky, 2001). • The primary purpose of summer reading is reading for fun rather than for academic purposes in order to encourage students to read more, and therefore know more (Ravitch & Finn 1987; West & Stanovich 1991; Filback & Krashen 2002).

24. What did we learn about low-achievers? Did they participate? Low: Average: Honors = 33%: 10%: 0 (non-participation) How much did they read? (3 books required) Students read an average of 3.26 books Low achieving: average of books read was 1.2 books How did they feel about 12 reading lists, each with at least 25 titles? Most students liked the freedom and choices Staff and Student Pix was among the top three book lists that students used to browse. Lower achieving students wanted more choices How did they feel about ungraded reading lists No low achieving students wanted to go back to the old grade specified reading lists

25. What we learned from Barnstable • Reading “books” vs. reading; re-define reading • Factors that motivate low-achieving students to read: • Stories that have a realistic and humane touch • Reading is personal and private • Reading has latent effects that tests cannot measure • Reading offers low-achieving students life lessons and new insights into personal challenges • Low-achieving students are reading alternative media

26. What did we learn? • The most important reading concepts are: motivation; perceived control; Free Voluntary Reading • Girls most often choose adult popular novels; • Boys prefer non-fiction; • Low achievers, struggling readers read alternative media, not books. • Teens spend 9 hours a week online. • Teens like the social aspects of reading and the reading-writing connection, especially online. • However, teens are idiosyncratic, so none of the above may apply to any given teen at any given moment!

27. Reading attitudes + preferences = Reading behavior The importance of situated reading • Pronounced preference for YA titles that adolescents can relate to their own lives; • Some differences in preferences for specific titles (Bluford series, urban fiction) that are socio-economic and ethnic; • When classics are mentioned, they are titles taught in the English/Language Arts curriculum.

28. What we learned from delaware studies

29. Reading Behavior

30. Reading Behavior

31. No statistically significant relationships between reading preferences and gender, ethnicity

32. Why Teens Read –and Why They Don’t Yes 45% No 32% Sometimes 23%

33. Did their reading behaviors change?

34. Reading Attitudes: Post-survey As the surfer would say, “Find that perfect wave and take control of your summer reading.” Yes 87 No 12

35. Since 33 say they like to read and read in the summer, it is unlikely that they changed their minds. These respondents were excluded from the analysis. n= 66 No. of students whose feeling have changed = 24, or 36%. Have your feelings about reading changed? n=99

36. Reading attitudes Chi square analysis Students who like the reading website are 4.2 times more likely to read. I like it 83% I don’t like it 17%

37. What are enablers and barriers? Barriers Enablers Student-built website; Students learned digital skills; Authentic tasks gave purpose to student participation (scavenger hunts, collegeboard.com); Website used for Contemporary Citizenship class/informational reading; Laptops for check-out; School library summer hours; Teachers promote website; ‘”Exciting project..I would do it without funding or getting paid.” • Time constraints; • Students needed instruction in use of the website; • Students needed encouragement to use social networking tools; • “The program will be as meaningful as teacher make it.”

38. Implications • How do educators differentiate to accommodate personal reading interests to engage adolescents in sustained and deep reading using digital tools? • How do we use digital environments to increase perceived control of poor or reluctant readers? • How can digital environments support collaborative reading strategies? • How can intrinsic motivation be supported in digital environments? • How do digital environments develop self-efficacy? • What is the difference between their engagement and management of narrative and informational text? • What is the relationship of reading to information processing and comprehension?

39. What have we learned from summer reading plus?

40. Survey Results • What was the most difficult thing you had to do? Difficulty within the library to compile lists (n=1) to find time to develop website collaboratively (n=1) Difficulty within the school to change the attitude of students, teachers, and whole school (“buy-in”) (n=5) Difficulty within the school district to get over the district hump (n=2)

41. 2. What did you like best about SR Plus Project? • Specifically about the Project • Free choices (n=4) • the introduction of web 2.0 (n=1) • Project related • Collaboration with colleagues (n=2) • website creation (n=1) • support (from EOE, Dr. Gordon, and work partners) (n=1) • bringing changes to library (e.g., library web page, purchasing e-books, etc.)(n=1) • learning about how students feel about reading (n=1) • technology (n=1)

42. 3. What did you like least? • District interference (n=5) • Lack of teacher support (n=1) 4. What problems did you have? • Problems within the library/team • choosing a variety of text (n=1) • accessibility (“the website was not user friendly and many students gave up when the info was not easily accessible”) (n=1) • Problems within the school • lack of teacher/staff/parent support (n=4) • student attitude (i.e., “optional” means I don’t have to)(n=1) • publicizing the program (“Getting out the word to students”) (n=1) • Problems within the school district • district interference (n=2)

43. 5. What would you change to make it better this year? • On the website • Need more culturally diverse choices (n=2) • Need more alternative text (n=1) • Need to be less text heavy (n=1) • On implementation • Need to integrate into curriculum (“a year round site rather than just a summer site”) (n=4) • Need more marketing within and outside of school (n=2) • Need more teacher support (n=2) • Need to present evidence to district and principal (n=1) • Need more parent support (n=1) • 6. Do you feel you received support from your school? Why?/Why not? • Low level of support: • Supportive, but lack of interest (n=2) • Support the general idea (n=1) • Principal and English department head took time to find about the program (n=1) • Some teachers refused to give extra credit for summer reading (n=1)

44. 7. Do you feel you received support from your district? Why? / Why not? • Love level of support • A few supportive members (n=4) • Providing incentives such as bookmarks and bracelets (n=2) • More constraints vetting the books (n=3) 8. What did you learn that will help you be a better teacher/librarian? • In understanding students • Students are interested in choices and freedom. (n=2) • Students are interested in different types of text. (n=1) • In promoting reading • We need to get books in the hands of students all year. (n=1) • The role of teacher—Teachers are the primary motivator for student reading. (n=1) • In library programming • Incorporate e-books into the library program (n=1)

45. 9. What did your students learn? • Unclear • “(Hopefully) reading can be fun.” (n=2) • Some learned about Web 2.0 tools. (n=2) • Some students learned that having one’s own book is exciting. (n=1) 10. Do you think the summer reading website worked? Why?/Why not? • Unclear • Yes (n=2) • received emails over the summer from students who loved the projects and choices, but not sure if not-readers were motivated. (Conrad) • No (n=6) • Lack of evidence: The website was good, but I don’t know how many students looked at it. (Cape Henlopen) • Not user friendly to students: The website was not user friendly and the information was not easily accessible. (Cape Henlpen) • Lack of participation: The first year was not successful. There was not the student participation that we wanted. (Stanton) • Lack of promotion: Not as well as it could be with more participation

46. Themes from: Raw data? ----- Patterns? ----- Questions? ----- Conclusions? Did it work? Barriers Time Attitudes Participation/collaboration/buy-in Publicizing/marketingDistrict hump/interference Why is there lack of support? Principals? Like general idea; support but no interest Teachers? No time; no extra credit Students? It’s optional Parents? Didn’t know District? Fear of material challenge

47. What did we do right? • Free choiceweb 2.0 • Support from DOE • Changes in how some students feel about reading; loved summer projects Changes in the school library • Worked as partners in the literacy team (mutual intent) • I understand how students’ reading attitudes and preferences • Get books in the hands of students • Teachers are the primary motivator for studetn reading

48. What can we do better? • Not sure if non-readers were motivated; not sure how many students looked at web site; • Lack of evidence • More marketing for support

49. How can we do this better? • Keep doing what we did right! • Need more evidence for “Did it work?” • Integrate principles of the summer reading program into the curriculum • More publicity, marketing • More culturally diverse reading choices; • More tech support

50. Advice for the N teams? What would we do differently?