Purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the Readers Workshop; an instructional design component of the minilesson structure, on student independency, reading levels and comprehension for struggling middle school readers. The study presented addresses Lucy Calkins’ recommendation that the design of the minilesson is conceived on the “premise that students need explicit and direct instruction.” (Calkins 2014). Billions of dollars have been spent on reading material to promote literacy levels but have gone towards large commercial reading programs; However, it has been considered ineffective because it lacks a “teacher-proof” approach, the Reader’s Workshop. The aim of this research will address the following research questions:
1. What components of the Readers Workshop have an effect on the performance of comprehension of at-risk students?
2. In comparison to other effective instruction, what relationship does the Readers Workshop have on promoting literacy levels for middle schoolers?
3. How does the reading education level of parents impact middle school at-risk students reading and comprehension level?
4. What are the common traits of those who are struggling readers in middle school, and how can these commonalities be used and addressed in the mini-lesson structure to aid educators in the boost of reading instruction
5. How does the Readers Workshop make effective instruction visible to educators and students?
6. What is the educators’ role in the workshop model?
7. Does the form of interaction shift as students become acclimated with the mini-lesson structure?
Theoretical Framework and Relevant Literature
The theoretical frameworks on which this study was established include theories about the teaching and learning of reading of at-risk students on the middle school level using the Readers Workshop minilesson model. It is significant to initially consider the components of reading development to understand where students will further require support. Additionally, our aim is to analyze how the readers workshop model supports readers who were left behind at some point in their literacy academic journey. According to McKenna & Stahl (2009), “the three key components of reading fluency are accurate word recognition, automaticity and appropriate rhythm and intonation of speech. Each component affects comprehension in a different way.” Teachers can design activities for each stage that will improve student’s comprehension and also provide opportunities for teachers to demonstrate strategies that readers can use at each stage (Pardo, 2004). Strategies should be introduced and mastered individually. However, over time the child should develop a repertoire of strategies which they can independently draw on when reading. For this reason, comprehension strategies should be developed from the earliest levels of the primary school. Jerome Bruner’s (1957) Constructivist and Discovery Learning Theories helps develop the understanding that “cognitive growth involves an interaction between basic human capabilities and culturally invented technologies that serve as amplifiers of these capabilities." A fundamental constituent of this theory is that learners generate meaning themselves with the guidance of the teacher which is what one of the components of the Readers Workshop, conferring, is equipped to do. Professional Development Service for Teachers makes clear that learners evolve into independent learners as a result of the educator allowing the learners to ask questions versus the educator being the only one with explanations and feedback” (Pdst.ie, 2018). There is a strong correlation between vocabulary and reading comprehension. Mehigan (2009: 183-196) suggests that “learning, as a language-based activity, is fundamentally and profoundly dependent on vocabulary knowledge – knowledge of words and word meanings.” This allows educators to recognize that learners need a chance to routinely practice reading comprehension strategies. Social constructionism theory focuses on the idea that an individual's learning takes place because of his or her interactions in a group, or in this case a classroom. At an early age, readers began to identify themselves as a struggling or non-struggling reader from the experiences they obtain with literacy in the classroom (Pdst.ie, 2018). The mini lesson structure of the reader workshop supports small group instruction and a steady rotation of conferencing. This structure presents the goal that everyone, strugglers and non-strugglers are allotted one on one time. “By reflecting on our experiences, we construct our own understanding of the world in which we live. We each make sense of our own experiences, and learning becomes a process of adjusting to accommodate these new experiences and new learning (Brooks & Brooks, 1993).“ Constructivist teaching supports students being active and involved in their learning (Bruner, 1960). Because of this, processing becomes an experience through trial-and-error; leading to an abstract perception or awareness of a topic or skill which encourages further continuous learning. Authors such as Colleen Cruz, have determined that “reading workshop can be applied to a variety of populations, including students with learning disabilities and students of low SES, and produce positive results in reading for these populations (Cockerille, 2018).” With the idea of making learning continuous, meaning not only inside of the classroom but outside as well, reading inside of the classroom should mirror reading done in the “real-word” so that authenticity is detected when continuing with the daily workshop model.
Context of Study
The context of this study is believed to take place in the Aldine ISD school district acquiring a total of 4 participants, 2 girls and 2 boys.
Proposed Data Resources
Proposed resources include analyzing the characteristics and format of what is expected of the Reader’s Workshop and what it should look like in the classroom. Teacher’s College developed key concepts to launching the minilesson structure that includes the idea that students perform well in an environment that has clear routines and procedures. The minilesson structure also hold several components to boost higher level learning such as independent reading, read a-louds, reading support, units of study and “Just Right” books. To take a closer look at proposed data, several students will be identified through their reading level based off of their running record recorded in September 2018 and sent home with a permission slip. With those results, students will be asked to record their current reading habits using the Observation Checklist for Independent Reading and have students self-assess on how they view themselves as readers. As the mini lesson instructional design continues to be established and routines are developed, I begin to look at patterns of how learners are reading. Teachers should be engaging students with reading material that is of interest to the students and allowing students to choose their own reading material when learning a strategy. Students also should be presented with independent reading time and have the choice of choosing their “just right” book. As students read, patterns within their reading should be documented when conferencing is presented. In the classroom, students are provided with a system to request a conference at a particular time so that we are able to discuss our reading material to be sure reading skills were being implemented and to look more in-depth at the strategies that were previously presented. Checking for comprehension will become apparent while we are currently reading The Hate U Give. Using textual evidence in class is a daily routine. Therefore, I plan to use a formative assessment to check for understanding in ways such as ((Pdst.ie, 2018):
• So What? Journal
– Identify the main idea of the lesson. Why is it important?
• Explaining
o Explain the main idea using an analogy
• Evaluate
o What is the author’s main point? What are the arguments for and against this idea.
• Questions Stems
o I believe that______ because
o I am confused by ___________
• Annotation
o Describe key passages that are notable or that you have questions about
• Comic Book
o Comic books strips to represent understanding
References:
Brooks, K., & Brooks, M. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Calkins, L. (Narrator). (2014). Lucy Calkins on mini-lessons [Online video]. YouTube.
Cockerille, A. (2018). Supporting Students with Learning Disabilities in Reading and Writing Workshops. Retrieved from https://blog.heinemann.com/supporting-students-with-learning-disabilities-in-reading-and-writing-workshops
McKenna, M.C. and Stahl, K. A. D. (2009) Assessment for Reading Instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Pardo, L. (2004).What Every Teacher Needs to Know About Comprehension. In The Reading Teacher. 272-281.
Pdst.ie. (2018). The Reading Process. [online] Available at: http://www.pdst.ie/sites/default/files/Reading%20Booklet%20-%20to%20circulate.pdf [Accessed 13 Oct. 2018].
Pdst.ie. (2018). The Reading Process. [online] Available at: http://www.pdst.ie/sites/default/files/Reading%20Booklet%20-%20to%20circulate.pdf [Accessed 13 Oct. 2018].
Reich, K. (2007). Interactive Constructivism in Education. Education and Culture, 23(1), 7-26. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42922599