TQ #2

After reading the two executive summary reports of Reading First and Math & Reading Software, I have come to realize that all these efforts to improve, primarily, reading achievements as well as math skills have been of little significance. To begin with my interpretation, and based on the average impacts across all sites, it has been stated that Reading First did not improve students’ reading comprehension. Why has this happened? Students, undoubtedly, as Wenglinsky mentions, perform better reading real books than basal readers. They will read better when the reading becomes less of a rote activity. Above all, students need to be taught metacognitive skills in order to obtain higher reading scores. Added to this, Wenglinsky states that if you have students writing about actual literature rather than doing invented writing exercises for the purpose of teaching writing, you will certainly get better results. Allowing students to relate their readings to the real world, empowering their motivation, will contribute to a constructivist manner of learning.

With respect to the Impact differences of Reading First, the study findings of the report indicate that classroom instruction and student reading comprehension have not changed consistently over time. Impacts were consistently positive for late award sites and mixed for early award sites. Reading First produced positive and statistically significant increases in teacher instruction for the late awards sites. These sites had some time to prepare the Teachers in initiating this study, hence acquiring better preparation than the teachers who received early awards. It is certain that teachers need to enter the classroom comfortable with teaching reading skills using their personal experience. Wenglinsky states in his analysis of NAEP about nontechnical instructional practices that teachers learn how to teach reading primarily on the job. According to Wenglinsky, teachers have not taken substantial coursework in the area to be effectively associated with student performance in Reading. We know from facts that Reading First promotes instructional practices that have been validated by scientific research. Consequently, teachers of the early awards were not adequately trained to using scientifically reading practices or assist struggling readers.

In the second report on the Math & Reading Software, the findings indicate that Test Scores were not significantly higher in classrooms using selected reading and mathematics software products. Scores in treatment classrooms did not differ much from test scores in control classrooms. Added to this, was the reference in the report that the effects were correlated with some classroom and school characteristics. It is clear from the start that the evaluation was not done homogeneously. Wenglinsky refers to a substantial difference in patterns of computer use for different groups of students. The biggest divide for him is between urban and suburban schools. There are vast divides in home use, teacher preparedness, and types of use. The study focused on these groups of students, basically minority students and low-income students who are less likely to have computers at home. With respect to teachers, these are more likely to feel less prepared in using technology in their class. Chances are, as Wenglinsky mentions, that the students are more likely to be exposed to drill and practice computer activities and less likely to be exposed to higher order activities, primarily because the teachers have not been trained to do so. Wenglinsky also states that relating to math performance, students performed better when computers were used in a constructivist fashion. The teacher became a facilitator of information rather than a lecturer in class. On the other hand, in relation to reading, Wenglinsky says that deriving logical conclusions when it comes to ways of improving reading with technology is very difficult using the available evidence. However, it is clear to him that when students use computers to read stories, they don’t perform well. On the other hand, if they are used for document production of meta-analytic purposes, they will perform better. Much has been said about reading in the previous paragraphs. With respect to software products for the study, it is worthwhile mentioning that several companies provided tutorials, guides and assistance to implementing the use of their applications. However, teachers in treatment classrooms were given the liberty to stop using them if they found them inappropriate for their class interests. Teachers in Control groups, on the other hand, had the liberty to choose other resources which could have been the same type of applications used by the treatment groups. Truly, I found this disturbing because this opened the window for people to do whatever they pleased. At the end, the results proved no notorious difference between the two approaches.

In conclusion, I believe that the government has not been strict in applying the same types of rules for the implementation of educational software in the delivery of Math and Reading skills. There is truly a lack of preparation in the Teachers to deliver concepts and skills that have not been fostered by the old generation of teachers. For this reason, the incorporation of knowledgeable professionals to train students in reading skills makes a lot of sense just like schools pay musicians to teach music in schools. In the meantime, Teachers can be trained in parallel in not just developing their reading skills but also to master and understand the philosophy behind the scientific research used in preparing an evaluation plan. Teachers without training in Reading skills should not take the role of instructing the young generation in acquiring such an important skill. My final statement relates to the need for a change in the evaluation of these skills. Traditional benchmarking tests that focus on didactic practices of teaching need to be replaced by a greater variety of standardized tests to evaluate constructivist learning.


Supplementary Texts:

1. Little Brother (Cory Doctorow)
2. Whole New Mind: Why Right Brainers, will Rule the Future (Daniel Pink)