Welcome to Teachers At Risk
-
Feb
22
I came across the this article in the Educational GuardianOne of the main thrusts of the government’s Skills for Life strategy is “embedding” the basic skills of literacy and numeracy. The concept of embedding is that students on other courses, usually but not exclusively vocational courses in colleges, can be helped to improve their literacy and numeracy skills as part of their course, rather than separately.
We do that at our high school. We’re supposed to embed literacy in all our subjects. We”ve been told it’s not just the job of the English teachers to teach literacy. It’s everyone’s job.
Sometimes embedding can seem like “basic skills by stealth”, as often the student doesn’t realise what is happening. All they are aware of is that there seems to be a bit of a focus on their grammar, or spelling, or their basic maths.
I teach “basic skills by stealth”. I place student’s work up on the walls and I hope when they’re not listening to me and just looking around at the walls they see all the graphic organizers and posters and accidentally review or relearn whatever is there. I really believe that, especially since my students are mostly strong visual learners and weak auditory learners. (I know this because I had them complete a learning styles inventory). So when I blah blah blah they look around the room and see what we’ve covered in class.
It’s important to be clear that embedding basic skills isn’t the same as using the interests of someone who wants to improve basic skills as the focus for teac as been well documented by Tom Sticht and others in the US. However, the effectiveness of embedding basic skills in vocational courses doesn’t appear to be underpinned with a great deal of authoritative research. By authoritative, I mean an objective research study that compares the effectiveness of different approaches to teaching basic skills to adults and which uses matched samples.
When I read this part, I’m reminded of John’s comment to my earlier post about Leadership Experiences. He wrote
I hope that leaders encourage the use of evidence-based practices and provide guidance in assessing empirically whether educational interventions are improving students’ outcomes on trustworthy measures of important academic and social development.
Now, I know that the article talks about adult learners, and teenagers aren’t adults but I don’t remember being told about any research that backs up the contention that embedding literacy across the curriculum works for teenagers. I may have been told that. I just don’t remember. Thanks to John, I realize that I should make a point of remembering to ask those questions and devote my time and energy to something if it passes John’s test. As a teacher of at-risk kids, I admit I’m looking for anything that looks like it help my students. I never thought about it before, but I guess I’m willing to try anything on faith alone. I really don’t know what to think of that.
Related Posts
Enjoyed reading this post? Subscribe to Teachers at Risk.Comments
5 Responses to “Embedding Numeracy and Literacy”
Leave a Reply
-
-
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
-
Edublog Awards
Toronto Reading Council
Ah, the literacy bug is everywhere. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for literacy I’d just like someone to define it a bit more clearly, that’s all. As I see it, it has to be more than just reading. It has to include technical skills, reading skills in particular areas like math and science. It’s not just about grammar and spelling but about understanding and creating. But I guess reading is a start – better to have that than nothing. Great blog!!
Kelly, good point. I guess that’s why the teaching of literacy should not be confined to one subject. Students need to be able to understand and create in all subject areas, in all areas of their lives. It’s just that we focus so much on that five paragraph essay! Guess what I’m marking right now?
Hey, Elona. Thanks for the kind words. I’m glad you’re thinking about the test (as you wisely put it) for making instructional choices based on evidence.
In fact, I was just thinking about this topic tonight. What counts as evidence-based instruction? Does personal experience give trustworthy evidence? How about case studies? Developmental research?
Thus, I was a bit concerned about the idea that your students are visual learners: “(I know this because I had them complete a learning styles inventory).” Is that inventory a reliable and valide instrument? Do the authors tell about its reliability and validity? If students’ scores on the test vary depending on when they take it, does this mean that their learning styles are, uhhhm, quixotic? I’ve looked at a few tests of learning styles and had a hard time finding the evidence for their power to explain students’ differences.
If a test isn’t trustworthy, can it be evidence based? I don’t think so, but perhaps I’m missing something.
John, I must confess that I hadn’t thought that much about the reliability of my learning styles inventory. I just thought of it as useful tool, a starting point. Whenever I have students complete it, they are in agreement with the results. In fact, they’re often amazed that the results are dead on.
My own experience with the kids confirms the results, too. Now, I know there are probably theories about test results and how I can make them seem valid – some kind of placebo effect or other. But, in this instance I really don’t care!!! My whole purpose is to have the kids become aware of the fact that there are learning preferances, that we are a combination of them, what strategies they can use to improve their learning by using each modality more effectively. I also tell them that I suspect that teachers usually teach from their preferred learning style ( no I have no scientific data to back that up, just my experience) so if they aren’t getting it in a class it could be that their learning style and the teacher’s teaching style don’t mesh, and they need to advocate for themselves by telling the teacher that they’d get it better if the teacher could tell them, show them, let them try whatever. I also tell teacher that. When I look at the accommodations on I.E.P., I see accommodations for learning style strengths and weaknesses.
I know from attending a zillion PD sessions over the years that teaching is more than an art. It is a science as well, and I do respect that.
John, are you taking me down a slippery slope where I must stop doing anything until it passes the test of whatever. I’m not being disrespectful here, just curious.
Elona, sorry to be slow in responding.
I agree with many of your observations, though perhaps for different reasons. For example, if students are not “getting it in a class,” I hope they’ll talk with their teachers, too. That would require that they realize their not getting it (some sort of self-assesment, no?) and muster the courage and good sense to seek help (self-advocay). Whether the proximal cause is a mismatch in learning styles is relatively less important than the self-assesment and -advocacy. Teehee!
As for the slippery slope question: Naw. My friend Marty–he used to be in charge of federal funding of research about special education–would say, “You know, when the bus pulls up in front of the school, we can’t say, ‘Nope, not today. Not everything’s been validated. Take them on back home.” But, in my view, before we adopt a practice we ought to examine its track record. And, when faced with a choice between two or more practices that accomplish the same end, we ought to chose the one that has the best record for producing beneficial outcomes. Now, that recommendation is predicated on other things being equal, of course. There are conditions (e.g., cost in time, funds, etc.) that might make the 2nd most effective intervention preferable.
But, if we could only get so far as to make the decisions based on outcomes, that would be a big start.
What if one has no data on which to make decisions? Shoot, I’d say that’s a good time to collect the data oneself, directly and simply. If we know, for example, that we want students to master X skill or Y content, we should divise a simple test of that skill or content (I’m thinking of curriculum-based measurement techniques here), assess the students’ performance regularly, and the apply the not-yet-validated technique. If student performance goes up suddenly and clearly, hoooray!