Reading Evidence and Argumentation in Disciplinary Instruction READI

Reading, Evidence, and Argumentation in Disciplinary Instruction READI – Yes They Can! National Symposium on Reading for Understanding Alexandria, VA May 18, 2016 Session 1 Susan R. Goldman, PI Learning Sciences Research Institute & Dept. of Psychology, Univ. Illinois, Chicago

Reading, Evidence, and Argumentation in Disciplinary Instruction PROJECT READI is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution collaboration aimed at researcn and development to improve complex comprehension of multiple forms of text in literature, history and science. The research reported here was supported, in part, by the Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education, through Grant R 305 F 100007 to University of Illinois at Chicago. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U. S. Department of Education. ”

The Challenge • 21 st Century literacies people need versus what they have 82% • Project READI undertook the challenge of addressing critical gaps in literacy and reading reflected in these data.

Reading, Evidence, and Argumentation in Disciplinary Instruction • Major Goals: Research and development of approaches to improving complex comprehension in literature, history and science. • Worked in CLOSE collaboration with teachers Ø Teachers Mediate Students’ Opportunities to Learn

Why this Approach to the Challenge? • Adolescents are expected to read to understand in multiple content areas but they are not taught the specialized ways of reading, thinking, and conveying information needed for different content areas.

Reading Comprehension • From words/images on a page or screen to mental representation that we make visible to others through external representations. • This description of the reading process applies across disciplines.

Text-based Science Inquiry question about science phenomena Evidence Interpretation Does the text back that up? What does the text tell us about? Negotiating meaning of texts Can you say that different ly? It might be like … I think it means … Sense making of how textual information helps address the inquiry question I think we need to include … I don’t agree because … How can we use that information to build a model that explains … Synthesizing and But how transforming does that evidence and explain claims into an … explanatory model A B C Effects Multiple rounds Explanatory Model

Text-based History Inquiry question about the past What does the text tell us about? Negotiating meaning of texts Can you say that different ly? It might be like … I think it means … Evidence Interpretation Does text B corrobora te text A? Sense making of how textual information helps address the inquiry question I think we need to include … I don’t agree because … How can we use this source to create a claim? What is the author’ s perspect ive? Synthesizing and transforming evidence and claims into historical interpretation A B C Multiple rounds Historical Interpretation

Literary Analysis Literary inquiry into the human condition Evidence Interpretation Does the text back that up? That word keeps coming up. . Negotiating meaning of texts Can you say that different ly? It might be like … I think it means … Sense making of how plot, character, and specific language use inform interpretation I think we need to include … I don’t agree because … Multiple rounds But I don’t get it. Doesn’t make sense. Who does that? But how does that explain … Synthesizing and transforming evidence to warrant interpretation of the human condition Warrants: critical Theory; Personal Relevance; Intertextual; Historical Context Claim about theme Claim about rhetoric Claim about character

Products of the Reading Process Differ Warrants: critical Theory; Personal Relevance; Intertextual; Historical Context Historical Inquiry A Claim about theme Claim about rhetoric Claim about character Interpretation of Human Condition Literary Inquiry A C B C Historical Interpretation B Effects Explanatory Model Science Inquiry

Disciplines as Communities of Practice • Disciplines don’t just differ in terms of content es t a n i m • Differ in methods and criteria for making knowledge o D E G D n E o L i t c W u O r t N s K n I L a A e r U A T t C n A e t F • Becoming a member involves learning the language n t o C Bu l a c typi and practices along with the content base of the discipline.

Implications • Students need practices PLUS content. • READI took on the challenge of meeting these needs by focusing on complex comprehension and discipline-specific inquiry, reasoning, and argument.

Project READI Approach to Adolescent Reading Comprehension Challenge • Engage in evidence-based argumentation (EBA) from multiple text sources, including the multiple modes and forms of information of the 21 st century. • General form of EBA: Claims supported by evidence that has principled connections to the claim through reasoning principles.

Who is Project READI? Researchers/Prof essional Development Facilitators Discipline Experts Learning Sciences, Cognitive Sciences, Discourse Researchers Former Educators now Professional Development Facilitators Graduate Students Project READI Design Team Members Teachers 2 Teacher Inquiry Networks (West. Ed, UIC) Classrooms – intervention, basic studies, RCT

Stude nt Lea rning Core Constructs Learning Goals Progressions of Learning Goals Disciplinary Design Teams Teacher er Le arning Inquiry Networks Basic Studies of Multiple Source Comprehension Basic Studi es Formative Assessment Evidencebased Argument Instructional Modules (EBAIMs) Interv ention

Two Initial Challenges 1. What to focus on in each discipline – – What do we want students to know and be able to do? 1. Students were not reading aka moving the intellectual work from teachers to students.

A First Challenge: What to focus on in each discipline • Could we identify points of similarity as well as the differences we expected to see • Approach: • The result was “buckets” of knowledge that constituted disciplinary practices. • Labeled these Core Constructs

Five Core Constructs Core Construct General Definition Epistemology Beliefs about the nature of knowledge and the nature of knowing. What counts as knowledge? How do we know what we know? Inquiry Practices, Reasoning Strategies Ways in which claims and evidence are established, related, and validated Overarching concepts, principles, themes, and frameworks The core ideas and principles that serve as a basis for warranting or connecting claims and evidence. Forms of information representation/types of texts Types of texts and media (e. g. , traditional print, oral, video, digital) in which information is represented and expressed. Discourse and language structures The oral and written language forms that express information.

Framework for Reading and Evidence-Based Argumentation Situated in Disciplines • READI Learning Goals reflect integration of multiple source reading comprehension processes and disciplinary core constructs. • Captures what students need to know and be able to do to engage in disciplinary argumentation.

READI Learning Goals Reading and Reasoning Learning Goals 1. Engage in close reading and metacognitive monitoring… 2. Synthesize within and across aspects of texts… 3. Construct arguments with claims, evidence and warrants, organized logically and expressed clearly …. 4. Establish criteria for judging interpretive claims and arguments …. 5. Construct arguments explaining the logic of how the claims are supported by evidence …. 6. Demonstrate understanding of the nature of knowledge and how that knowledge is constructed…. As Appropriate to Specific Discipline

Literature Reading and Reasoning Learning Goals: Epistemology 6. Demonstrate understanding (of the nature of knowledge and how that knowledge is constructed) that texts are open dialogues between readers and texts; literary works embody authors’ interpretations of some aspect of the human condition (which the reader may reject); authors make specific choices about language, structure and use of rhetorical devices upon which the reader may draw in constructing interpretations. Science of epistemology of science through inquiry dispositions and conceptual change awareness/orientation (intentionally building and refining key concepts through multiple encounters with text); seeing science as a means to solve problems and address authentic questions about scientific problems, tolerating ambiguity and seeking “best understandings given the evidence”, considering significance, relevance, magnitude and feasibility of inquiry. History of epistemology of history as inquiry into the past, seeing history as competing interpretations that are contested, incomplete approximations of the past, open to new evidence and new interpretations.

The Second Initial Challenge • Books & Texts ≠ Reading • Approaches to Moving Intellectual Work to Students – Make thinking visible: Routines, Strategies, and Scaffolds – Normalizing Struggle – the value of “I don’t get it” • Teachers’ Learning Focus on learning goals and facilitating rather than doing the reading and intellectual work.

Yes They Can! • READI approach requires significant shifts in types of texts, tasks, assessments, and students’ agency in disciplinary inquiry. • Teachers and students can make these shifts – Teachers AND students need learning opportunities – Requires adaptive instruction Come Learn More about READI in Session 2 – Multiple iterations with reflection enable adaptive expertise in teachers – Students’ progress toward achieving the learning goals required multiple learning opportunities.

www. projectreadi. org