ROUND ROBIN READING, WHY THE FUSS?

Round Robin Reading, the whipping boy for every college of education professor and reading specialist, is mis-defined, mis-described, mis-researched, and most tragically mis-blamed.

Round Robin Reading (RRR) is when an authority figure (teacher/parent) has a group, usually in a circle, read out loud in a known order such that the subjects know ahead of time in what order and what portion they will be reading when it is their turn. This is the way most families read scripture together. Each reads a verse or two in order, 'round the room or by age.

The all-knowing and wise stewards of education tell us that this "creates too much emphasis on decoding," which most students get too little of anyway. It "interferes with the development of a nurturing environment by creating a situation that presents great risk to students for embarrassment," which, if it happens, is more a reflection of how the teacher manages the class than of this method of teaching. Assorted and sordid other evils have been assigned RRR as well, which, again, are more reflective of the teacher's style than of RRR itself, such as that it prevents self-correction, is inferior in promoting fluency, and in promoting comprehension.

Let me address these concerns more fully. Thanks to these gurus of education, who gave us whole-language, which almost totally eliminated phonics, grammar, and spelling, we have a generation of students who can't decode and whose writing and spelling can't be understood. I ask, "Will it hurt if we DO emphasize decoding a little more and actually practice word attack skills?" With the so-called "balanced literacy", which was meant to balance whole language and include phonics, we still have too many teachers, who have also been trained to hate RRR, telling their students NOT to "sound out" the words. It is my opinion that we could use more coaching and practice in "authentic" decoding.

RRR is only embarrassing if the teacher creates or allows that climate in the classroom. From decades of experience I can tell you that, providing the teacher does not make it embarrassing, every student loves to read out loud once they have been given the chance to participate in it. After the first week or two, every student in my class wants to read, including those who are below grade level. There is no reason that reading out loud should be made embarrassing. If it is, the teacher has made it so, or has not prevented it from becoming so. It was not the reading before the class that made it embarrassing.

Contrary to the accusations, students love being in the spotlight that reading in front of a group or class gives them. In fact doing so gives them confidence that they are a good reader. One jr. high teacher used to comment that she could pick out the students that came from one particular feeder school because the older faculty there called on students regularly to read out loud in class, and thus they had confidence when they read, enough so that it was noticeable.

If the teacher corrects the student too quickly when they make a mistake, that is a problem the teacher has - not the fact that the student is reading aloud before the group or class. When appropriate, I use certain of those times to teach word attack skills. This makes the phonics training authentic, meaning that it has been done in a setting that has a real application, where the student is more likely to remember the skill or see the value in knowing it.

These sages of pedagogy conclude in their findings-predetermined research that RRR is "inferior to shared reading in promoting fluency, word recognition, and vocabulary acquisition." I ask, "Inferior in what way?" The only thing they place in its stead is "whisper reading (but not in unison or by taking turns) just loud enough for the teacher to listen-in as they read through the text several times," while the teacher attempts to listen in as she is able. Doesn't that sound like something that will inspire the student and keep them engaged in reading? No? Me neither.

When the group or whole class is taking turns reading, particularly in other subjects such as history or science (which is another no-no the ivory towers defame) words can be discussed together giving authentic situations to learn definitions, breakdown of, or etymologies of words as well as sentence and paragraph meaning. Again, it isn't the method, but the teacher that uses or misuses the method that causes success or failure.

The inference about RRR these omniscient pre- and inservice providers of teaching methods give to new teachers is that ANY calling on students to read out loud is RRR. Remember RRR is only when out loud reading is done in a round (where students know who will be called on next). This CAN cause a problem if students are looking ahead to their turn and ignoring the reading being done. This can easily be cured by having a different method of choosing students to read so they don't know who will be reading next. Students also need to have some consequence, if when called on they don't know the next word, meaning they haven't been following along. In that case I give them sleeping time (5 minutes of "sleeping" at their desk at recess for sleeping on the job). It is a small penalty, rarely used, but keeps the students following along. The best part of doing this is that I am teaching reading AND history or science at the same time!

Even pure RRR as defined with its potential problems is not deserving of the vehemence used in vilifying it. However having something to castigate makes the listener more willing to accept what the lecturer is proposing instead. THAT, I submit, is the real reason for the demonizing of RRR. In too many cases these self-proclaimed experts do not really know how to teach reading, so they parrot what others in their own circles say without really finding out themselves.

By calling on students to read out loud before the class regularly in the way I have partially described above, my students always have higher than average value added scores in reading. They make significant progress with DRA scores by January, and they enjoy it without putting an undue burden on the teacher. Castigating RRR is a diversion for not giving due diligence to really finding what will improve reading.

Clean desks improve teaching

A saying of late has been that a clean (or organized) desk is a sign of a sick mind. Unfortunately the joking has led to the unspoken idea that nobody has or needs to clean or organize their desk. This attitude usually leads to a disorganized classroom and even a frenzied style of teaching, which causes one more unnecessary distraction for students. An organized desk helps to organize the mind and helps prevent procrastination. A clean desk invites one to tackle problems NOW in a pro-active rather than a re-active manner. A clean desk provides an example for students to emulate, which helps them get down to their work, with better posture, and more focus. One who seldom leaves work with a mess on the desk stays current with the work and feels better about self. A clean desk more likely shows a better prepared and better planned teacher.

Education and National Candidates

Viewing groups' ratings of presidential candidates and their v.p.s on education got me thinking today. I don't want a "pro" or "anti" education president! I want the national candidates to quit using education to try to get elected! The national government has tied us in knots, and it hasn't improved education. What we need is for the national government to GET OUT of education. Give back to the states the billions they take and then partially dish back out with strong cords attached. Get out of our way and let us, the states and local people, do something WORTH doing - and NOT DO so many things of lesser priority that some national group was able to push through congress or the courts.

Competition

Competition can be quite a motivator when it is used as a means to an end. When it becomes the end in itself, it becomes quite destructive. For example, Alpine School District's knowledge bowl academic competition motivates participating students to learn as much as 6 grades ahead of where they are in school in a particular subject every year. Educators who think that competition is harmful to kids' are wrong. On the other hand, some conservatives believe that competition is the silver bullet that will solve all of education's problems. They try to implement that with merit pay and/or vouchers. In these cases competition becomes destructive and interferes with good education. It turns educators away from focusing on the children. Instead they are forced to focus on competing - for money, for awards, etc. Competition then becomes the end in itself and defeats the purpose it was supposed to help.

Old Fashioned Truths

When newer teachers refuse to even listen to how an experienced teacher does things or why, it can be frustrating. The colleges of education have so biased them against "old-fashioned" teachers, that they won't even consider tried-and-true methods unless it sounds super fun or flashy. Of course few of the tried-and-true methods are flashy, though some are fun once self-discipline is established. I would love to share the things I have gained both from my own experience and what has been shared with me from others. Unfortunately few are interested in taking the time.

Just one example: I have learned that P.E. can benefit academics in many ways. It can be a real incentive to get students to do the "work" part of learning, the part that can't be done away with and still really know, understand, and use that learning. P.E. can be used to discipline the mind, so that a student can think more clearly and logically. P.E. can develop the connections between the lobes of the brain. Dance, such as square dancing, develops rhythm and an ability to do complex thinking that translates to the academics.

Unfortunately many people (including many educators) want what they want and do not want to be bothered with facts, good research, or logic. They have "itching ears" that are attracted to flashy "experts" that tell them what they want to hear. If they don't want to be bothered with P.E., for instance, it doesn't matter that good research shows that students will do better on tests, or whatever indicator is used, if they get more than 70 minutes of structured, organized P.E. per week. They don't want to be bothered with it, so it becomes low priority. They don't have to disagree with the facts. They just prioritize it as of low importance. And with all we have to do, if something becomes low priority, it doesn't get done.

If some teaching method appears to be repetitious, many teachers discard it based on the constructivist inferences taught in their teacher prep courses. It is labeled as busy-work, low-level thinking, or worse -- "rote memorization" (the ultimate condemnation!). It doesn't matter whether it builds proficiency or develops the mental discipline necessary to truly understand a particular topic or subject. Of course it is possible to give assignments that truly are a waste of time. Many constructivist activities like "authentic" projects have a great deal of wasteful activities associated with them, such as much cutting and pasting and lots of counting. On the other hand activities like long division, labeled unnecessary in the calculator-age by constructivists, develop the mental discipline to follow-through and get accurate solutions consistently. This actually enhances a student's ability to gain the deeper understandings in math and other subjects in the long run as well.

There have been things I observed and judged to be, as a new teacher and based on my training, low quality activities, such as written book reports. I opted instead for easier oral reports. Other teachers have turned a book report into a visual project, which of course includes tons of time cutting and pasting. As I grew more experienced, I found that written reports were much more productive than either alternative. Among other things, it provides practice in summarizing. The point is, many things that teachers do, who have STAYED in teaching because they were good at it, are because they work. A new teacher would be well advised to listen and to try before judging.

Another point on this is that teachers change over time. What I discarded early on, I sometimes came to believe in later.

Cooperative Learning

This brings up the topic of cooperative learning groups and group projects. When the problems created by grouping students are brought out, some teacher educators dismiss the objections by proclaiming that that is how the business world does things. They claim that students need to get used to doing things this way, regardless of the problems associated with it. They claim that it is the "real world". It is not. The real world demands accountability of the individual in a way that is not a part of student grouping. Students don't get fired or demoted. They aren't left behind as others are advanced. They don't become obsolete or laid off. Those demands on the individual are frequently not kind or considerate. Allowing some students to slip through on other student's work will not prepare them for the "real world" at all. Sometimes teachers use grouping and "authentic" projects because they can be graded very subjectively. Oh, they don't think this consciously. They claim other reasons, but often the real motivation for doing this is the grading. This allows a teacher to not "flunk" a student. Each student was part of it, so they all get some kind of grade. Receiving a failing grade is not pleasant for the student, parent, OR THE TEACHER. However, sometimes it is necessary for all three to see things as they really are. Hiding or avoiding the truth is lazy and hurts the student far worse that the pain of the grade. Again grouping and projects CAN be a valuable tool, but like certain vitamins must be used sparingly or they do more damage than good.

Grouping

There is another reason to organizing a classroom into individual desks. It helps a student stand or fall on his/her own merits. Teachers frequently pair up students to help those who are struggling. Used sparingly this can be a beneficial tool. Used too often, students find that they can lean on other students for answers. They learn to manipulate others into doing the thinking for them, instead of putting in the work necessary to develop their own abilities. Putting students into tables, or other configurations where their desks are together, imposes that situation. Not only does it increase the temptation to talk, poke, touch, or bother, it also makes it easier to cheat or at least use others instead of developing oneself through individual effort. Some teachers use the excuse for grouping desks that they don't have room. They have filled much of the classroom space with things that are not nearly as important as having individual space for each child. Unwittingly they allow something of lesser value take priority over what is more important for the development of the student. A couch or "reading center" does not come close to helping the student as much as his/her own space and desk does. Shelves of books, manipulatives, or toys, tables of computers, etc., do not make up for the loss of the individual's space. Is it wrong to place students in groups or tables? No, of course not, temporarily and sparingly. Salt really helps a meal, but a little bit goes a long way!