Designing Responsive

Instruction through Adapting

Core Reading Programs

Laura J. Hopkins
Michigan Reading Association Conference 2017
My Story and Purpose
My story: learning to design responsive instruction, encountering
Reading First and continuing mandates

Your story: raise your hand if

Purpose of the presentation:

Introduce a design process and principles for making responsive adaptations to
core reading programs
Provide real-world examples to illustrate application
Provide practical tools to guide application

Format and rationale

Why adapt?- Part 1
Problems with one-size-fits-all programs and policies
Not flexible enough to responsively support students as they learn and
develop as unique individuals (Maniates & Mahiri, 2011; Valencia et al.,
2006)
Not flexible enough to address local culture and context of the school
and community (Debarger, Choppin, Beauvineau, & Moorthy, 2013)

Shortfalls of programs
Typically reflect, at best, a limited subset of current research (Dewitz,
Jones, & Leahy, 2009; McGill-Franzen et al., 2006; Wright & Neuman,
2013)
Alignment with standards such as the CCCSS is often superficial, not
fully reflecting the standards content and cognitive demand (Cummins,
2007; Polikoff, 2015), especially in the area of reading comprehension
(Dewitz, Jones, & Leahy, 2009)
Why adapt?- Part 2
Importance of responsive instruction in reading
Individually responsive scaffolding that takes into account learners past
experiences as well as present knowledge, performance, and context,
and that is gradually faded over time supports reading development
(Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011; Pressley et al., 2001).

Especially important for learning strategic processes such as word-

solving and comprehension (Duffy, 1993; Rodgers, 2005).

Responds to and sustains cultural and linguistic diversity (Klingner &

Edwards, 2006; Paris & Alim, 2014)

Well-designed adaptations can lead to higher-quality

instruction and more meaningful, rigorous, responsive
learning opportunities.
 How is teaching like designing?
(Brown & Edelson, 2003; Jordan, 2016)
Designing is an iterative problem-
solving process that involves:
creating a plan, object,
process, or system
to accomplish particular
goals or purposes
using specific resources
under specific constraints
for specific users
Teaching is an iterative problem-
creating
solving process that plans, materials,
involves:
processes, or systems
to accomplish particular
instructional goals or purposes
using specific material,
contextual, and personal
resources
under specific constraints
for specific stakeholders:
students, families, communities,
educational leaders/policymakers,
Why a design approach?
Accounts for complexity and tradeoffs in instructional decisions (Debarger et
al., 2013; Jordan, 2016)

Positions teachers as essential agents and knowledgeable, skillful

professionals (Remillard, 2005)

Recognizes and addresses affordances and constraints of contexts and

curriculum materials (DeBarger et al., 2013; Remillard, 2005)

Can be used collaboratively (DeBarger et al., 2013; McDuffie & Mather, 2009)

Documentation of adaptations and rationale with evidence

Offers a systematic but flexible process and principles to guide adapting,

evaluating, and redesigning adaptations (Jordan, 2016; McDuffie & Mather,
2009)
 docume
nt
The Design Process- Steps 1 &
evaluate
materials Evaluate materials and
&
instructio instruction
ts

n research
por

con
er
standards
resources sup

sid
professional knowledge and
impleme commitments

address ts
&
frame
nt
adaptatio
the Frame the problem
problem identify one urgent gap to address
ns
see &

con
articulate a rationale for why
k

s
change is needed

t rain
design provide evidence of the need to
intention adapt
al frame a question: How might
adaptatio
I/we?
es urc ns con
o ide upon s
res r&
draw
 The Design Process- Steps 3 & 4+
document Design intentional adaptations
evaluate Type (omit, re-sequence, modify, insert)
material Level
s&
instructi scope and sequence
on unit
lesson
impleme objective
frame
nt instruction

address
&
the
resources

adaptati
problem student activities
ons
script/language
&

design Grouping structure

intentio texts/materials
nal
adaptati Address the problem/gap
ons Consistent with responsive, high-quality
instruction
Implement adaptations
upon
draw
 docume Additional considerations
nt
evaluate Document each step of the
materials process (rationale, evidence)
&
instructio Consider and address individual
and contextual resources and
ts

n
por

con
constraints

er
resources sup

sid
feasibility (What can I do now?)
impleme sustainability (What can I maintain over

address ts
&
frame
nt time?)
the
adaptatio
ns
problem Consider and draw upon individual
see &

and local resources (knowledge

con
and experience, colleagues, time,
k

s t rain
design materials)
intention Seek additional resources and
al supports
adaptatio
funding
es urc ns con
o ide upon s time
res r&
draw
implement the process collaboratively
 Principles for evaluating curriculum
materials and instruction, and for designing
responsive adaptations:
Responsiveness to multiple stakeholders
accessibility and appropriate scaffolding for each individual student
standards
professional knowledge and commitments
Responsive discourse practices
connections to students knowledge, experiences, culture
opportunities for responsive (non-evaluative) discourse
Maintain or enhance task complexity and cognitive demand
authentic literacy practices, tasks, texts
Maintain or enhance student engagement
Criteria for high-quality instruction in specific literacy components (likely to
be effective)
see handout for criteria for high-quality reading comprehension instruction
Assessment results and student work

*Adapted from DeBarger et al., 2013.

What does it look like in action
(process)?
Ms. C, 4th grade teacher in Michigan, 4th year using core program
District expected her to use the program, no written policies
Evaluate: Grouping and text selection recommendations for small
group instruction did not align with research or with her beliefs
Problem: Core program recommended always grouping students
and assigning texts by reading levels, but research supports needs-
based groups and varying text levels based on interest and
background knowledge.
Students labeling self and others as low or slow readers and high or fast
readers
Low self-efficacy, not engaged, texts and instruction not always appropriate.
How might I more appropriately group students and select texts in order to
improve students self-efficacy, engagement, and the appropriateness of
texts and instruction?
What does it look like in action
(process)?
Design adaptations: Ms. C planned to modify the
grouping structure recommendations to use more
flexible, needs-based groups AND to resequence texts
within the core program to assign texts based on
interests, background knowledge, and instructional
needs/targets.

Implement adaptations
Evidence: lesson plans, formative assessments, observations
What principles are evident in this
teachers design?
Responsive to students: addressed student learning and
self-efficacy
Responsive to curriculum developers and policymakers:
maintained content focus
Maintain/enhance task complexity & demand
Maintain/enhance student engagement
Differentiation
Purposeful text selection
Tradeoffs and limitations to consider
in evaluating & redesigning
Did the designed instruction/adaptations address the identified
problem partially or completely?
How well did the implemented instruction align with responsive,
high-quality instruction?
Did it introduce any new problems? (tradeoffs)
scaffolding or explicit instruction versus task complexity/cognitive
demand
dilemmas in being responsive to multiple stakeholders
individually responsive versus district- or standards- aligned curriculum
curriculum materials and/or district expectations versus professional commitments
curriculum material design versus school schedule and/or other policies
Is it feasible to sustain?
Application and reflection
Consider how you could use something from this
presentation in your context. Plan 2 action steps.
Jot down any questions you have.
My contact info: hopki144@msu.edu
Website with these and other resources:
www.basalbenders.weebly.com
SCECH:
References
Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design (Design Brief). Evanston, IL. Retrieved from
http://www.gse.upenn.edu/~janiner/pdf/teaching_as_design-Final.pdf
Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor? Realigning reading instruction for low-income students with scientifically based reading research.
Educational Researcher, 36(9), 564572. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07313156
DeBarger, A. H., Choppin, J., Beauvineau, Y., & Moorthy, S. (2013). Designing for productive adaptations of curriculum interventions. National Society
for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 298319.
Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension Strategy Instruction in Core Reading Programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(2), 102126.
Duffy, G. G. (1993). Rethinking Strategy Instruction: Four Teachers Development and Their Low Achievers Understandings. The Elementary School
Journal, 93(3), 231247.
Duke, N., Pearson, D., Strachan, S., & Billman, A. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. What Research Has to
Say about Reading Instruction, 5193.
Jordan, M.E. (2016 ). Teaching as designing: Preparing pre-service teachers for adaptive teaching.,Theory Into Practice, 55:3, 197-206,
Klingner J.K. & Edwards, P.A. (2006). Cultural considerations with Response to Intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly
Larson, 2009
Maniates, H., & Mahiri, J. (2011). Post-Scripts: Teaching Reading in the Aftermath of Prescriptive Curriculum Policies. Language Arts, 89(1), 1021.
McDuffie, R.M. & Mather, 2009
McGillFranzen, A., Zmach, C., Solic, K., & Zeig, J. L. (2006). The Confluence of Two Policy Mandates: Core Reading Programs and ThirdGrade
Retention in Florida.
Paris, D. & Alim, H.S (2014). What Are We Seeking to Sustain Through Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy? A Loving Critique Forward, Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1).
Polikoff, M. S. (2015). How Well Aligned Are Textbooks to the Common Core Standards in Mathematics? American Educational Research Journal,
0002831215584435. http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584435
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy Instruction in 10 Fourth-Grade Classrooms in Upstate
New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 159194.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining Key Concepts in Research on Teachers Use of Mathematics Curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211
246.
Rodgers, E. M. (2005). Interactions that Scaffold Reading Performance. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(4), 501532.
Valencia, S. W., Place, N. A., Martin, S. D., & Grossman, P. L. (2006). Curriculum Materials for Elementary Reading: Shackles and Scaffolds for Four
Beginning Teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1)
Wright, T. S., & Neuman, S. B. (2013). Vocabulary Instruction in Commonly Used Kindergarten Core Reading Curricula. The Elementary School Journal,
113(3), 386408. https://doi.org/10.1086/668766