I guess on the surface the LR looks like a portfolio and certainly has many of the qualities of a portfolio - observations and work samples of various types across time. Includes process and product. An important element is the developmental scales in reading and writing and even math. Those scales would correlate well (if not exactly) with many of the best developmental scales out there (e.g. First steps, Weavers scales and so on - good teachers know how literacy develops. Where and when to show a developmental "step" or what we label it can vary a bit of course. These were developed by teachers in England and across the U.S. over time with great thought as to what the key steps were (rather than every little detail). And with lots of thought about not defining devepment rigidly or narrowly. The scales and the LR as a whole were also based on five dimensions of learning teachers thought were most important: confidence and independence; experience; strategies; knowledge and understanding; and metacognition/reflectiveness.
While thought was given to how much evidence was needed to say where a child was on the scales, of course teachers kept far more gathered evidence but picked and chose the evidence that would tell that child's "story" of the year the best. High school kids wound up doing 90% of the collecting and work and putting together of portfolios with teacher oversight. They even wrote their own narratives. I was just starting this process of handing it all over to students with my 5th and 6th graders when I left my own classroom for higher ed. They used the scales and gathered the work that proved their growth and presented to their families at conference time. A major point of the LR is that children take on their own self assessment, know for themselves their strengths and areas for growth. Finally, when the "system" was up and running, before NCLB knocked us out of the ball park, teachers for many schools and states gathered - two minimum from each school - and we moderated records. This was something like an authentic direct writing assessment where teachers score papers by rubrics. Here each portfolio was read by two teachers who conferred and placed the student and placements were then compared to the originating teacher's placement. The purpose was to prove that teacher judgment is VALID AND RELIABLE. We found that teachers needed to work with LR for 2-3 years to get there but then teacher judgement was as reliable as any standardized test out there!!! And those moderation weekends were awesome collegial learning experiences. We didn't have to score every record but rather used random samples but to show that teachers and a school were assessing validly and reliably. The LR was studied and researched rigorously. We found for example that LR correlated well with standards in most states. We called it standards referenced. Not every little content standard but the big steps in growth. For example,ninth graders in California who were identified as meeting the 9th grade benchmarks on the learning record, almost all passed the CA high school exit exam! (and that exam is roughly the 9th grade level according to the standardistos at the state level.) Overall three aspects made it important to me. First I would say the LR is actually a "theory" of assessment - in much the same way that whole language teachers say whole language is a theoretical understanding of literacy, not just a checklist of whole language practices. All kinds of good assessments that everyone on this list knows and uses can and should be part of the LR. But it is more than a collection of assessments.It's a way to integrate and reflect on all that information and use it for teaching and also for talking regularly to colleagues. It is based on important assumptions about who has a "say" (parents and children, not just teachers), what counts as evidence, what dimensions of learning need to be assessed - not just knowledge and understanding for example but also strategies and growing independence and the ability to reflect and so on. Finally the end result was students understanding for themselves what growth in literacy and math really means and taking on responsibility for their own learning. You can tell that I care deeply about it. Whether or not the world at large uses it, I will always use it in my own classroom because it simply helps me teach better and helps my students take responsibility for their own learning. I have no idea how many schools still use it though I am sure using it affected the teaching practices of many. One teacher I worked with answered a question at a conference as to what would happen when her school quit using it. She answered that that might happen but she would never see children the same way again. We are using it at my current school. A high school in Stockton CA has been using it for more than a decade. There are others I'm sure scattered across the U.S. The handbooks, somewhat dated now but still useful, are available from Heinemann. FairTest advocates for the LR and has information and scales available on its web site. (Google Fairtest). Well known educators like Linda Darling Hammond and the Goodmans and Bev Falk have used it and respect it. And if you'd like references in articles I could send those. I am actually hoping there might be a window now in these times to get some funding to start up the Learning Record as a system again. Anyone can use it in a classsroom but it is of great value to have a school using it and even a network beyond a school IF one wants the validity/reliability aspect of the system. Mostly we need teachers to have time to have focused talk around student learning. I am a little old to be hoping this but... It's not for everyone of course but certainly for thoughtful reflective teachers who are already kidwatchers and understand what the idea of "multiple measures" really means. That's people on this list and the TAWL list and so on for sure. Probably more than you wished for!!!! You can tell I'm on a short vacation break. Sally On 7/6/08 1:10 PM, "Palmer, Jennifer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sally > Could you refresh our memory about the learning record? > > > Jennifer Palmer > Reading Specialist, National Board Certified Teacher > FLES- Lead the discovery, Live the learning, Love the adventure. > "Children grow into the intellectual life around them." > -Vygotsky > > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of thomas > Sent: Sun 7/6/2008 4:39 PM > To: Special Chat List for "To Understand: New Horizons in > ReadingComprehension" [EMAIL PROTECTED], > Subject: Re: [Understand] Reading/writing connection > > > > Oh and Sharon determined them as I recall through finding a pattern in > several classroom assessments...observations, writing samples, miscue > analysis etc. I am trying to remember the breakout when we had large > numbers of schools using the Learning Record. Often on the developmental > scales (where students were placed by classroom teacher but also by other > teachers in a moderation setting) children's reading and writing scale > placements were the same. But I would say probably up to a third would have > different placements for reading and writing. Seems like writing sometimes > led reading early on....past emergent the reverse would happen. Gosh I > should go back and look at some of those scores. Hadn't thought of looking > at these outcomes through this lens before. > > This would be an interesting research project for someone. Any takers out > there??? > > Sally > > > > > On 7/6/08 12:42 PM, "Joy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Sally, >> If you could tell me more about the leading edges and how that can be >> determined that would be fabulous! >> >> I've heard some of the names you mention. I'm wondering if any of them have >> done any research? Something eles to check when I'm at NC State tomorrow! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Joy/NC/4 >> >> How children learn is as important as what they learn: process and content go >> hand in hand. http://www.responsiveclassroom.org >> <http://www.responsiveclassroom.org/> >> >> >> --- On Sun, 7/6/08, thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> From: thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [Understand] Reading/writing connection >> To: "Special Chat List for "To Understand: New Horizons in Reading >> Comprehension"" <understand@literacyworkshop.org> >> Date: Sunday, July 6, 2008, 2:26 PM >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Joining in on Jennifer's eloquent response and Joy's comments and >> questions. I >> see the connections also as part of the modeling/guided practice/independent >> and >> application cycle of learning WORKING BOTH WAYS. I am also remembering a >> wonderful article/study from years ago which I have in my files somewhere (in >> one of my two current home bases) which I will find as soon as I can. The >> researcher read aloud books (shared reading with text available to children) >> with interesting sentence patterns...e.g. If I were in charge of the world, >> ...etc. Then the children composed their own variations. The results were >> both >> improved more interesting syntactical structures in writing but also >> increased >> comprehension of writing with more complex structures. >> >> Gosh I wish I could remember his name...it's James something and I am just >> getting to that stage of meeting up with more stuff that I can't quite >> remember, or at least not right away! Oh well!!! >> >> This was something I built on with my own students in occasionally doing the >> same with older students with sentence imitation. I think it works the same >> way. Finding an interesting sentence or two for whatever reason and having >> kids play with it, imitating part of speech for part of speech, and >> discussing why and how it is effective. >> >> I realize this is just one small part of the reading/writing connection. >> >> Oh and one other interesting perspective on this, I remember Connie >> Weaver's >> chart paralleling the stages of reading and writing development - they match >> up really well. (I realize others have done this as well). But what was >> especially interesting was her comment that sometimes one or the other side >> led the way for particular children. For some children the writing was the >> leading edge. For others the reading edge. Then Sharon Zinke (think >> that's >> the right spelling) presented at a conference the work of her children >> illustrating just that. It was very interesting and I haven't forgotten >> it! >> >> Sally >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for >>> fuel-efficient used cars. >>> (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Understand mailing list >>> Understand@literacyworkshop.org >>> >> http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Understand mailing list >>> Understand@literacyworkshop.org >>> >> http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Understand mailing list >> Understand@literacyworkshop.org >> http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Understand mailing list >> Understand@literacyworkshop.org >> http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Understand mailing list > Understand@literacyworkshop.org > http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Understand mailing list > Understand@literacyworkshop.org > http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org _______________________________________________ Understand mailing list Understand@literacyworkshop.org http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org
