November 14, 2023 • 37 mins
In this episode, Dr. Elena Forzani talks to us about reading as meaning making, multiple modes of communication, and literacy assessment. Dr. Forzani is known for her work centering on using multiple and mixed methods to understand and support digital literacies practices across the elementary and secondary levels. In particular, her work investigates the cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational dimensions of online reading, and especially how readers evaluate the credibility of online information. Elena Forzani is an assistant professor in Literacy Education at Boston University’s Wheelock College of Education & Human Development.
To cite this episode: Persohn, L. (Host). (2023, Nov 14). A conversation with Elena E. Forzani (Season 4, No. 5) [Audio podcast episode]. In Classroom Caffeine Podcast series. https://www.classroomcaffeine.com/guests. DOI: 10.5240/0140-D0AD-2E0C-666F-42D2-L
Connect with Classroom Caffeine at www.classroomcaffeine.com or on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lindsay Persohn (00:10):
Education Research has a problem the work
of brilliant educationresearchers often doesn't reach
the practice of brilliantteachers.
Classroom Caffeine is here tohelp.
In each episode, I talk with atop education researcher or
expert educator about what theyhave learned from their research
(00:31):
and experiences.
In this episode, Dr ElenaForzani talks to us about
reading as meaning makingmultiple modes of communication
and literacy assessment.
Dr Forzani is known for herwork centering on using multiple
and mixed methods to understandand support digital literacy's
(00:54):
practices across the elementaryand secondary levels.
In particular, her workinvestigates the cognitive,
metacognitive and motivationaldimensions of online reading,
and especially how readersevaluate the credibility of
online information.
Elena Forzani is an assistantprofessor in literacy education
at Boston University's WheelockCollege of Education and Human
(01:18):
Development.
For more information about ourguest, stay tuned to the end of
this episode.
So pour a cup of your favoritedrink and join me, your host,
Lindsay Persohn, for ClassroomCaffeine Research to Energize
your Teaching Practice.
Elena, thank you for joining me.
Welcome to the show.
Elena Forzani (01:39):
Thanks so much for having me, Lindsay.
It's great to be here.
Lindsay Persohn (01:42):
So, from your own experiences in education,
will you share with us one ortwo moments that inform your
thinking now?
Elena Forzani (01:49):
Sure, I was thinking about this a little bit
and I think one of the thingsthat comes back to me a lot well
, I taught first grade and thenI also taught high school, so I
have a range of kids in my mind,but I often think about my
ninth graders when I taughtRomeo and Juliet, which I know
is, you know, a classic text.
(02:11):
Certainly lots of things notgood about teaching that text,
but there, I think, are someuseful things for us and my
students loved doing that textand we use some modern
translations and looked atlanguage a lot.
But some of them, especially mystudents who were often like
the least engaged in classes ingeneral, were really engaged in
(02:35):
that text and they would evencome in, like during their lunch
break, into my room and theywould act out scenes.
So we acted out scenes andclass together as well, but then
sometimes they would just comein during their lunch break and
these are like ninth grade boyswere talking about and I had a
couple of swords which probablytoday like I don't know if I
would still have those, but theywould.
(02:57):
You know, they would just kindof fool around and the question
that we took up in that unit wasthinking about what is love, so
very sort of like interesting,I guess, for ninth graders.
I didn't choose that topic, bythe way, I think about that a
lot because students were reallyengaged and because the topic
(03:18):
is something that mattered tothem a lot.
And I think about it because forme, it's about reading and text
and making meaning with theworld is about ourselves, right,
and how we relate to otherhuman beings, and so I think
that's an example where mystudents were not inserting
(03:41):
themselves in the text but usingthe text to think about their
own relationships and theirninth graders.
So they're already thinkingabout a lot about relationships
and their own identities andthings like that, and it was a
time that was like fun too.
I think sometimes we forgetthat reading and making meaning
with text and with other humanbeings, like the purpose of it
(04:01):
is for us to relate to otherhumans and communicate with
other humans and be in a worldwhere we're not alone, basically
where we're connecting.
It's about connection, and so Ithink that's why that
particular moment really comesback to me.
Another reason it comes back tome is that teaching and
(04:23):
learning is about relationshipsfirst, and those were moments,
too, when my students wereconnected to one another, they
were connected to me, so itwasn't like they were just
reading in isolation, which iswe do too right, and that
matters too when we'reconnecting with the author, with
characters.
But it's also about connectingwith students, which is
(04:44):
something that's reallyimportant to me, and so my
research also gets back torelationships.
Lindsay Persohn (04:50):
First, that's such an important point to
underscore because I thinksometimes in the teaching of
reading that can get lost intranslation right that it really
is about our relationships withreally first and foremost
ourselves.
In fact, I was working on aproject this morning where we
were talking a lot about thedevelopment of reader identity
and just how continuous thatprocess is, even when we might
(05:14):
feel as learners like we kind ofgot that stuff down.
But we are continuously indevelopment, particularly if we
consider ourselves to belifelong learners.
I think that's such animportant point.
I love that example of yourninth grade boys stopping by at
lunch to grab a sword andreenact Romeo and Juliet.
What a cool way to think abouthow reading becomes a part of
(05:36):
our lives and a part of who weare.
It does become a space forrehearsal, for thinking and for
being.
That's just such a greatreminder, particularly in, I
think, a text that gets beat upan awful lot.
Elena Forzani (05:48):
Yeah, and for fair reasons.
Right, but I like that idea tooof rehearsal.
That's an interesting way tothink about.
We read text and we apply it toour own lives and we might
rehearse different scenarios,different ways of responding to
the things going on in our lives.
Lindsay Persohn (06:05):
I think we even use characters, ideas and
consequences as sort of an outof body rehearsal.
We can see how things unfoldfor them and then make choices
about what we would trydifferently or what we might
think about differently, what wewould do differently, based on
the characters' experience.
Elena Forzani (06:22):
Yeah, absolutely.
I also like what you said aboutidentity development.
I think a lot of theconversation around reading
these days, and even aroundeducation more generally, we
forget we're teaching humanbeings and it's about developing
as a whole person and not justdeveloping our reading skills or
developing our science skills.
(06:43):
I think sometimes, yeah, weforget about the fact that
students are our whole people,with lots of facets to their
identities.
Lindsay Persohn (06:51):
We are heads that are actually attached to
bodies.
Yeah, there's a lot more to itthan just intellectual
development.
Elena Forzani (06:58):
That's right yeah .
Lindsay Persohn (07:00):
So, Elena, what do you want listeners to know
about your work?
Elena Forzani (07:04):
I think sort of picking up on the anecdote I
mentioned about my ninth gradeboys, you know, reenacting Romeo
and Juliet, I think, eventhough I have several strands to
my work I'm really interestedin how people are making meaning
using text and how they'remaking meaning with other human
beings so that we live livesthat are meaningful to us.
(07:28):
I guess what else can we ask forexcept to connect with other
humans?
It's literally like what makesus human is that we live in a
social world and everything wedo is about relationships and
connections, and so one of theways we do that is through text,
and I think I take a very broadview of text, thinking about
(07:51):
not just written text but themultiple modes of text that
people use to sort of make senseof the world more broadly.
You know, people communicateand make sense with you know,
linguistically, with writtentext, but also with oral texts,
like we're doing now with imagesand video, visual text, with
(08:14):
gesture and movement, throughdance and play and actually
acting, like my ninth gradersdid, and I think all those
different modes are so, so, soimportant.
We really privilege linguistictexts, linguistic written text,
and we still, even in the 21stcentury when there are so many
(08:38):
forms of text out there andreally in a world where
linguistic text is not alwaysprivileged in the real world
anymore, if you look- on theinternet or literally the
podcast we're doing right now.
Right, the world is structureddifferently, people don't always
have the time to engage, andalso the medium is important.
(08:58):
You know, depending on whatmessage you're trying to give
and what you're trying tocommunicate, the medium matters,
and so sometimes what you wantto communicate is better
communicated in an image.
And then we have all thesemashups, of course, if you think
about Twitter and Facebook, andthose are mashups of video,
image, words.
But we choose our medium, dateand our mode based on hopefully
(09:24):
based on what we're trying tosay and what would best convey
what we're trying to say.
So I think there is a tension alittle bit between the world as
it exists now and the ways inwhich we make meaning out in the
world, versus what we stillprivilege in the classroom.
But I would say, for me, what'simportant is teaching students
(09:49):
to make intentional choicesabout the modes that they are
using, which then also meansteaching them all the mode, how
to use all the modes, and notjust written text.
The other thing I would saythat I would want listeners to
know about my work and aboutmeaning making in general is
(10:11):
that I think we want to givestudents the tools, not just to
be able to choose the modes theywork in, but to really think
deeply, to be able to analyze,to critique the world around
them, to be critical of theworld.
So they're not just relying onother people to make decisions
(10:34):
for them, and so that they havethe tools to do whatever it is
that they want to do.
I look a lot at how peopleevaluate the credibility of
information, and I think it'simportant because if we don't
know how to do that, we are sortof relying on somebody else to
make important decisions for us,and there, whoever is making
(10:58):
those decisions for us, they mayhave different interests than
we do.
They may have commercial,financial interests that are not
in our best interest, and so Ithink it's really important for
us to give kids the tools to beable to evaluate information for
themselves and to think deeplyand critically, both so they can
(11:18):
make meaning in terms of theirown identities and their
development and how they areconnecting with other humans,
and it goes hand in hand withbeing able to make their own
decisions in the world and to becritical of existing power and
political structures, and to beable to have the tools to change
(11:40):
those structures when theydon't like them.
Lindsay Persohn (11:44):
There's a real tension that I think exists in
what schools expect from kids,which is typically and this
reminds me of a conversation Ihad with James Gee About how
schools expect kids to beobedient and to do the work of
school, to do that kind of thecompliance that we expect in
school.
And yet the world demandssomething very different from
(12:08):
young people and, as you weretalking about that, alina, I was
thinking about how thisanalyzing and critiquing in
order to make decisions I feellike so many young people have
to do that kind of work outsideof school.
They're already doing that workoutside of school, but it's
just not privileged inside ofschool.
Elena Forzani (12:31):
Yeah, I think that's right.
I mean, they're doing it rightin their own lives when they're
out on social media.
They have to do that all thetime and we're not always giving
them the tools to be able toeven know how to think about it,
necessarily.
And so right.
Where are they getting thosetools if not at school?
Lindsay Persohn (12:48):
Yeah, I guess lately I've been thinking a lot
about the systems in schools andbecause I think often these are
systemic kinds of challengesthat teachers are trying to work
within and still find aproductive and humanizing path
forward.
But when we think about the waythat the systems of school are
set up, they don't necessarilymake space for these kinds of
(13:11):
ways of thinking.
For, as you mentioned themultiple modes, when you were
talking about giving kids toolsin multiple modes and helping
them to think about how they usethose to convey their message
in the most productive ways, Iwas thinking about assessment
and how I think one of thereasons why folks and systems
and schools shy away fromencouraging different modes of
(13:33):
communication is that well, it'shard to put into a rubric right
, it's hard to grade everyone ina standardized kind of way if
everyone is communicating intheir own mode.
Elena Forzani (13:43):
Yeah, that's an interesting point because you're
saying, basically, that's anassessment where it's not a one
size fits all assessment.
Different kids get to makedifferent sort of choices about
what they're doing, whichreminds me of, actually, when I
did teach high school.
We did these end of unitprojects, like we did one for
(14:04):
Romeo and Juliet, for example,where and this was not my, this
was like in collaboration with acolleague who taught with me,
but kids got to choose a project, like among different things,
and so some of the things theywould do were like create a CD,
a soundtrack for Romeo andJuliet, or like write a comic
strip, and it is challengingbecause everyone's creating a
(14:27):
different project.
But I think what's really greatabout it is it forced us as
teachers to think about, well,what are the actual skills that
we want students to walk awaywith that they can demonstrate
in these different, you know,still having these choices and
using these different modes, andit also offered this really
(14:50):
nice opportunity for students totalk about why they made the
designs, choices that they did.
So we had them, you know,accompany their projects with a.
It was a written reflection,but you could imagine, you know,
it could have been an audioreflection or a PowerPoint or
some other video reflection, butthinking, having that sort of
(15:13):
meta process of thinking aboutwhy did I make the mode choices
that I did, why did I pick theseparticular songs.
So I think there are a lot ofopportunities, certainly an
assessment opportunities, thatwe don't necessarily have when
we're just thinking in one modeand that also opens a whole can
(15:33):
of worms about you know, some ofthe assessment work I've been
doing around.
You know, assessments are sortof designed to be this one size
fits all approach, literallylike that is the history.
What an assessment is is we'regoing to pick this one construct
, define it, assume that allhuman beings do it in the same
way and we're going to assessthat one thing as if all humans
(15:59):
in the world were the same.
So reading is a great example,right, because we read in so
many different ways.
It's so context dependent, it'ssocially dependent, it's
culturally dependent, it'ssituational activity dependent,
and yet we still designassessments as if reading were
this one thing that was devoidof context.
(16:22):
And that's just not the case inthe real world.
And we have a lot of work.
You know now that that showsthat and documents that.
So I think we really need torethink how we are approaching
assessment and sort of turnassessment on its head in that
sense of you know, right now wedesign assessments with this
(16:42):
again, with this assumption thatall humans are the same, we're
going to design the assessmentas if everybody is the same and
then we sort of retrofit it.
We go through this processafter after the assessment is
designed to try to limit theextent to which it might not
correctly measure for differentpopulations of learners.
(17:03):
And I think we really need toflip that.
We need to design from theoutset with a diverse population
in mind and really thinkthrough what does that mean for
the construct we're measuring?
What does it mean for thedesign choices we're making?
What does it mean for how we'rescoring and measuring and
distributing scores anddisseminating information?
(17:26):
And one of the key things thatto me, is so important in that
work is actually partnering withthe people, that the assessment
is supposed to actually servethe people who, you know,
improve their learning andsupport their development as
people.
But so often assessment is doneto learners rather than with and
(17:48):
for them.
And I really think if we startfrom the outset, if we partner
as multiple stakeholders on anassessment that are all impacted
by assessment.
We have forces, design choicesthroughout that serve the needs
of multiple people, and so Ithink I guess I'm back to your
(18:09):
question about like so hard todevelop assessment that is not a
one size fits all like, yes,and we can do that, and I think
there are a lot of awesomeopportunities to gather
information there that we don'tnecessarily have in a one size
fits all approach, and it's justmore accurate.
It's what we want, right?
We want we want to reflect theway that people are actually
(18:33):
reading in the 21st century, andnot just reading a printed
story and answering somequestions.
It's just not how we makemeaning.
I mean, it's one of many waysthat we make meaning in the
world today, but there are somany others.
Lindsay Persohn (18:49):
Well, and what you're saying about shifting our
thinking about assessment, itreally does make me think that,
you know, if we could get thereright, if we could design
authentic assessments thatreflect what learners know and
can do in a real world kind ofway, it could force the hand of
some of our educational systemsto reconsider what is it we
(19:12):
actually value, right?
Like you were saying, with Romeoand Juliet, as you're designing
an assessment tool, maybe arubric or something like that,
that would help not only yourlearners to understand the task
at hand and sort of what shouldbe demonstrating in their work,
but it really does sort of forceus to think more intentionally
about what it is that we'retrying to teach, right, and you
(19:35):
know, not kind of missing theboat on some of the biggest
ideas, which I think, wheneverwe get into this sort of where
we're following a script, we'reteaching to a standardized test
that's so decontextualized.
But the way you're talking aboutthinking about assessment in my
mind is it's built from thecontext, so it's a whole
(19:56):
different way of thinking abouthow we actually value what we
might say we're valuing, andthen also how we reflect on that
as critical practitioners.
How do we teach, what we intendto teach.
How do we ensure that thelearners in front of us are
getting what we'd hoped and Ithink sometimes it's so much
more than that right, that'sbeen my experience with young
(20:17):
people.
We may give them a task that weenvision in some particular way
, and then, with theircreativity and brilliance, they
share something that is so farabove and beyond anything you
could have expected.
Elena Forzani (20:30):
Absolutely.
Lindsay Persohn (20:31):
Yeah, but that's the antithesis of what
you would get from astandardized assessment.
Elena Forzani (20:36):
That's right.
You know, a room sort of in astandardized assessment for
right, like sometimes studentsjust take things and go a
different direction.
That's amazing and it issomething you didn't think of
and I love.
Actually, you know, in myliteracy assessment course we
sort of work together to evendesign the assessments and the
rubrics and they come up withthings that we should put in our
(20:59):
rubrics that are reallyhonestly, brilliant.
That I just didn't, you know,as a single person creating a
draft rubric didn't think about.
So I think students absolutelydo that you also mentioned, like
, what is it we value?
And that assessment sort ofpush us to think about this
question, and that's absolutelyright.
(21:20):
We assess what we value, right,and so I think assessment has
this long history of there'sthis assumption of what we value
that's baked into all of ourstandardized assessments, where
no one you know stops to thinkwell, is this actually what the
way that we value meaning making?
Is this assessment reallyreflecting what we value in the
(21:43):
21st century today?
Because that's the thing aboutassessment is that somebody
somewhere making the assessmentis literally gets to decide what
is valued.
Even if you think about commoncore, it's like okay, well,
group of people sat down andthey determined what is valued.
And you know, what's valued isdifferent across different
(22:03):
communities and cultures andpeople, and so I think that's
another reason it's so importantto have multiple perspectives
and multiple people at a table,because, you know, there's no
one right answer right For whatwe should or shouldn't value.
We have to decide, and what wevalue changes from decade to
(22:24):
decade.
But assessments are definitelylike those are instantiations of
our social values, and so Ithink they require constant
critique of you know, is thisstill what we want?
Is this still what we value?
And who gets to decide what itis we value?
And maybe it's possible that wehave lots of different values,
(22:48):
different people about you know.
Imagine that different peoplevalue different things, and
that's okay.
So let's design an assessmentthat reflects multiple forms of
reading and multiple values,depending on the context in
which you're using them.
Lindsay Persohn (23:03):
This reminds me of something that has been
going through my head in thelast at least several weeks.
It's been ringing pretty loudly, but I feel like the older I
get and the more people I workwith, the more willing I become
to think about my ownassumptions and how whatever I
think may not be the best way tothink about something right.
(23:25):
And I think that that may bebecause I'm 20 years deep into
education, because you do seeyoung people coming up with such
incredible ideas that wouldhave never even been on my radar
.
So I think that there'ssomething we have to give up a
little bit of control in orderto think that someone else might
(23:46):
have a better idea about thisthan we do, and we just have to
be willing to, I think, hearthat and listen to that.
And to me, that is one of themost exciting things about
teaching is, you know, gettingto share in and to hear about
new ideas and new ways ofthinking.
But, again, it's not easy tomeasure.
Elena Forzani (24:02):
Yeah, but I totally agree with that.
I think you know, especially inschool, like it is this
one-size-fits-all approach andwe really teach kids from a
young age and our assessmentsagain like instantiate this idea
that we should figure out whatwe think is right and we should
argue that point.
(24:23):
We start with our argument upfront and then we sort of teach
kids how to cherry pick evidenceto fit their argument and why
they're right, which you know.
Not that we can say what'scaused what, but we live in this
world where people are justargument first instead of really
(24:43):
questioning their ownassumptions, listening to other
possible perspectives, lookingat lots of perspectives and the
evidence that goes with it first, and then coming to a
conclusion and just and onlythen deciding OK, here's my
argument, here's what I think,and oh, that can change.
(25:06):
I think we live in this worldwhere we teach kids that they
shouldn't change their mindright, like they shouldn't be
open to other ideas, becausethat makes them look like
they're stupid or something,whereas I agree with you, the
best work is when somebody has aperspective other than your own
(25:27):
and it actually changes the waythat you think.
So I think that it's one of thethings that I found in my work
on evaluation is that kids thathave this sort of flexible
skepticism do so much better.
They have this, this idea thatthey're critical but they're
(25:48):
also flexible at the same time.
So they understand, you know,they don't just go in with a
point of view.
They understand thatinformation changes and that it
might change depending on who'sasking the question, or might
change depending on new evidence, and they're sort of able to be
flexible in the way theyapproach the world and
(26:08):
information while at the sametime not just like believing
everything right.
They're critical at the sametime.
But I don't think that's reallya habit of mind that our
classrooms are designed tosupport.
I think it's actually kind ofthe opposite.
We design kids, you know.
We see the persuasive essay,even my kindergartener right.
(26:29):
It gets taught like pick yourfavorite color and then argue
your point.
Instead of well, let's, let'sthink about, you know, what are
the advantages and disadvantagesof different colors for
different purposes?
Which like, instead of justthere being one right answer.
My favorite color is teal.
It could be well, I like tealfor clothing and I, like, you
(26:51):
know, yellow for my toys,whatever the case might be.
Or yellow has these qualities,and teal has these qualities.
So I think we can approachthings in a much more nuanced
way and we can do a much betterjob teaching kids to do that
sort of flexible thinkinginstead of just this one answer
(27:11):
is right, and then maybe wewouldn't have quite the
political climate we have now,where people are just arguing
without really consideringpossibilities or considering
that two points of view mightboth, even though they seem like
they disagree.
Well, they can coexist and wecan have multiple realities and
(27:33):
viewpoints that you know thatwork for different people.
Lindsay Persohn (27:37):
So yeah, yeah, I love that phrase.
You used flexible skepticism,you know, because I do think so
often we promote face value,kind of thinking, right, like,
even as you're talking about apersuasive essay.
Why in the world do we takeopinion, an honest to goodness
opinion, and then try to arguewhy it's right?
(27:58):
You know, the two things justdon't really don't really add up
, you know, and you're right.
I would agree that I thinkthat's led to quite a lot of the
current discourse, you know,particularly across America
right now.
You know, we all believe thatour opinion is the only way to
believe in things and I'm lessand less convinced of that every
day.
(28:19):
Yeah, or that there's one.
There's one right answer yeah.
Elena Forzani (28:24):
I love like I couldn't sleep last night and I
was reading an article in theNew York Times about the origins
of coronavirus, which has beenlike a long standing but you
know, a long standing questionand we don't really know.
And I love, though, that theauthor he's basically talking
about the work I do on onlineevaluation, because he's saying,
you know, basically popularopinion is like whatever
(28:48):
narrative is sticky with peoplefor narrative reasons, like why
the story and the plot are good,versus looking at the evidence
and really considering theevidence, and in this case, I
mean, I think the author leanstoward the idea that, and he
gives all this evidence thatleans toward the idea that
coronavirus might have beenstarted at the market, the who
(29:10):
and on market.
But you know, he basically says,as we've seen, we really don't
know and we might never know.
And so I just I love it becauseit's like sometimes we can get
close to the, to what we thinkmight be the truth, but we don't
know and all we can do isupdate on the information as we
get new evidence and holddifferent possibilities, like,
(29:34):
yeah, it might be that thatthere are these different
possibilities and sometimesthere's more than one
possibility.
and I know we've talked abouteverything from digital texts,
romeo and Juliet to thecoronavirus, but is there
anything else that you'd likelisteners to know about your
(29:54):
work?
We haven't really talked much about the science
of reading, but I think it's soimportant for us to remember
that, like, yes, we have toteach kids you know how to
decode written written Englishtext, for sure, but that is one
component out of many componentson a broad spectrum of what it
(30:16):
needs to read, and I reallyworry that we're going to focus
so much on the alphabetical andon teaching phonics, which,
again, like, so important, noquestion, but we also need to
make sure we're giving kids achance to engage in discussion
and critical reasoning aroundtext and do all these higher
level things, and that's reallythe goal is that kids can make
(30:37):
meaning and critique and be ableto do all those things.
So I think that is justsomething we really need to hold
in our minds.
Lindsay Persohn (30:46):
I couldn't agree more.
Yes, of course, phonics anddecoding is important, but
decoding is not equivalent tounderstanding and I think that
that has gotten lost in theshuffle somewhere.
It's you know.
It's almost like well, if youcan decode, then you've got it
all.
Well, no, I mean, you've kindof got.
It may not be a drop in abucket.
It may be a drop in a bucket,but it's at least a drop in a
(31:07):
glass right of what we need toknow in order to be readers and
comprehenders and meaning makersand really, ultimately, change
makers In our own world.
Decoding is not going to get usthere.
Elena Forzani (31:20):
That's right and I think you know, one of the
things I see taken up,especially in schools, is the
simple view, which is fine, likethat explains comprehension to
a certain degree, which is theidea.
You know, decoding times,listening comprehension which is
essentially backgroundknowledge, will produce
comprehension and it will likeon a superficial, basic sort of
(31:43):
comprehension level.
But there's so much more.
You know it's not just thatautomatic process and boom,
you're done like.
Teachers actually then need togive students opportunities to
engage in this discussion andcritique and thinking more
deeply, and not just okay, Iunderstand what the author wrote
, it's no, you know, the way youunderstand a text, lindsay,
(32:04):
might be different than how Iunderstand it, and the way you
crit your critiques might bedifferent than my critiques, and
so we have to do more than just, you know, use the simple view
to assume that there's thisbasic level.
So I think another thing Iwould say that I feel is so
important for schools toconsider is looking at more
(32:24):
complex views of reading, likethe active, like Duke and
Cartwrights active view I'mreally thinking about okay, once
kids decode and have backgroundknowledge, what do we then do?
What does our comprehensioninstruction look like?
That supports deepcomprehension.
Lindsay Persohn (32:40):
Right, because the simple view of reading, that
kind of understanding, mightget us the right answer on a
standardized test, but it maynot ultimately help us to think
differently about life and ourown background and the
information that we've received.
Elena Forzani (32:54):
Yeah, that's right and I think even now,
standardized tests certainly askus to critique certainly Nate,
you know, asks us to critiqueand Common Core asks us to
critique and the simple viewdoesn't account for that.
That's really what we want todo.
We want students to be able tocritique text and think
analytically and deeply aboutthem and connect and make
(33:17):
meaning with them.
Lindsay Persohn (33:18):
So, given the challenges of today's
educational climate, whatmessage do you want teachers to
hear?
Elena Forzani (33:26):
Yeah, I mean I would say my work in how kids
evaluate credibility is really,for me, focused on how can they
make meaning in the world at ahigh level that's relevant to
them and to how they want tolive their lives.
And you mentioned actually thisidea of you know, school is
(33:47):
built around kids beingcompliant versus the world.
That really demands somethingdifferent, and so, for me,
teaching kids to critiqueinformation is giving them the
tools to not just be compliantin the world and accept things
as they are and especiallyaccept like the power structures
that are in the world, but tocritique those and to be change
(34:09):
makers, as you said, to changethem.
And I think, like my work andassessment has that same goal.
Working on assessment reallypushes us to decide what do we
value, what do we care about,what are we teaching kids?
And pushes us to then thinkabout well, okay, how are we
getting them there?
So I think they're connected inthat sense for sure.
Lindsay Persohn (34:32):
Absolutely, absolutely Well.
Alayna, I thank you so much foryour time today and I thank you
for your contributions to thefield of education.
Elena Forzani (34:41):
Yeah, thank you, lindsay.
I appreciate the conversationand you've certainly left me
some things to think about,which is always really nice.
To have a conversation withanother person that sort of you
know shifts your thinking inlarge and small ways.
I appreciate that.
Lindsay Persohn (34:56):
Great Well, thank you.
Dr Elena Forzani's researchcenters on using multiple and
mixed methods to understand andsupport digital literacy
practices across the elementaryand secondary levels.
Her work investigates thecognitive, metacognitive and
motivational dimensions ofonline reading and especially
how readers evaluate thecredibility of online
(35:17):
information.
Through this work, dr Forzaniseeks to inform the design of
equity oriented instruction andassessment environments.
Dr Forzani's scholarship hasbeen published in multiple
researcher and practitionerjournals, including reading
research quarterly, computersand human behavior, computers
and education open, the readingteacher and the Journal of
(35:39):
Adolescent and Adult Literacy.
Dr Forzani currently serves onthe US Department of Education's
National Assessment of theEducational Progress Standing
Reading Committee.
Through her doctoral work ineducational psychology at the
University of Connecticut, drForzani has served as the
Assistant Research Director forthe Progress in International
(36:00):
Reading Literacy Study, or PURLS, an International Print Reading
Assessment, and E-PURLS, anInternational Digital Reading
Assessment.
She's a former first grade andhigh school English and reading
teacher, as well as a formerliteracy specialist.
Dr Elena Forzani is anassistant professor in literacy
education at Boston University'sWheelock College of Education
(36:23):
and Human Development.
For the good of all students,classroom Caffeine aims to
energize education, research andpractice.
If this show gives you thingsto think about.
Help us spread the word.
Talk to your colleagues andeducator friends about what you
hear.
You can support the show bysubscribing, liking and
(36:45):
reviewing this podcast throughyour podcast provider.
Visit classroomcaffeinecom,where you can subscribe to
receive our short monthlynewsletter, the Espresso Shot.
On our website, you can alsolearn more about each guest,
find transcripts for ourepisodes, explore topics using
our drop-down menu of tags,request an episode, topic or
(37:07):
potential guest.
Support our research throughour listener survey or learn
more about the research we'redoing on our publications page.
Connect with us on social mediathrough Instagram, facebook and
Twitter.
We would love to hear from you.
Special thanks to the ClassroomCaffeine team Leah Berger,
abaya Veluru, stephanie Bransonand Shaba Hojfath.
(37:29):
As always, I raise my mug toyou teachers.
Thanks for joining me.
Education Research has a problem the work
of brilliant educationresearchers often doesn't reach
the practice of brilliantteachers.
Classroom Caffeine is here tohelp.
In each episode, I talk with atop education researcher or
expert educator about what theyhave learned from their research
(00:31):
and experiences.
In this episode, Dr ElenaForzani talks to us about
reading as meaning makingmultiple modes of communication
and literacy assessment.
Dr Forzani is known for herwork centering on using multiple
and mixed methods to understandand support digital literacy's
(00:54):
practices across the elementaryand secondary levels.
In particular, her workinvestigates the cognitive,
metacognitive and motivationaldimensions of online reading,
and especially how readersevaluate the credibility of
online information.
Elena Forzani is an assistantprofessor in literacy education
at Boston University's WheelockCollege of Education and Human
(01:18):
Development.
For more information about ourguest, stay tuned to the end of
this episode.
So pour a cup of your favoritedrink and join me, your host,
Lindsay Persohn, for ClassroomCaffeine Research to Energize
your Teaching Practice.
Elena, thank you for joining me.
Welcome to the show.
Elena Forzani (01:39):
Thanks so much for having me, Lindsay.
It's great to be here.
Lindsay Persohn (01:42):
So, from your own experiences in education,
will you share with us one ortwo moments that inform your
thinking now?
Elena Forzani (01:49):
Sure, I was thinking about this a little bit
and I think one of the thingsthat comes back to me a lot well
, I taught first grade and thenI also taught high school, so I
have a range of kids in my mind,but I often think about my
ninth graders when I taughtRomeo and Juliet, which I know
is, you know, a classic text.
(02:11):
Certainly lots of things notgood about teaching that text,
but there, I think, are someuseful things for us and my
students loved doing that textand we use some modern
translations and looked atlanguage a lot.
But some of them, especially mystudents who were often like
the least engaged in classes ingeneral, were really engaged in
(02:35):
that text and they would evencome in, like during their lunch
break, into my room and theywould act out scenes.
So we acted out scenes andclass together as well, but then
sometimes they would just comein during their lunch break and
these are like ninth grade boyswere talking about and I had a
couple of swords which probablytoday like I don't know if I
would still have those, but theywould.
(02:57):
You know, they would just kindof fool around and the question
that we took up in that unit wasthinking about what is love, so
very sort of like interesting,I guess, for ninth graders.
I didn't choose that topic, bythe way, I think about that a
lot because students were reallyengaged and because the topic
(03:18):
is something that mattered tothem a lot.
And I think about it because forme, it's about reading and text
and making meaning with theworld is about ourselves, right,
and how we relate to otherhuman beings, and so I think
that's an example where mystudents were not inserting
(03:41):
themselves in the text but usingthe text to think about their
own relationships and theirninth graders.
So they're already thinkingabout a lot about relationships
and their own identities andthings like that, and it was a
time that was like fun too.
I think sometimes we forgetthat reading and making meaning
with text and with other humanbeings, like the purpose of it
(04:01):
is for us to relate to otherhumans and communicate with
other humans and be in a worldwhere we're not alone, basically
where we're connecting.
It's about connection, and so Ithink that's why that
particular moment really comesback to me.
Another reason it comes back tome is that teaching and
(04:23):
learning is about relationshipsfirst, and those were moments,
too, when my students wereconnected to one another, they
were connected to me, so itwasn't like they were just
reading in isolation, which iswe do too right, and that
matters too when we'reconnecting with the author, with
characters.
But it's also about connectingwith students, which is
(04:44):
something that's reallyimportant to me, and so my
research also gets back torelationships.
Lindsay Persohn (04:50):
First, that's such an important point to
underscore because I thinksometimes in the teaching of
reading that can get lost intranslation right that it really
is about our relationships withreally first and foremost
ourselves.
In fact, I was working on aproject this morning where we
were talking a lot about thedevelopment of reader identity
and just how continuous thatprocess is, even when we might
(05:14):
feel as learners like we kind ofgot that stuff down.
But we are continuously indevelopment, particularly if we
consider ourselves to belifelong learners.
I think that's such animportant point.
I love that example of yourninth grade boys stopping by at
lunch to grab a sword andreenact Romeo and Juliet.
What a cool way to think abouthow reading becomes a part of
(05:36):
our lives and a part of who weare.
It does become a space forrehearsal, for thinking and for
being.
That's just such a greatreminder, particularly in, I
think, a text that gets beat upan awful lot.
Elena Forzani (05:48):
Yeah, and for fair reasons.
Right, but I like that idea tooof rehearsal.
That's an interesting way tothink about.
We read text and we apply it toour own lives and we might
rehearse different scenarios,different ways of responding to
the things going on in our lives.
Lindsay Persohn (06:05):
I think we even use characters, ideas and
consequences as sort of an outof body rehearsal.
We can see how things unfoldfor them and then make choices
about what we would trydifferently or what we might
think about differently, what wewould do differently, based on
the characters' experience.
Elena Forzani (06:22):
Yeah, absolutely.
I also like what you said aboutidentity development.
I think a lot of theconversation around reading
these days, and even aroundeducation more generally, we
forget we're teaching humanbeings and it's about developing
as a whole person and not justdeveloping our reading skills or
developing our science skills.
(06:43):
I think sometimes, yeah, weforget about the fact that
students are our whole people,with lots of facets to their
identities.
Lindsay Persohn (06:51):
We are heads that are actually attached to
bodies.
Yeah, there's a lot more to itthan just intellectual
development.
Elena Forzani (06:58):
That's right yeah .
Lindsay Persohn (07:00):
So, Elena, what do you want listeners to know
about your work?
Elena Forzani (07:04):
I think sort of picking up on the anecdote I
mentioned about my ninth gradeboys, you know, reenacting Romeo
and Juliet, I think, eventhough I have several strands to
my work I'm really interestedin how people are making meaning
using text and how they'remaking meaning with other human
beings so that we live livesthat are meaningful to us.
(07:28):
I guess what else can we ask forexcept to connect with other
humans?
It's literally like what makesus human is that we live in a
social world and everything wedo is about relationships and
connections, and so one of theways we do that is through text,
and I think I take a very broadview of text, thinking about
(07:51):
not just written text but themultiple modes of text that
people use to sort of make senseof the world more broadly.
You know, people communicateand make sense with you know,
linguistically, with writtentext, but also with oral texts,
like we're doing now with imagesand video, visual text, with
(08:14):
gesture and movement, throughdance and play and actually
acting, like my ninth gradersdid, and I think all those
different modes are so, so, soimportant.
We really privilege linguistictexts, linguistic written text,
and we still, even in the 21stcentury when there are so many
(08:38):
forms of text out there andreally in a world where
linguistic text is not alwaysprivileged in the real world
anymore, if you look- on theinternet or literally the
podcast we're doing right now.
Right, the world is structureddifferently, people don't always
have the time to engage, andalso the medium is important.
(08:58):
You know, depending on whatmessage you're trying to give
and what you're trying tocommunicate, the medium matters,
and so sometimes what you wantto communicate is better
communicated in an image.
And then we have all thesemashups, of course, if you think
about Twitter and Facebook, andthose are mashups of video,
image, words.
But we choose our medium, dateand our mode based on hopefully
(09:24):
based on what we're trying tosay and what would best convey
what we're trying to say.
So I think there is a tension alittle bit between the world as
it exists now and the ways inwhich we make meaning out in the
world, versus what we stillprivilege in the classroom.
But I would say, for me, what'simportant is teaching students
(09:49):
to make intentional choicesabout the modes that they are
using, which then also meansteaching them all the mode, how
to use all the modes, and notjust written text.
The other thing I would saythat I would want listeners to
know about my work and aboutmeaning making in general is
(10:11):
that I think we want to givestudents the tools, not just to
be able to choose the modes theywork in, but to really think
deeply, to be able to analyze,to critique the world around
them, to be critical of theworld.
So they're not just relying onother people to make decisions
(10:34):
for them, and so that they havethe tools to do whatever it is
that they want to do.
I look a lot at how peopleevaluate the credibility of
information, and I think it'simportant because if we don't
know how to do that, we are sortof relying on somebody else to
make important decisions for us,and there, whoever is making
(10:58):
those decisions for us, they mayhave different interests than
we do.
They may have commercial,financial interests that are not
in our best interest, and so Ithink it's really important for
us to give kids the tools to beable to evaluate information for
themselves and to think deeplyand critically, both so they can
(11:18):
make meaning in terms of theirown identities and their
development and how they areconnecting with other humans,
and it goes hand in hand withbeing able to make their own
decisions in the world and to becritical of existing power and
political structures, and to beable to have the tools to change
(11:40):
those structures when theydon't like them.
Lindsay Persohn (11:44):
There's a real tension that I think exists in
what schools expect from kids,which is typically and this
reminds me of a conversation Ihad with James Gee About how
schools expect kids to beobedient and to do the work of
school, to do that kind of thecompliance that we expect in
school.
And yet the world demandssomething very different from
(12:08):
young people and, as you weretalking about that, alina, I was
thinking about how thisanalyzing and critiquing in
order to make decisions I feellike so many young people have
to do that kind of work outsideof school.
They're already doing that workoutside of school, but it's
just not privileged inside ofschool.
Elena Forzani (12:31):
Yeah, I think that's right.
I mean, they're doing it rightin their own lives when they're
out on social media.
They have to do that all thetime and we're not always giving
them the tools to be able toeven know how to think about it,
necessarily.
And so right.
Where are they getting thosetools if not at school?
Lindsay Persohn (12:48):
Yeah, I guess lately I've been thinking a lot
about the systems in schools andbecause I think often these are
systemic kinds of challengesthat teachers are trying to work
within and still find aproductive and humanizing path
forward.
But when we think about the waythat the systems of school are
set up, they don't necessarilymake space for these kinds of
(13:11):
ways of thinking.
For, as you mentioned themultiple modes, when you were
talking about giving kids toolsin multiple modes and helping
them to think about how they usethose to convey their message
in the most productive ways, Iwas thinking about assessment
and how I think one of thereasons why folks and systems
and schools shy away fromencouraging different modes of
(13:33):
communication is that well, it'shard to put into a rubric right
, it's hard to grade everyone ina standardized kind of way if
everyone is communicating intheir own mode.
Elena Forzani (13:43):
Yeah, that's an interesting point because you're
saying, basically, that's anassessment where it's not a one
size fits all assessment.
Different kids get to makedifferent sort of choices about
what they're doing, whichreminds me of, actually, when I
did teach high school.
We did these end of unitprojects, like we did one for
(14:04):
Romeo and Juliet, for example,where and this was not my, this
was like in collaboration with acolleague who taught with me,
but kids got to choose a project, like among different things,
and so some of the things theywould do were like create a CD,
a soundtrack for Romeo andJuliet, or like write a comic
strip, and it is challengingbecause everyone's creating a
(14:27):
different project.
But I think what's really greatabout it is it forced us as
teachers to think about, well,what are the actual skills that
we want students to walk awaywith that they can demonstrate
in these different, you know,still having these choices and
using these different modes, andit also offered this really
(14:50):
nice opportunity for students totalk about why they made the
designs, choices that they did.
So we had them, you know,accompany their projects with a.
It was a written reflection,but you could imagine, you know,
it could have been an audioreflection or a PowerPoint or
some other video reflection, butthinking, having that sort of
(15:13):
meta process of thinking aboutwhy did I make the mode choices
that I did, why did I pick theseparticular songs.
So I think there are a lot ofopportunities, certainly an
assessment opportunities, thatwe don't necessarily have when
we're just thinking in one modeand that also opens a whole can
(15:33):
of worms about you know, some ofthe assessment work I've been
doing around.
You know, assessments are sortof designed to be this one size
fits all approach, literallylike that is the history.
What an assessment is is we'regoing to pick this one construct
, define it, assume that allhuman beings do it in the same
way and we're going to assessthat one thing as if all humans
(15:59):
in the world were the same.
So reading is a great example,right, because we read in so
many different ways.
It's so context dependent, it'ssocially dependent, it's
culturally dependent, it'ssituational activity dependent,
and yet we still designassessments as if reading were
this one thing that was devoidof context.
(16:22):
And that's just not the case inthe real world.
And we have a lot of work.
You know now that that showsthat and documents that.
So I think we really need torethink how we are approaching
assessment and sort of turnassessment on its head in that
sense of you know, right now wedesign assessments with this
(16:42):
again, with this assumption thatall humans are the same, we're
going to design the assessmentas if everybody is the same and
then we sort of retrofit it.
We go through this processafter after the assessment is
designed to try to limit theextent to which it might not
correctly measure for differentpopulations of learners.
(17:03):
And I think we really need toflip that.
We need to design from theoutset with a diverse population
in mind and really thinkthrough what does that mean for
the construct we're measuring?
What does it mean for thedesign choices we're making?
What does it mean for how we'rescoring and measuring and
distributing scores anddisseminating information?
(17:26):
And one of the key things thatto me, is so important in that
work is actually partnering withthe people, that the assessment
is supposed to actually servethe people who, you know,
improve their learning andsupport their development as
people.
But so often assessment is doneto learners rather than with and
(17:48):
for them.
And I really think if we startfrom the outset, if we partner
as multiple stakeholders on anassessment that are all impacted
by assessment.
We have forces, design choicesthroughout that serve the needs
of multiple people, and so Ithink I guess I'm back to your
(18:09):
question about like so hard todevelop assessment that is not a
one size fits all like, yes,and we can do that, and I think
there are a lot of awesomeopportunities to gather
information there that we don'tnecessarily have in a one size
fits all approach, and it's justmore accurate.
It's what we want, right?
We want we want to reflect theway that people are actually
(18:33):
reading in the 21st century, andnot just reading a printed
story and answering somequestions.
It's just not how we makemeaning.
I mean, it's one of many waysthat we make meaning in the
world today, but there are somany others.
Lindsay Persohn (18:49):
Well, and what you're saying about shifting our
thinking about assessment, itreally does make me think that,
you know, if we could get thereright, if we could design
authentic assessments thatreflect what learners know and
can do in a real world kind ofway, it could force the hand of
some of our educational systemsto reconsider what is it we
(19:12):
actually value, right?
Like you were saying, with Romeoand Juliet, as you're designing
an assessment tool, maybe arubric or something like that,
that would help not only yourlearners to understand the task
at hand and sort of what shouldbe demonstrating in their work,
but it really does sort of forceus to think more intentionally
about what it is that we'retrying to teach, right, and you
(19:35):
know, not kind of missing theboat on some of the biggest
ideas, which I think, wheneverwe get into this sort of where
we're following a script, we'reteaching to a standardized test
that's so decontextualized.
But the way you're talking aboutthinking about assessment in my
mind is it's built from thecontext, so it's a whole
(19:56):
different way of thinking abouthow we actually value what we
might say we're valuing, andthen also how we reflect on that
as critical practitioners.
How do we teach, what we intendto teach.
How do we ensure that thelearners in front of us are
getting what we'd hoped and Ithink sometimes it's so much
more than that right, that'sbeen my experience with young
(20:17):
people.
We may give them a task that weenvision in some particular way
, and then, with theircreativity and brilliance, they
share something that is so farabove and beyond anything you
could have expected.
Elena Forzani (20:30):
Absolutely.
Lindsay Persohn (20:31):
Yeah, but that's the antithesis of what
you would get from astandardized assessment.
Elena Forzani (20:36):
That's right.
You know, a room sort of in astandardized assessment for
right, like sometimes studentsjust take things and go a
different direction.
That's amazing and it issomething you didn't think of
and I love.
Actually, you know, in myliteracy assessment course we
sort of work together to evendesign the assessments and the
rubrics and they come up withthings that we should put in our
(20:59):
rubrics that are reallyhonestly, brilliant.
That I just didn't, you know,as a single person creating a
draft rubric didn't think about.
So I think students absolutelydo that you also mentioned, like
, what is it we value?
And that assessment sort ofpush us to think about this
question, and that's absolutelyright.
(21:20):
We assess what we value, right,and so I think assessment has
this long history of there'sthis assumption of what we value
that's baked into all of ourstandardized assessments, where
no one you know stops to thinkwell, is this actually what the
way that we value meaning making?
Is this assessment reallyreflecting what we value in the
(21:43):
21st century today?
Because that's the thing aboutassessment is that somebody
somewhere making the assessmentis literally gets to decide what
is valued.
Even if you think about commoncore, it's like okay, well,
group of people sat down andthey determined what is valued.
And you know, what's valued isdifferent across different
(22:03):
communities and cultures andpeople, and so I think that's
another reason it's so importantto have multiple perspectives
and multiple people at a table,because, you know, there's no
one right answer right For whatwe should or shouldn't value.
We have to decide, and what wevalue changes from decade to
(22:24):
decade.
But assessments are definitelylike those are instantiations of
our social values, and so Ithink they require constant
critique of you know, is thisstill what we want?
Is this still what we value?
And who gets to decide what itis we value?
And maybe it's possible that wehave lots of different values,
(22:48):
different people about you know.
Imagine that different peoplevalue different things, and
that's okay.
So let's design an assessmentthat reflects multiple forms of
reading and multiple values,depending on the context in
which you're using them.
Lindsay Persohn (23:03):
This reminds me of something that has been
going through my head in thelast at least several weeks.
It's been ringing pretty loudly, but I feel like the older I
get and the more people I workwith, the more willing I become
to think about my ownassumptions and how whatever I
think may not be the best way tothink about something right.
(23:25):
And I think that that may bebecause I'm 20 years deep into
education, because you do seeyoung people coming up with such
incredible ideas that wouldhave never even been on my radar
.
So I think that there'ssomething we have to give up a
little bit of control in orderto think that someone else might
(23:46):
have a better idea about thisthan we do, and we just have to
be willing to, I think, hearthat and listen to that.
And to me, that is one of themost exciting things about
teaching is, you know, gettingto share in and to hear about
new ideas and new ways ofthinking.
But, again, it's not easy tomeasure.
Elena Forzani (24:02):
Yeah, but I totally agree with that.
I think you know, especially inschool, like it is this
one-size-fits-all approach andwe really teach kids from a
young age and our assessmentsagain like instantiate this idea
that we should figure out whatwe think is right and we should
argue that point.
(24:23):
We start with our argument upfront and then we sort of teach
kids how to cherry pick evidenceto fit their argument and why
they're right, which you know.
Not that we can say what'scaused what, but we live in this
world where people are justargument first instead of really
(24:43):
questioning their ownassumptions, listening to other
possible perspectives, lookingat lots of perspectives and the
evidence that goes with it first, and then coming to a
conclusion and just and onlythen deciding OK, here's my
argument, here's what I think,and oh, that can change.
(25:06):
I think we live in this worldwhere we teach kids that they
shouldn't change their mindright, like they shouldn't be
open to other ideas, becausethat makes them look like
they're stupid or something,whereas I agree with you, the
best work is when somebody has aperspective other than your own
(25:27):
and it actually changes the waythat you think.
So I think that it's one of thethings that I found in my work
on evaluation is that kids thathave this sort of flexible
skepticism do so much better.
They have this, this idea thatthey're critical but they're
(25:48):
also flexible at the same time.
So they understand, you know,they don't just go in with a
point of view.
They understand thatinformation changes and that it
might change depending on who'sasking the question, or might
change depending on new evidence, and they're sort of able to be
flexible in the way theyapproach the world and
(26:08):
information while at the sametime not just like believing
everything right.
They're critical at the sametime.
But I don't think that's reallya habit of mind that our
classrooms are designed tosupport.
I think it's actually kind ofthe opposite.
We design kids, you know.
We see the persuasive essay,even my kindergartener right.
(26:29):
It gets taught like pick yourfavorite color and then argue
your point.
Instead of well, let's, let'sthink about, you know, what are
the advantages and disadvantagesof different colors for
different purposes?
Which like, instead of justthere being one right answer.
My favorite color is teal.
It could be well, I like tealfor clothing and I, like, you
(26:51):
know, yellow for my toys,whatever the case might be.
Or yellow has these qualities,and teal has these qualities.
So I think we can approachthings in a much more nuanced
way and we can do a much betterjob teaching kids to do that
sort of flexible thinkinginstead of just this one answer
(27:11):
is right, and then maybe wewouldn't have quite the
political climate we have now,where people are just arguing
without really consideringpossibilities or considering
that two points of view mightboth, even though they seem like
they disagree.
Well, they can coexist and wecan have multiple realities and
(27:33):
viewpoints that you know thatwork for different people.
Lindsay Persohn (27:37):
So yeah, yeah, I love that phrase.
You used flexible skepticism,you know, because I do think so
often we promote face value,kind of thinking, right, like,
even as you're talking about apersuasive essay.
Why in the world do we takeopinion, an honest to goodness
opinion, and then try to arguewhy it's right?
(27:58):
You know, the two things justdon't really don't really add up
, you know, and you're right.
I would agree that I thinkthat's led to quite a lot of the
current discourse, you know,particularly across America
right now.
You know, we all believe thatour opinion is the only way to
believe in things and I'm lessand less convinced of that every
day.
(28:19):
Yeah, or that there's one.
There's one right answer yeah.
Elena Forzani (28:24):
I love like I couldn't sleep last night and I
was reading an article in theNew York Times about the origins
of coronavirus, which has beenlike a long standing but you
know, a long standing questionand we don't really know.
And I love, though, that theauthor he's basically talking
about the work I do on onlineevaluation, because he's saying,
you know, basically popularopinion is like whatever
(28:48):
narrative is sticky with peoplefor narrative reasons, like why
the story and the plot are good,versus looking at the evidence
and really considering theevidence, and in this case, I
mean, I think the author leanstoward the idea that, and he
gives all this evidence thatleans toward the idea that
coronavirus might have beenstarted at the market, the who
(29:10):
and on market.
But you know, he basically says,as we've seen, we really don't
know and we might never know.
And so I just I love it becauseit's like sometimes we can get
close to the, to what we thinkmight be the truth, but we don't
know and all we can do isupdate on the information as we
get new evidence and holddifferent possibilities, like,
(29:34):
yeah, it might be that thatthere are these different
possibilities and sometimesthere's more than one
possibility.
and I know we've talked abouteverything from digital texts,
romeo and Juliet to thecoronavirus, but is there
anything else that you'd likelisteners to know about your
(29:54):
work?
We haven't really talked much about the science
of reading, but I think it's soimportant for us to remember
that, like, yes, we have toteach kids you know how to
decode written written Englishtext, for sure, but that is one
component out of many componentson a broad spectrum of what it
(30:16):
needs to read, and I reallyworry that we're going to focus
so much on the alphabetical andon teaching phonics, which,
again, like, so important, noquestion, but we also need to
make sure we're giving kids achance to engage in discussion
and critical reasoning aroundtext and do all these higher
level things, and that's reallythe goal is that kids can make
(30:37):
meaning and critique and be ableto do all those things.
So I think that is justsomething we really need to hold
in our minds.
Lindsay Persohn (30:46):
I couldn't agree more.
Yes, of course, phonics anddecoding is important, but
decoding is not equivalent tounderstanding and I think that
that has gotten lost in theshuffle somewhere.
It's you know.
It's almost like well, if youcan decode, then you've got it
all.
Well, no, I mean, you've kindof got.
It may not be a drop in abucket.
It may be a drop in a bucket,but it's at least a drop in a
(31:07):
glass right of what we need toknow in order to be readers and
comprehenders and meaning makersand really, ultimately, change
makers In our own world.
Decoding is not going to get usthere.
Elena Forzani (31:20):
That's right and I think you know, one of the
things I see taken up,especially in schools, is the
simple view, which is fine, likethat explains comprehension to
a certain degree, which is theidea.
You know, decoding times,listening comprehension which is
essentially backgroundknowledge, will produce
comprehension and it will likeon a superficial, basic sort of
(31:43):
comprehension level.
But there's so much more.
You know it's not just thatautomatic process and boom,
you're done like.
Teachers actually then need togive students opportunities to
engage in this discussion andcritique and thinking more
deeply, and not just okay, Iunderstand what the author wrote
, it's no, you know, the way youunderstand a text, lindsay,
(32:04):
might be different than how Iunderstand it, and the way you
crit your critiques might bedifferent than my critiques, and
so we have to do more than just, you know, use the simple view
to assume that there's thisbasic level.
So I think another thing Iwould say that I feel is so
important for schools toconsider is looking at more
(32:24):
complex views of reading, likethe active, like Duke and
Cartwrights active view I'mreally thinking about okay, once
kids decode and have backgroundknowledge, what do we then do?
What does our comprehensioninstruction look like?
That supports deepcomprehension.
Lindsay Persohn (32:40):
Right, because the simple view of reading, that
kind of understanding, mightget us the right answer on a
standardized test, but it maynot ultimately help us to think
differently about life and ourown background and the
information that we've received.
Elena Forzani (32:54):
Yeah, that's right and I think even now,
standardized tests certainly askus to critique certainly Nate,
you know, asks us to critiqueand Common Core asks us to
critique and the simple viewdoesn't account for that.
That's really what we want todo.
We want students to be able tocritique text and think
analytically and deeply aboutthem and connect and make
(33:17):
meaning with them.
Lindsay Persohn (33:18):
So, given the challenges of today's
educational climate, whatmessage do you want teachers to
hear?
Elena Forzani (33:26):
Yeah, I mean I would say my work in how kids
evaluate credibility is really,for me, focused on how can they
make meaning in the world at ahigh level that's relevant to
them and to how they want tolive their lives.
And you mentioned actually thisidea of you know, school is
(33:47):
built around kids beingcompliant versus the world.
That really demands somethingdifferent, and so, for me,
teaching kids to critiqueinformation is giving them the
tools to not just be compliantin the world and accept things
as they are and especiallyaccept like the power structures
that are in the world, but tocritique those and to be change
(34:09):
makers, as you said, to changethem.
And I think, like my work andassessment has that same goal.
Working on assessment reallypushes us to decide what do we
value, what do we care about,what are we teaching kids?
And pushes us to then thinkabout well, okay, how are we
getting them there?
So I think they're connected inthat sense for sure.
Lindsay Persohn (34:32):
Absolutely, absolutely Well.
Alayna, I thank you so much foryour time today and I thank you
for your contributions to thefield of education.
Elena Forzani (34:41):
Yeah, thank you, lindsay.
I appreciate the conversationand you've certainly left me
some things to think about,which is always really nice.
To have a conversation withanother person that sort of you
know shifts your thinking inlarge and small ways.
I appreciate that.
Lindsay Persohn (34:56):
Great Well, thank you.
Dr Elena Forzani's researchcenters on using multiple and
mixed methods to understand andsupport digital literacy
practices across the elementaryand secondary levels.
Her work investigates thecognitive, metacognitive and
motivational dimensions ofonline reading and especially
how readers evaluate thecredibility of online
(35:17):
information.
Through this work, dr Forzaniseeks to inform the design of
equity oriented instruction andassessment environments.
Dr Forzani's scholarship hasbeen published in multiple
researcher and practitionerjournals, including reading
research quarterly, computersand human behavior, computers
and education open, the readingteacher and the Journal of
(35:39):
Adolescent and Adult Literacy.
Dr Forzani currently serves onthe US Department of Education's
National Assessment of theEducational Progress Standing
Reading Committee.
Through her doctoral work ineducational psychology at the
University of Connecticut, drForzani has served as the
Assistant Research Director forthe Progress in International
(36:00):
Reading Literacy Study, or PURLS, an International Print Reading
Assessment, and E-PURLS, anInternational Digital Reading
Assessment.
She's a former first grade andhigh school English and reading
teacher, as well as a formerliteracy specialist.
Dr Elena Forzani is anassistant professor in literacy
education at Boston University'sWheelock College of Education
(36:23):
and Human Development.
For the good of all students,classroom Caffeine aims to
energize education, research andpractice.
If this show gives you thingsto think about.
Help us spread the word.
Talk to your colleagues andeducator friends about what you
hear.
You can support the show bysubscribing, liking and
(36:45):
reviewing this podcast throughyour podcast provider.
Visit classroomcaffeinecom,where you can subscribe to
receive our short monthlynewsletter, the Espresso Shot.
On our website, you can alsolearn more about each guest,
find transcripts for ourepisodes, explore topics using
our drop-down menu of tags,request an episode, topic or
(37:07):
potential guest.
Support our research throughour listener survey or learn
more about the research we'redoing on our publications page.
Connect with us on social mediathrough Instagram, facebook and
Twitter.
We would love to hear from you.
Special thanks to the ClassroomCaffeine team Leah Berger,
abaya Veluru, stephanie Bransonand Shaba Hojfath.
(37:29):
As always, I raise my mug toyou teachers.
Thanks for joining me.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com