Reading Strategies for Virtual Learners
Reading Strategy for Virtual Learners
Rob Debelak, Associate Professor of Bible, Lee University
THIS TOOLKIT WILL SHOW YOU HOW TO
Implement a learner-centered alternative to the standard ‘read and report’ method of assessment.
KEY OBJECTIVES
- Introduce an effective reading strategy for the asynchronous learning environment
- Implement a four-step learner-centered process
IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
- Step 1 – Students read the material and formulate an instructor-specified number of questions on their own [i.e. 10]. These questions are posted to a weekly online forum by day three of the week. Question format is flexible [true/false, multiple choice, list, short answer]
- Step 2 – A peer in the course finds a battery of questions that is not their own and responds with answers. [For fair availability, peers may post “reserve” indicating subsequent readers should seek another series of questions. Reservations are good for 48 hours only]
- Step 3 – The student originally posting the question set responds, providing page number and feedback on what they were looking for, as well as affirmation, clarity, etc. Feedback is ideally posted not later than day six each week [in cases where a list of questions is unanswered, credit may be awarded if the originator posts an answer key on the final day of the week’s unit.
- Step 4 – The two students have an informed basis to dialogue over the material in substantive interaction that evaluates, critiques, etc. Word-count, etc., can be detailed by the course designer/instructor to prompt learners toward higher-level critical thinking.
DESCRIPTION
A four-step learner centered reading assessment strategy is offered for instructors seeking to accent social and cognitive (course structure; Stavredes) presence in course or assignment design. The toolkit requires students actively engage the reading materials. Layering the repetition, additional exposure to reading content occurs as peers respond to each other’s battery of questions. Reinforcement is accented in another read, where feedback is structured with affirmation or correction, source and page number, rationale, and pertinent comment. With the required multi-layer exposure, a more informed basis for substantive dialogue is developed.
Instructor presence remains, evaluating the quality (breadth and depth) of the questions, relevance of the questions, adherence to the timely submission to the increments of the process, cordial communication fostering a healthy community of learners, compliance with college-level writing standards, and the like. Step 4 offers a stronger platform for instructor comments to become more meaningful to those in the process.
REFLECTION
In the standard ‘read and report’ method, I reviewed the responses per the number of students in a course (20 times per forum twice each week). With the method proposed in this toolkit, students (rather than professor) had numerous runs at the material (three times minimum, rather than once) in a manageable manner. The method can seem awkward initially, but they adjust quickly with minimal guidance. Student feedback is generally positive; working together built comradery as they held each other accountable. To their surprise, the process collectively built a study guide for review; learning “what” (content) with “how” increased their scores.
RESOURCES
Stavredes, Tina. Effective Online Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2011.
