Beyond Test Prep:
Not surprisingly, at every workshop I facilitate
Making a Case
for Extended
Responses to
Reading
Dorothy Franklin
Stephen K. Hayt Elementary School,
Chicago, Illinois
What are we doing today?
I think it’s extended response to reading.
Extended response?
Yeah, you know, the question at the end of
the ISAT reading test.
My class doesn’t even take the reading
ISAT! (He fiercely shakes a hand full of
papers.) I’m glad I brought these papers
to grade.
Hearty, infectious laughter envelops the two
teachers enroute to their seats. Eavesdropping as
teachers circulate in the library before I conduct
my professional development workshop reveals
to me the concerns, attitudes, and interests of
my colleagues whose diverse classroom experi-
ences, belief systems, and training will impact
BEYOND TEST PREP: MAKING A CASE FOR EXTENDED RESPONSES TO READING
how each individual receives my demonstration.
on extended response, I find teachers who enter
with preconceived notions (or dare I say, mis-
conceptions) about extended responses to read-
ing. Some elementary school teachers believe
that the only teachers who “must make the
time in their already tight schedules” for teach-
ing extended reading responses are those who
teach third, fifth, and eighth grades—the cur-
rent ISAT years for reading accountability.
NCLB. AYP. ISBE. ISAT. For people who
do not work under the tremendous weight of
public education politics, these may be a mean-
ingless stream of letters. To those of us who toil
tirelessly to reconcile bureaucratic demands
with sound instructional practices, the initials
represent how high the ante has risen in high-
stakes testing. So high, indeed, that starting
in school year 2005-2006 elementary school
testing in reading will be mandated for third
through eighth grades (ISBE, 2004).
President Bush’s often criticized—or lauded,
depending on which circles you travel—No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) has dramatically
increased the level of accountability on public
school districts, individual schools, princi-
pals, and teachers. Specifically, the Illinois
State Board of Education (ISBE) expects each
elementary school in Illinois to demonstrate
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) on the Illinois
Standards Achievement Test (ISAT). The ISAT
reading test is comprised of one long passage
followed by 17 to 19 multiple-choice ques-
tions and an extended response prompt that
requires students to extend the ideas presented
in the passage by making inferences, drawing
conclusions, and making connections based
on prior knowledge and experiences. At least
40% of all students must meet/exceed the
standards. In addition, at least 37% of each
subgroup—Native American, Asian, Black,
Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvan-
taged—must meet/exceed standards. If any one
subgroup falls short, the school is identified as
39
 not having met AYP, which may lead to ISBE
intervention depending on the AYP specifica-
tions of the federal NCLB (ISBE, 2003). To
achieve AYP on the reading ISAT, my school
district has paid significant attention to the
extended reading response, which accounts for
15% of the reading score.
As a newly assigned reading specialist and
a veteran reading teacher whose instructional
practices have been greatly influenced by Regie
Routman and Nancy Atwell, I applaud the
recent attention being given to the extended
reading response. Yet, I am also concerned that
extended responses are being presented under
the restrictive umbrella of ISAT preparation.
Lost in the political storm called high-stakes
testing, the true value and purpose for teaching
all students how to respond analytically in writ-
ing and orally to text across the curriculum has
sustained collateral damage.
Succumbing to the intense pressure of rais-
ing NCLB test scores, some teachers leave pro-
fessional development workshops, return to
their classrooms, and continue to silence their
children with sample passages in preparation
for standards-based and standardized assess-
ments. Unfortunately, studies have shown that
isolated, short-term test preparation may be
ineffective:
In more typically performing schools . . .
the focus tends to be on how to take the
test rather than on the underlying knowl-
edge and skills necessary for success . . .
Preparation is sporadic and unconnected
across time . . . In schools that beat the
odds, test preparation has been integrated
into class time as part of the ongoing Eng-
lish language arts learning goals. (Langer,
Close, Angelis, & Preller, 2000, p. 6)
Given the advances educators have made in
recognizing the complexities of the reading and
writing processes, it is imperative that we not
lose ground by presenting extended reading
40 ILLINOIS READING COUNCIL JOURNAL VOL. 33, NO. 1
responses simply as a means to improve our
NCLB test scores. Instead, the ability to write
an extended response should be heralded as an
invaluable comprehension skill that embodies
active reading, critical thinking, and reflec-
tive writing. Students should be encouraged to
delve wholeheartedly and passionately into text
because their own ideas, viewpoints, reactions,
feelings, and experiences are critical to their con-
struction of meaning. Making connections and
infusing one’s own self (and all that it encom-
passes) in the reading experience is antitheti-
cal to traditional methods in which prescribed
meanings put forth by teachers and textbook
authors are favored. Teachers should incorpo-
rate both oral and written extended responses
across the curriculum, at all grade levels, on the
basis of the following principles: (1) literacy is a
social act and search for meaning, and (2) read-
ing and writing are transactional by nature.
Classroom Design
We learn early in our preservice training the
import of setting up learning environments
that support our instructional pedagogy and lit-
eracy vision. Decisions about how we perceive
our roles as classroom teachers must be made
long before we receive our class rosters. We may
fashion our instructional roles as mediators of
learning or as dispensers of knowledge. In the
latter role, we assume total responsibility for
what our children will get out of their interac-
tion with text. In contrast, as a mediator, we
teach students how to use strategies so that they
may assume responsibility for their interactions
with text.
In order to design our learning environments
in such a way that we no longer feel pressured
to stand at the helm and dictate what students
should draw from text, we must be willing to
make room for social interaction and open dis-
course among students. L. S. Vygotsky, whose
work focused on psycholinguistics, determined
that cognitive development is dependent upon
individual’s social interaction within the envi-
ronment. He theorized that the developmen-
tal process moves from social to the internal.
Intellectual processes are activated during social
interactions before being internalized by the
individual: “(Vygotsky) found his explanation
of consciousness in socially meaningful activ-
ity; that is, we know ourselves because of our
interactions with others” (Dixon-Krauss, 1996,
p. 9).
Vygotsky’s perspectives suggest that teach-
ers need to schedule daily opportunities for
students to talk and interact with each other.
When students routinely talk about what they
read and share their ideas with peers and teach-
ers, their cognitive and metacognitive abilities
are stimulated. Moreover, talking and sharing
with others helps struggling readers do what
proficient readers take for granted—make real-
life connections, self-monitor comprehension,
make predictions, synthesize ideas, and clarify
meanings using syntactic and semantic cues.
In talking with others, students also learn how
to use the text to support their own ideas and
interpretations, which is a prerequisite for writ-
ing a good extended response.
Through analytical discourse about text,
students learn to respect the ideas of others
while developing their own sense of self. More
importantly, conversing with others about read-
ing materials demonstrates for children that lit-
eracy is a search for meaning (Routman, 1994).
When teachers rely solely on predetermined
answers to questions, they unwittingly under-
mine each individual’s role in constructing
meaning: “Human activities and relationships
are seen as transactions in which the individual
and the social, cultural, and natural elements
interfuse” (Rosenblatt, 1988, p. 154). Readers
bring their own language and world experiences,
schema, to each reading situation. Not unlike
business transactions in which the outcome of
the deal is affected by what each party brings
to the table, the meaning(s) behind the printed
word reside in what each reader brings to the
BEYOND TEST PREP: MAKING A CASE FOR EXTENDED RESPONSES TO READING
table. Oral and written extended responses to
reading create a transaction through which stu-
dents must access their own experiences and
ideas as they interpret text.
Characteristics of an Extended Response
Because educators differ in pedagogical make-
up, professional development experiences, and
practical backgrounds, we do not always share a
common language or belief system about what
we choose to do or are mandated to do in our
classrooms. Consider the following comments I
received at workshops:
Teacher 1: My students have been doing
extended responses for years! They write
summaries all the time.
Teacher 2: I had a hard time writing this
response because I didn’t feel anything
about what I was reading.
Teacher 3: My third graders couldn’t
make a connection because the pas-
sage was about how plants and animals
depend on each other. Our students don’t
have any personal experiences related to
that topic.
In conversing with the first teacher, I realize
that he views extended responses as yet another
newfangled term for an old practice—summary
writing. For the second teacher, the catalyst for
an extended response is an emotional connec-
tion between the reader and the text. The third
teacher, in contrast, believes that connections
are made possible if students can conjure up
memories that are akin to situations depicted
in the text.
In each case, the extended response is being
constrained to a single facet: summary, emo-
tional response, or personal experience. Truth-
fully, there are many valid ways for children
to write about what they read, and summary
41
 writing is one of them. A response, however, is
not simply a concise summation of main points
but, rather, as the term is defined, a reply or
answer to what has been read. And while this
reply may include emotional reactions or per-
sonal experiences, it also may not.
The variability in the types of writing that
rivals for classroom time presents a challenge
for teachers who must assiduously select, create,
and implement formative assessments. Summa-
ries, outlines, poems, essays, letters, and a host
of other writing styles may all provide mean-
ingful follow-up to reading—depending on
what the teacher is trying to assess. Designed to
assess several Illinois Learning Standards (ILS),
for example, the ISAT extended response ques-
tions on the reading test “. . . require students
not only to read and understand a text, but also
to analyze, evaluate, and interpret the text as a
means of making connections and conclusions
related to the text. Students must reinforce their
interpretations of the text with specific textual
references” (ISBE, 2003).
Whether teachers choose to generate origi-
nal extended response prompts or select pub-
lished questions in textbook series, ILS should
influence their decisionmaking process:
These learning standards are designed to
guide English/Language Arts curricula in
Illinois schools. The alignment of assess-
ment to curriculum insures consistency
and strengthens the influence of standards
and assessment on improved teaching and
learning. (ISBE, 2003)
The implication for instruction, then, is that
students need ongoing opportunities to develop
responses with examples from the text to sup-
port their inferences, conclusions, evaluations,
and connections. A paramount concern that
we have as we teach children how to respond
to text is that we not restrict their attempts to
make connections.
42 ILLINOIS READING COUNCIL JOURNAL VOL. 33, NO. 1
Picture four students who all have read an
excerpt from Warriors Don’t Cry, a biography
about Melba Pattilo Beals, one of nine students
who courageously integrated Central High
School in 1957. To measure the depth of stu-
dents’ understanding, the teacher assigns the
following prompt: “How can Pattilo’s moral
convictions be used today as a model to support
social change? Use information from the text
and your own observations and conclusions to
support your answer.” (The second sentence
in the prompt is a common statement on the
ISAT.)
For the first reader, the excerpt summons
images that ignite powerful feelings about the
deplorable treatment of Muslims in the war on
terrorism. Reading one scene triggers memories
in the second student whose life has been dra-
matically altered by a racial injustice. The third
reader connects events in Pattilo’s life with what
he has read about Dr. Martin Luther King’s
tribulations and triumphs. Ideologies presented
in the biography tap into the fourth student’s
belief system about the role teenagers can play
in eradicating racism in the school community.
For each of these readers and, quite possibly
every other child in the room, the connections
differ, albeit desirably. Armed with these initial
reactions, the four students are empowered to
develop unique and thoughtful responses. Like
adult readers, children are entitled to connect
on any level—emotional, intuitive, experien-
tial, or intellectual—in their transactions with
text.
Instructional Strategies
As a mediator of learning, it is always my goal
to model a range of pre-, during-, and post-
reading strategies that respect and capitalize on
what each reader brings to the table:
During-reading activities build on the
transactional nature of the reading-
writing connection. Written comments
 manifest students’ mental text and pro-
vide diagnostic cues about each student’s
ability to make personal connections and
to self-monitor comprehension. (Sicinski-
Skeans, 2000, p. 70)
Connecting writing to reading affords teachers
a vehicle on which to scaffold students’ knowl-
edge, to teach specific comprehension strategies,
to monitor students’ applications of strategies,
and to assess their understanding of the text.
Furthermore, writing during reading improves
students’ abilities to attend to text and block
out distractions.
Strategy: RTP (Read Aloud – Think
Aloud – Post It)
I combine the read aloud, think aloud, and
post-it strategies to provide a milieu for stu-
dents to engage in social discourse; experience
the transactional nature of text; experiment with
using reading strategies to enhance comprehen-
sion; and exercise their ability to make text to
self, text to world, and text to text connections.
The power of RTP lies in its ability to be used
with both fiction and informational text across
the curriculum for both primary and upper-
grade students. Additionally, RTP supplies the
grist for developing extended responses. Most
importantly, this practice helps students to
mature into reading strategists.
Step 1: Review comprehension strategies.
From the start of the school year, children
should be taught a range of comprehension
strategies, preferably in mini-lessons linked to
meaningful reading experiences. At the begin-
ning of the year, I model one strategy at a time.
With practice, students are capable of identi-
fying and applying several strategies during a
reading. A modification for special education
or bilingual classes is to continue to emphasize
only one strategy with shorter segments of text.
BEYOND TEST PREP: MAKING A CASE FOR EXTENDED RESPONSES TO READING
Strategies for making connections, asking ques-
tions, visualizing, inferring, synthesizing, draw-
ing conclusions, predicting, self-monitoring
comprehension, and clarifying ideas are mod-
eled during RTP. Preceding the read aloud, I
review and post any strategies I plan to high-
light in my reading.
Step 2: Read the text orally and stop at
predetermined sections to verbalize your
thinking.
Before reading, I direct students to listen care-
fully as I “talk my way through” the ideas that
come to mind while reading. I tell students in
advance that their post-reading challenges will
be to identify the strategies they observed in
use and to discuss the effectiveness of using said
strategies to deepen their understanding of the
text. For struggling readers who may not spon-
taneously organize information when reading
or may not effectively use their prior knowl-
edge, the think-aloud strategy aids them in clar-
ifying their own views of reading and their use
of strategies (Davy, 1983). The key to think-
ing aloud is for teachers to explicitly show their
meaning making process. If the final product is
for students to write an extended response, it
is important to include strategies for drawing
inferences, making connections, and drawing
conclusions in the think-aloud experiences.
Think-Aloud Starters
Infer/Conclude – Show how you link details
and prior knowledge to construct a mean-
ing that is not stated directly. “Each of these
details (make text references) and what I already
know (explain) helped me to figure out (share
your inference or conclusion).”
Synthesize – Show how you combine
details in one part of the text with those in
another part or in a different text to form and
extend ideas. “This idea (explain and make a
text reference) further explains what happened
43
 in the other section or text (explain and make a
text reference).”
Making Connections – Show how a per-
sonal experience or prior knowledge leads
to your inference, evaluation, or conclusion.
“This part (make a text reference) and what I
already know or experienced (describe) leads to
my belief that (share inference, evaluation, or
conclusion).”
Making Connections – Show how a par-
ticular detail or idea evokes a certain cog-
nitive or affective reaction from you. “This
part (make a text reference) reminds me of . . .,
makes me feel . . ., or makes me think . . . .”
Step 3: Students examine the teacher’s use
of reading strategies.
Volunteers identify which strategies they
observed. They discuss the excerpt on which
the strategy was used. They also evaluate the
appropriateness and value for implementing the
strategy. I have found that exposing children to
think alouds without critical debriefing after-
wards jeopardizes their ability to truly adopt the
strategies as their own. The following questions
are useful in facilitating the discussion:
• Which strategy did you hear?
• During which part of the text did I use the
strategy?
• Why do you believe I chose to use this
particular strategy for this section?
• How did using the strategy help me to
understand the section better?
• Did my thinking aloud change what you
were thinking? In what way?
Step 4: Students actively read the next
section to themselves.
During the same session, students practice
reading actively and applying the strategies the
teacher used. While reading silently, students
decide on which sections to stop and for what
44 ILLINOIS READING COUNCIL JOURNAL VOL. 33, NO. 1
reason. On Post-it® notes, students jot down
inferences, judgments, conclusions, and con-
nections that resulted from their use of each
strategy. Depending on the length, difficulty,
and content of the text, as well as the students’
grade level, I assign a minimum number of times
for students to stop and actively reflect on what
they have read. Especially in their beginning
stages with the post-it strategy, students tend to
need guidance in determining how many stops
are reasonable. Two comments per full-length
page are generally sufficient. As children master
the procedure, their individual transactions
with the text decide how often they stop and
respond.
Step 5: In small or whole group, students
share their Post-its®.
Once again, debriefing is key to future prog-
ress. Each student shares his or her thinking
process by discussing the information written
on one or more Post-its®. Using the aforemen-
tioned questions, students identify the strat-
egy they used, discuss its relationship to the
selected text, examine the resulting meaning or
reactions, and evaluate changes in their think-
ing. Members of the group interject their ideas
about the use of the strategy, as well as elaborate
on their interpretations of the selected portion.
The discussion may begin with a few words
written on a Post-it®, but it evolves into a rich
textual analysis. Moreover, using this approach
allows students to be at the forefront of the dis-
cussion—not in the background waiting idly
for the teacher to tell them what they should
have drawn from their reading. In the course
of the discussion, “Students might find that
their initial impressions or interpretations are
reinforced and confirmed, that they are refuted,
or, most likely, that they are modified” (Probst,
1997, p. 209).
The read-aloud, think-aloud, post-it amal-
gam presents active reading in all its splendor.
Teacher modeling coupled with immediate
independent practice solidifies students’ appli-
cation of reading strategies and their percep-
tions of reading as a building meaning process.
In fact, I have witnessed transformations in
students who ceased to view reading as a mind-
less journey fraught with obstacles and a single
goal—get to the end. Furthermore, by interlac-
ing productive small and whole group dialogue,
students receive support in their development
as critical readers and critical thinkers.
Strategy: 6 Steps to Good Responses
“When the reader becomes the writer about the
work, the starting point is no longer the physical
text—the marks on the page—but the meaning
or the state of mind felt to correspond to the
text” (Rosenblatt, 1988). In their role of media-
tor, teachers are naturally inclined to encour-
age students to deal with their own reactions.
Mediators further realize that readers must be
unencumbered, free to scrutinize, interpret,
opine, and produce their own understandings.
Nevertheless, students also need assistance in
learning how to effectively elucidate their ideas
in writing. Before my students are expected to
produce multi-paragraph responses, they prac-
tice developing one substantiated paragraph.
With the use of a handout, “6 Steps to Good
Responses,” I help our multilingual and ethni-
cally diverse students to structure and elabo-
rate on the ideas they noted during the RTP
activities. (Though each student has a copy of
the handout stapled in his or her notebook, I
create a poster size one, too (see Figure 1). After
I introduce and model a step, the students stop
and write as the step directs. In the beginning,
students are not allowed to work ahead. We
share at the end of each step. Even students who
read and write well benefit from this initial pro-
cess because they learn how to more equitably
balance their ideas with the author’s. Not sur-
prisingly, highly capable readers often advance
to multi-paragraph responses at a much faster
pace than struggling readers.
BEYOND TEST PREP: MAKING A CASE FOR EXTENDED RESPONSES TO READING
Figure 1. Student Handout
6 Steps to Good Responses
1. Read the prompt carefully. Be clear on what
you’re being asked.
2. Opening Sentence: Answer the question. Use
words from the question to make a complete
sentence.
3. Supporting Sentences: Write 3 examples from
the story to support your answer. Explain each
example in detail.
4. Supporting Sentences: Add your own ideas or
experiences that connect to the ideas from the
text.
5. Closing Sentence: Answer the question again,
this time with more feeling.
6. Read what you wrote! Did you support your
ideas/interpretations with many examples and
details from the text?
Step 1: Read the question carefully.
Since students’ success on assessments may
sometimes be impeded by their misunder-
standing the questions, students need practice
in breaking down complex questions to simpler
terms. Extended response prompts are especially
notable for containing several sentences—even
in the younger grades. Taken from the ISBE
website, the following examples are representa-
tive of extended response prompts:
• Grade 3 ISAT Sample: “The family in the
story makes many decisions to get through
the flood. Which one is the most difficult
and why? Use information from the story
and what you already know to answer the
question.”
45
 • Grade 5 ISAT Sample: “Based on this arti-
cle, will geothermal energy be a good source
of energy for the future? Why or why not?
Use information from the article and your
own observations and conclusions to sup-
port your answer.”
All students do not automatically zero in on the
key words in the question. In fact, some students
are stymied just by the length of the question.
I have worked with third graders, for example,
who interpret the sample question as asking for
a summary or description of all the decisions
the family made during the flood. Thus, stu-
dents need practice in figuring out what they
are being asked. During the introduction of this
step, I supply a list of prompts for student pairs
to read and explain in their own words. When
we are preparing to respond to our first actual
prompt, I instruct students to read the question
before they read the text. We then clarify what
we are being asked. Students are, thus, cogni-
zant of what they are expected to interpret, ana-
lyze, and evaluate during the RTP activities.
It is noteworthy that during traditional test-
taking preparation, students are often advised
to read all the questions first. On the ISAT,
however, it is too time-consuming to read 17 to
19 multiple-choice questions before reading a
lengthy passage. By reading the response prompt
first, students are at least able to approach the
reading with a general idea of its content, as
well as a clue to the comprehension focus.
Step 2: Opening Sentence: Answer the
question. Use words from the question to
make a complete sentence.
This is not just for primary students: Some
intermediate and upper-grade students also
need direct instruction on how to turn a ques-
tion into an answer. During our first session with
writing an extended response, volunteers share
examples of how questions may be answered
before each student writes his or her own open-
46 ILLINOIS READING COUNCIL JOURNAL VOL. 33, NO. 1
ing sentence. In special education classes, I play
a question-answer game with students in which
I pose questions for each child to answer orally.
We begin with a series of literal questions and
build to higher-order questions. Who is your
favorite superhero, for example, eventually
evolves to which of his actions is the bravest.
The rest of the class decides if the answer uses
part of the question to create a complete sen-
tence. In all classes, students practice identify-
ing the key words in questions that should be
included in their responses.
Step 3: Supporting Sentences: Write
examples from the text to support your
answer. Explain each example in detail.
Step 4: Supporting Sentences: Add your
own ideas or experiences that connect to
the ideas from the text.
I explain to children that steps three and four
are interchangeable. For some students, it is
easier to develop a response when they see text
references and making connections as two dis-
tinct steps. By doing this, they remember to do
both. Highly proficient students, on the other
hand, readily see how text references and their
connections intertwine. As I model these steps,
students share examples from their Post-its®. We
discuss how the ideas, feelings, beliefs, or expe-
riences they noted are examples of connections,
and where the Post-it® is attached is the text
reference. Within a single, well-developed para-
graph, I recommend two to three examples.
Step 5: Closing Sentence: Answer the
question again, this time with more
feeling.
Students enjoy the challenge of this step. The
whole group brainstorms more interesting or
descriptive substitutions to key words in the
question. In the aforementioned fifth-grade
sample, the key word good becomes beneficial,
incredible, exceptional, or worthwhile.
Step 6: Read what you wrote! Did you
support your ideas/interpretations with
many examples and details from the text?
Since extended responses are reading tests, I
do not require students to travel meticulously
through all the stages of the writing process. As
with everything we write, however, they must save
time, even if it is limited, for revising and editing.
Students read their responses to determine if they
have fulfilled the criterion from the rubrics (see
Figure 2). If not, their revisions are additions,
deletions, elaborations, or clarifications needed
to improve their responses. Students also edit for
basic language convention errors.
Steps seven and eight, although not listed
on the handout, are arguably the most essential
in teaching students how to develop responses.
Students share their responses with partners
or in small groups. Giving the floor to a few
volunteers who read their responses to the class
is rewarding, but the advantage of sharing in
small, intimate groups is that all children have
a voice. Finally, students must evaluate them-
selves by using the rubric before submitting
papers for grading (see Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 2. ISAT Rubric (Student Handout)

Student-Friendly
Extended Response Reading Rubric
Grade 3

• I explain the main ideas and important information from the text.
• I connect my own ideas or experiences to the author’s ideas.
4
• I use examples and important details to support my answer.
• I balance the author’s ideas with my own ideas.
• I explain some of the main ideas and important information from the text.
• I connect some of my own ideas and experiences to the author’s ideas.
3
• I use some examples and important details to support my answer.
• I balance only some of the author’s ideas with my own ideas.
• I explain only a few ideas from the text.
• I summarize the text without including any of my own ideas or experiences.
2 OR
• I explain my own ideas without explaining the text.
• I use general statements instead of specific details and examples.
• I explain little or nothing from the text.
1 • I use incorrect or unimportant information from the text.
• I write too little to show I understand the text.
• I write nothing.
0
• I do not respond to the task.

BEYOND TEST PREP: MAKING A CASE FOR EXTENDED RESPONSES TO READING 47

 Figure 3. Third-Grade Student’s First Response
Closing Thoughts
Engaging students in oral and written extended
responses to reading should not be ephem-
eral occurrences that dawn and fade only in
light of NCLB testing. Students should often
be encouraged to express and examine their
connections to what they read. In so doing, we
48 ILLINOIS READING COUNCIL JOURNAL VOL. 33, NO. 1
grant children autonomy that teaches them to
trust and rely upon their own ideas and expe-
riences when they make inferences, draw con-
clusions, and render evaluations about text.
By honoring the transaction between reader
and text, however, teachers are not setting the
stage for a deluge of untamed, preposterous,
hypercritical, or unsubstantiated ramblings.
Figure 4. Practice Scoring Chart (Student Handout)

Extended Response to Reading

Practice Scoring Chart

Directions:
1. Read the sample student’s response.
2. Write each sentence in the appropriate box.
3. Discuss the response with your partner.
4. Use the rubric to score the response.

Important information (ideas) the author Connections: Student’s own ideas or

stated or meant experiences

Examples and important details (from text) Are the author’s ideas balanced with the
student’s?
Yes or No

Score: 1 2 3 4

Explain your reasons for the score:

When children connect to the text, quite the
opposite occurs; their ability to reason and read
productively flourishes.
Even though the inclusion of oral and
written extended responses in the elementary
instructional program at all grades improves
NCLB scores, that is not why we should do
it (see Figure 5). Even though learning how
to engage in analytical discourse at a young
age will have a positive impact on future high
school success, that is not why we should do
it. Even though learning how to support their
interpretations will teach children how to
articulate effectively, which is transferable to
all walks of life, that is not why we should do
it. We should nurture in our children the true
gift of literacy—the infrangible bond between
reader and text. That is why we should do it!

BEYOND TEST PREP: MAKING A CASE FOR EXTENDED RESPONSES TO READING 49


Figure 5. Literacy Pep Rally Cheer (Student
Handout)
ISAT Chant
I’m not afraid of the ISAT test.
I read and study to be the best.
Reading and math are different to me.
But they both have steps to follow, you see.
Reading has questions and a prompt.
Clap your hands if you’re ready to stomp.
Find the prompt before I read.
This will help me to succeed.
Look for answers while reading the text.
Circle main points—I’ll do my best.
Multiple-choice questions follow this.
Skim for key words I cannot miss.
Save ten minutes at the very, very end.
Write a response that’s sure to win.
Don’t forget: Reword the prompt.
Use text details that make me stomp.
Add ideas that really are my own.
Connect text to me and really bring it home.
Don’t forget to close what I say.
Repeat the opening in a different way.
Follow these steps on the reading test.
Read, think, and write—I’ll do my best!
I’m not afraid of the ISAT test.
I read and study to be the best!
References
Davy, B. (1983). Think aloud: Modeling the
cognitive processes of reading comprehen-
sion. Journal of Reading, 27(1), 44-47.
Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the class-
room: Mediated instruction and assessment.
New York: Longman.
Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE).
(2003). ISAT reading sample book. Available
50 ILLINOIS READING COUNCIL JOURNAL VOL. 33, NO. 1
online: <http://isbe.net/assessment/reading.
htm>. Retrieved June 17, 2004.
ISBE. (2004). Illinois enhanced assessment
system. Available online: <www.isbe.state.
il.us/assessment/chart2006.htm>. Retrieved
August 3, 2004.
Langer, J., Close, E., Angelis, J., & Preller,
P. (2000). Guidelines for teaching middle
and high school students to read and write
well: Six features of effective instruction.
New York: National Research Center on
English Learning & Achievement.
Probst, R. (1997). Practical ideas for teaching
writing as a process at the high school and col-
lege levels. Sacramento, CA: Department of
Education.
Rosenblatt, L. (1988). Establishing a class-
room context for reading and writing develop-
ment. Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and
Newman, Inc.
Rosenblatt, L. (1993). Journeying: Children
responding to literature. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Routman, R. (1994). Invitations. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Sicinski-Skeans, S. (2000). Reading with pen
in hand. English Journal, 89(4), 69-72.
About the Author
Dorothy Franklin, a reading specialist at Stephen
K. Hayt Elementary School in Chicago, is a
1999 recipient of the Golden Apple Award for
Excellence in Teaching. She is a teacher-con-
sultant with the Chicago Area Writing Project.
She is also one of eight featured teachers in the
video series, Making Meaning in Literature:
A Video Library, Grades 6-8, produced by
Annenberg/Corporation for Public Broadcast-
ing (2002) and based on Dr. Judith Langer’s
envisionment-building process.