Students Reading Challenging Texts

 From Marshall Memo 1115

 Timothy Shanahan on Students Reading Challenging Texts

In this online article, Timothy Shanahan (University of Illinois/Chicago) responds to a teacher worried that students will be frustrated and discouraged if they’re required to read material above their current level. “I don’t want to undermine anybody’s motivation or love of reading,” says Shanahan, and he acknowledges that reading difficult texts can be frustrating and sometimes leads to off-task behavior and discipline problems, especially if students are trying to do so without support. But easy, boring texts can also lead students to act out, especially if they sense that their teacher has a negative mindset about “low readers.” 

“Let’s face it, motivation is complicated,” says Shanahan. “Difficulty can lead both to withdrawal and intensification of effort.” Students can feel incompetent struggling with a difficult text or get a sense of efficacy mastering it. They can feel inept or be driven by a desire to please a teacher, learn new information, and connect with peers. Simply adjusting the instructional level of a text to a child’s “just right” level doesn’t solve the problem of motivation – and risks the stigma of being assigned to a low reading group. Most important, leveling won’t accelerate students’ reading level and give them the feeling that they’re catching up.

“Instead of avoiding challenge,” says Shanahan, “I think it better to introduce it intentionally, placing students in books that they cannot already read well” – and then provide scaffolding and emotional support that encourage persistence and build skill, fluency, and background knowledge. Three important elements:

• Choose texts that connect with students’ interests and are worth reading.

• Give students a sense of the progress they’re making, emphasizing a growth mindset.

• Don’t overdo it; not every text has to be above level, especially independent reading.

“Won’t Challenging Texts Discourage Young Readers?” by Timothy Shanahan in Shanahan on Literacy, November 29, 2025; Shanahan can be reached at shanahan@uic.edu. 

AI - VOICE for students

 

from Marshall Memo 

Orchestrating Authentic Student Writing in the Age of AI

“Assigning traditional essays is unethical in the age of AI,” say Scott Carlson and Matthew Brophy in The Chronicle of Higher Education. That’s because the use of AI tools to write essays with little or no student effort has become a “subversive epidemic,” with the true victims being “honest, hard-working students who are now disadvantaged in compromised classrooms,” say Carlson and Brophy, “This inequity is compounded when only well-resourced or tech-savvy students can fully exploit these tools.” 

It’s still essential that students learn to write, they believe: “The ability to clearly communicate ideas is not only an effective way to convey arguments and persuade people, but it also indicates that one has processed and absorbed the ideas shared – one of the reasons writing has long been a key part of the curriculum.” So must all student essays now be written in class under the watchful eye of teachers? That’s impractical, say Carlson and Brophy, but so is trying to catch cheaters with AI-detection tools, which are notoriously unreliable. Instead, they suggest the VOICE framework (which Brophy is using in his classes at High Point University) to ensure authentic student writing in the age of AI:

• Verification of process – Use tools like Google Docs and Draftback to monitor students’ writing as it unfolds – “each thoughtful pause, revision, and rephrasing part of the paper’s cultivation,” they say. “This not only deters undetectable cheating but also affirms writing as iterative and evolving.” 

• Ownership through reflection – Have students give brief oral presentations to explain in their own voice their writing decisions and idea development. 

• Iterative stages – Students work through progressive phases – low-stakes reading-analysis papers, proposals, drafts, and revisions – which scaffold learning and make last-minute outsourcing to ChatGPT less likely. Students are graded on their process as well as the final product.

• Collaborative engagement – Peers review drafts, which makes writing social and accountable. “When students explain their ideas to each other,” say Carlson and Brophy, “they clarify those ideas for themselves. This also adds to motivation by looping peers into their process and helps lighten the burden on the professor. Further, it cultivates a classroom community based on trust and sharing of ideas.” 

• Emphasis on ideas over mechanics – “Instructors must confront the startling truth that never again will college graduates need to write a polished essay entirely on their own,” say the authors. “They will always have AI as their co-author. In the age of AI, the value of writing lies less in grammar and polish than in grappling with comprehension, synthesis, and original insight.” 

“Stop Assigning Traditional Essays” by Scott Carlson and Matthew Brophy in The Edge: The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 16, 2025; Brophy is at mbrophy@highpoint.edu.