This article was good at providing some insights into the Fourth-Grade Slump in children's reading comprehension, especially in the low-income student population, by emphasizing the importance of word and world knowledge in successful comprehension, and the importance of a well thought out and designed language arts program. I think what made this article a very worthwhile read was that it pointed out that the main cause of the achievement gap between socioeconomic groups is a language gap, and addresses the flaws in current language arts programs that fail to promote or enhance students' general word knowledge in any coherent way. The author states that the drop-off in student performance between third and fourth grade is not as sudden as previously believed, but rather it is there, "unmeasured" earlier in the student's academic schooling.
A big part of the problem is that many of the current lang. arts programs use basal readings that are fragmented and jump from topic to topic, and are usually based on trivial literature. This lack of coherent structure prevents the enhancement of general knowledge and does not help motivate students to want to read. The author also references research that supports the importance of expanding students' understanding of what the language they are learning refers to, as the best way to expand their language skills, and understanding of what they are hearing and reading.
Some of the important principles regarding successful comprehension that are covered are:
1. Decoding mastery allows students to better concentrate on comprehension, but must not be over-taught (Should comprise 20-40 min. of instruction depending on total instr. time).
2. Vocabulary knowledge that has depth and breadth correlates to successful comprehension.
3. Domain knowledge (background knowledge) is necessary and helps us to construct meaning within a specific context. (Remaining 1-2 hrs. should be comprised of activities that foster vocabulary, domain knowledge and fluency).
The article was very interesting in how it laid out the components of successful comprehension as being made up of both knowledge of words and the world, and this illustrates the ineffectiveness of the instructional programs that teach language in isolation, not connected to what we experience on the world in which we live; this is bad for all students, especially students who struggle. It is so important to teach students content within the context of things that they experience in their everyday lives. I also like how the author points out the value of reading aloud to students way beyond second grade, and the importance of emphasizing more nonfiction in early lang. arts classes.
My big take-away from reading this article is that words and world knowledge cannot be separated when designing a language arts curriculum. The approach to designing a coherent and comprehensive curriculum is one that is focused on a particular knowledge domain over and extended period of time, and gives students many different opportunities to enhance and expand their word and world knowledge. This method is has been shown to be the most effective approach to reading instruction in terms of enhancing vocabulary, and improving fluency and motivation to read. It makes you think about just how important it is for schools to provide not only good, but effective language-arts programs, especially for those in the mid to lower socioeconomic groups, whose only academic learning time happens in school. When designed in a way that emphasizes content in a relevant knowledge domain, over time, providing lots of opportunities for the development of vocabulary, language conventions and knowledge of the world, this type of instruction will help to not only raise reading achievement, but will hopefully help to narrow the reading gap between groups.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Second Sample QRI4
I administered another QRI4 to the same student, but this time I chose what seemed to be a non-fiction story versus the narrative type that I selected the first time. The results were pretty similar however, the student had much better detail recall this time compared to the first. Also, he seemed to be able to answer the questions with greater accuracy. Here is a breakdown:
I began with the Word List for the Pre-Primer level, and the student scored: -14/20 for Total Correct Automatic (70% - Instructional Level)) -15/20 for Total Correct Identified (75% - Instructional Level) -29/20 for Total Number Correct, so it seems that this student is on the Instructional Level for word list knowledge, so I then proceeded to have the student read the passage "People At Work". This student had 5 miscues (4 self-corrects), which resulted in a 91.8% accuracy and placed him on the Instructional Level and is very close to where he scored with the prior reading. I then asked for details from the story, or ideas recalled. The assessment listed 17 ideas and the student came up with 6-which was an improvement over the last QRI4. Last I asked the student the questions and the Number Correct Explicit was 4, which placed the student at the Instructional level. I'm not sure if the student had an easier time reading the passage because of the text structure, or maybe he was just not as tired as last time.
I found that after I administered the test a few times, I practiced on my older child as well, it got a bit easier in terms of how I prepared the student and myself for the different components, for example, I focused more on the content of the text, while carefully watching for miscues so I would be more informed at the detail and questioning phases. I like this tool, I feel that it is easy enough to use so that the data can be used to help drive instruction, it's not too intense or too long but by the end of the assessment, the students seemed to be happy to be done!
I began with the Word List for the Pre-Primer level, and the student scored: -14/20 for Total Correct Automatic (70% - Instructional Level)) -15/20 for Total Correct Identified (75% - Instructional Level) -29/20 for Total Number Correct, so it seems that this student is on the Instructional Level for word list knowledge, so I then proceeded to have the student read the passage "People At Work". This student had 5 miscues (4 self-corrects), which resulted in a 91.8% accuracy and placed him on the Instructional Level and is very close to where he scored with the prior reading. I then asked for details from the story, or ideas recalled. The assessment listed 17 ideas and the student came up with 6-which was an improvement over the last QRI4. Last I asked the student the questions and the Number Correct Explicit was 4, which placed the student at the Instructional level. I'm not sure if the student had an easier time reading the passage because of the text structure, or maybe he was just not as tired as last time.
I found that after I administered the test a few times, I practiced on my older child as well, it got a bit easier in terms of how I prepared the student and myself for the different components, for example, I focused more on the content of the text, while carefully watching for miscues so I would be more informed at the detail and questioning phases. I like this tool, I feel that it is easy enough to use so that the data can be used to help drive instruction, it's not too intense or too long but by the end of the assessment, the students seemed to be happy to be done!
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Sample QRI4 assessments
I administered one QRI4 assessment a student in Kindergarten.
I began with the Word List for the Pre-Primer level, and the student scored:
-13/20 for Total Correct Automatic (65% - Frustration Level))
-14/20 for Total Correct Identified (70% - Instructional Level)
-27/20 for Total Number Correct (74% - Instructional Level)
So it seems that this student is on the Instructional Level for word list knowledge, so I then proceeded to have the student read the passage "Spring and Fall". This student had 6 miscues (2 self-corrects), which resulted in a 92.8% accuracy and placed him on the Instructional Level (What is Total Acceptablility? Does it include self-c0rrections?)
I then asked for details from the story, or ideas recalled. The assessment listed 28 ideas and the student came up with 8-not sure if that is scored or just noted. Last I asked the student the questions and the Number Correct Explicit was 3, which actually placed the student at the Frustration level, but I think the student was getting tired by then:)!
So my reflection on this student is that he still has work to do in terms of developing fluency and comprehension in his reading. Although word list knowledge was sound, I was concerned that there was too much effort going on to decode, that the student had a hard time recalling details from the story. I would work to help develop the phonemic awareness as well as sight word knowledge.
I know I still have one more to do, I think I am going to have the same student read an expository passage, but the word list is the same, correct?
I began with the Word List for the Pre-Primer level, and the student scored:
-13/20 for Total Correct Automatic (65% - Frustration Level))
-14/20 for Total Correct Identified (70% - Instructional Level)
-27/20 for Total Number Correct (74% - Instructional Level)
So it seems that this student is on the Instructional Level for word list knowledge, so I then proceeded to have the student read the passage "Spring and Fall". This student had 6 miscues (2 self-corrects), which resulted in a 92.8% accuracy and placed him on the Instructional Level (What is Total Acceptablility? Does it include self-c0rrections?)
I then asked for details from the story, or ideas recalled. The assessment listed 28 ideas and the student came up with 8-not sure if that is scored or just noted. Last I asked the student the questions and the Number Correct Explicit was 3, which actually placed the student at the Frustration level, but I think the student was getting tired by then:)!
So my reflection on this student is that he still has work to do in terms of developing fluency and comprehension in his reading. Although word list knowledge was sound, I was concerned that there was too much effort going on to decode, that the student had a hard time recalling details from the story. I would work to help develop the phonemic awareness as well as sight word knowledge.
I know I still have one more to do, I think I am going to have the same student read an expository passage, but the word list is the same, correct?
Monday, March 8, 2010
Week 5 Observation Reflection
My observation this week took place in the reading room with my cooperating teacher, who is the K-level reading teacher. I was able to administer four running records, including one on my target ELL student, and my cooperating teacher gave me the copy of the letter identification assessment I administered a few weeks ago as well. I was able to see that my student knows her letters and is very comfortable with letter sounds, as she scored almost perfectly on the uppercase letter identificaiton and letter sounds. I also started to work on some writing with my target ELL student, and had a discussion with the cooperating teacher about her skills in terms of the SOLOM matrix and the NYS Learning Standards for English as a Second Lang. students.
I have been able to participate in many different learning situations and my cooperating teacher does a good job modeling the lesson and her strategies so I can try them out when it's my turn.
I have been able to participate in many different learning situations and my cooperating teacher does a good job modeling the lesson and her strategies so I can try them out when it's my turn.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Interview with cooperating teacher
Here are the guiding questions and answers from my cooperating teacher.
Interview Answers
1. Please describe your ELL teaching experience.
My ELL teaching experience has been working with children in grades K and one in both large group and small group instructional settings along with non ELL students.
2. What is your perception on ELLs in terms of their learning motivation and performance (especially in reading and writing)? What learning difficulties do ELLs usually encounter in schools? What is the role of family and community in helping ELLs’ learning?
The motivation and performance of ELL students vary according to individual personalities and learning styles, just as children who are not ELL students. One issue that has come up during instruction is the difference in background knowledge and schema a student has coming into school and about different subject matter. It is important family reads to students and exposes them to a variety of experiences and subjects.
3. In your opinion, how do classroom teachers resolve ELLs’ learning difficulties? What strategies do you adopt? Are they effective or not? Do you participate in on-going professional training for teaching ELLs? What is your experience in terms of working students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds? How do you make sure that your teaching is culturally responsive? How do you go about reaching out to the family
and the community?
Classroom teachers can help students develop schema and give them background information to gain more knowledge. In a primary classroom, music helps children learn and provides them with a multisensory approach to the subject matter. Any multisensory activities assist in the learning of an ELL. It is important to respect the different cultures and expose all children to a variety of cultural ideas, concepts, and literature.
4. If you have an ELL in your class whose culture you are not familiar with at all, how do you go about teaching the child?
If I have a child whose culture I am not familiar with, I will try to learn more about the ideas of the culture and learning styles typical of the children. I would expose the student to new ideas while attempting to respect the child’s home life and culture.
Interview Answers
1. Please describe your ELL teaching experience.
My ELL teaching experience has been working with children in grades K and one in both large group and small group instructional settings along with non ELL students.
2. What is your perception on ELLs in terms of their learning motivation and performance (especially in reading and writing)? What learning difficulties do ELLs usually encounter in schools? What is the role of family and community in helping ELLs’ learning?
The motivation and performance of ELL students vary according to individual personalities and learning styles, just as children who are not ELL students. One issue that has come up during instruction is the difference in background knowledge and schema a student has coming into school and about different subject matter. It is important family reads to students and exposes them to a variety of experiences and subjects.
3. In your opinion, how do classroom teachers resolve ELLs’ learning difficulties? What strategies do you adopt? Are they effective or not? Do you participate in on-going professional training for teaching ELLs? What is your experience in terms of working students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds? How do you make sure that your teaching is culturally responsive? How do you go about reaching out to the family
and the community?
Classroom teachers can help students develop schema and give them background information to gain more knowledge. In a primary classroom, music helps children learn and provides them with a multisensory approach to the subject matter. Any multisensory activities assist in the learning of an ELL. It is important to respect the different cultures and expose all children to a variety of cultural ideas, concepts, and literature.
4. If you have an ELL in your class whose culture you are not familiar with at all, how do you go about teaching the child?
If I have a child whose culture I am not familiar with, I will try to learn more about the ideas of the culture and learning styles typical of the children. I would expose the student to new ideas while attempting to respect the child’s home life and culture.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
PALS article summary and links to phonemic awareness assessment links
PALS (Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening) is a web-based system implemented by the State of Virginia in a statewide early literacy initiative that was created to help early elementary (K-3) teachers with assessment tasks as well as identifying students within that grade-range who are in need of additional instruction.
My first impression of the PALS web-based system is that it seems very impressive. The benefits of using such a system are many and provide a clean, organized way of giving teachers’ a clear and concise way to see how students are performing and what that means in terms of shaping instruction. This data can help to drive instruction for many different areas of literacy including phonological awareness, alphabet recognition, letter sounds, invented spelling, etc. I like that this system also provides information about reading levels, and spelling/phonics knowledge. Another plus to using this system is that it helps teachers to form instructional-level groups for guided reading as well as providing a good starting point for grouping students for phonics and spelling instruction.
As we have heard in class many times, assessment is meaningless unless it can help a teacher to tailor an instructional plan that can best meet their student’s needs. A clear positive in terms of using internet technology in this case is that once teachers see the results of reports that inform them on student progress, they can click on links to activities that are created specifically to address the instructional needs of the students; I like that. PALS reports also helps teachers to match books to the proper instructional level.
At the Administrative level, the reporting features can be used to evaluate the needs of each school in terms of instructional emphasis, staff development, etc., while tracking school-wide progress over time. This is a great tool for those administrators who value and in vest in on-going staff development and support.
After reviewing the site I have a dumb question, do all of the teachers who use this system have to input data manually, I mean do they transfer the scores from their paper and pencil assessments into the system by typing it in? It seems like it would take a lot of extra time to do this, although the payoff is powerful and obvious, using this system removes the variability that is typical of all of the different skill sets that teachers possess in terms of their ability to interpret and effectively use data from assessments to create targeted, student-specific instruction. In addition, the PALS system provides a consistent and scientifically sound process for designing such instruction. I wonder if teachers eventually start to “get it” in terms of students instructional levels or even grouping considerations when they become familiar enough with the data that they are inputting.
Links to Phonemic Awareness Assessment Tools:
1. Link to Reading Rockets
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:kHQMxRVx418J:www.readingrockets.org/firstyear/assessment_phon.pdf+phonemic+awareness+assessment&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShtPrCjzltgFcKo1q4GlAs7GaQiM0zqUvR1GLbS5Pho6bubSgSo-OaTfq7PlkfRaq33BRmDXPkIyDUIYq2xaxHFa-eIHLqc_vSgm1r89ZWIs6BLYSCxL-lx1lrWZNrkaCt7_YU&sig=AHIEtbTAZK6wFlwZyfXPgm05Co5LEWiS4w/
2. Yopp-Singer
http://teams.lacoe.edu/reading/assessments/yopp.html/
http://teams.lacoe.edu/reading/assessments/assessments.html/ (This link has several phonemic awareness assessments)
3. Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12386152/Phonemic-Awareness-Assessments/
4. http://www.mlpp-msl.net/assessments/phonemicawareness/Phonemic-Awareness-A.pdf/
My first impression of the PALS web-based system is that it seems very impressive. The benefits of using such a system are many and provide a clean, organized way of giving teachers’ a clear and concise way to see how students are performing and what that means in terms of shaping instruction. This data can help to drive instruction for many different areas of literacy including phonological awareness, alphabet recognition, letter sounds, invented spelling, etc. I like that this system also provides information about reading levels, and spelling/phonics knowledge. Another plus to using this system is that it helps teachers to form instructional-level groups for guided reading as well as providing a good starting point for grouping students for phonics and spelling instruction.
As we have heard in class many times, assessment is meaningless unless it can help a teacher to tailor an instructional plan that can best meet their student’s needs. A clear positive in terms of using internet technology in this case is that once teachers see the results of reports that inform them on student progress, they can click on links to activities that are created specifically to address the instructional needs of the students; I like that. PALS reports also helps teachers to match books to the proper instructional level.
At the Administrative level, the reporting features can be used to evaluate the needs of each school in terms of instructional emphasis, staff development, etc., while tracking school-wide progress over time. This is a great tool for those administrators who value and in vest in on-going staff development and support.
After reviewing the site I have a dumb question, do all of the teachers who use this system have to input data manually, I mean do they transfer the scores from their paper and pencil assessments into the system by typing it in? It seems like it would take a lot of extra time to do this, although the payoff is powerful and obvious, using this system removes the variability that is typical of all of the different skill sets that teachers possess in terms of their ability to interpret and effectively use data from assessments to create targeted, student-specific instruction. In addition, the PALS system provides a consistent and scientifically sound process for designing such instruction. I wonder if teachers eventually start to “get it” in terms of students instructional levels or even grouping considerations when they become familiar enough with the data that they are inputting.
Links to Phonemic Awareness Assessment Tools:
1. Link to Reading Rockets
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:kHQMxRVx418J:www.readingrockets.org/firstyear/assessment_phon.pdf+phonemic+awareness+assessment&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShtPrCjzltgFcKo1q4GlAs7GaQiM0zqUvR1GLbS5Pho6bubSgSo-OaTfq7PlkfRaq33BRmDXPkIyDUIYq2xaxHFa-eIHLqc_vSgm1r89ZWIs6BLYSCxL-lx1lrWZNrkaCt7_YU&sig=AHIEtbTAZK6wFlwZyfXPgm05Co5LEWiS4w/
2. Yopp-Singer
http://teams.lacoe.edu/reading/assessments/yopp.html/
http://teams.lacoe.edu/reading/assessments/assessments.html/ (This link has several phonemic awareness assessments)
3. Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12386152/Phonemic-Awareness-Assessments/
4. http://www.mlpp-msl.net/assessments/phonemicawareness/Phonemic-Awareness-A.pdf/
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Week 3 Observation Reflection
When I reflect on my observation, I think about all of the different types of interactions that I witnessed between mainstream teachers, aides, resource room teachers, and students.
This past week I observed the first grade reading teacher because my cooperating teacher had a meeting to attend and would not be meeting with students. I accompanied this teacher to a first grade mainstream classroom where she presented a lesson on how to use a SCE (Setting, Character, Events) chart. It was interesting to see the way she interacted with the students and it seemed like what she was presenting had already been covered by the classroom teachers as there was signage on the wall with the information about SCE on it, and the students seemed fairly knowledgeable about the structure, but seemed to benefit from the practice that the lesson gave them about identifying the main characters, describing the setting and events in a way that is succinct, accurate and informative.
Next, it was back to the resource room where I saw some guided reading/stop and discuss/retell going on, and some informal assessment during that lesson. The Reading dept. was piloting a new piece of software that could test and report on 41 different literacy domains, so there was a bit of discussion amongst the teachers and aides about the capabilities, pros/cons of using the technology for these purposes as well as observing how students were able to navigate and operate within the program. I like the environment of this school, and I feel that the reading department is competent and has clearcut procedures and processes in addition to a firm grasp on the materials provided by the publisher that they use.
This past week I observed the first grade reading teacher because my cooperating teacher had a meeting to attend and would not be meeting with students. I accompanied this teacher to a first grade mainstream classroom where she presented a lesson on how to use a SCE (Setting, Character, Events) chart. It was interesting to see the way she interacted with the students and it seemed like what she was presenting had already been covered by the classroom teachers as there was signage on the wall with the information about SCE on it, and the students seemed fairly knowledgeable about the structure, but seemed to benefit from the practice that the lesson gave them about identifying the main characters, describing the setting and events in a way that is succinct, accurate and informative.
Next, it was back to the resource room where I saw some guided reading/stop and discuss/retell going on, and some informal assessment during that lesson. The Reading dept. was piloting a new piece of software that could test and report on 41 different literacy domains, so there was a bit of discussion amongst the teachers and aides about the capabilities, pros/cons of using the technology for these purposes as well as observing how students were able to navigate and operate within the program. I like the environment of this school, and I feel that the reading department is competent and has clearcut procedures and processes in addition to a firm grasp on the materials provided by the publisher that they use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)