Week 7 Blog #10

"Homework provides students with opportunities to practice, review, and apply knowledge...homework is an effective means of extending student learning beyond the school day" (Hill, 2006, pg. 77). Based on this quote, I structured my homework assignment around student summer reading requirements in our district.

The homework structure that I have put in place is called a letter essay. It is always my hope that 8th grade students read a minimal of 10-12 books in an average school year. The letter essay is intended to replace book reports where students are just providing summaries and instead make them write a letter to me providing their thoughts and analysis of the book they read. Because students will read at least ten or so books in a school year, they do not need to write me a letter essay for every book, but rather read for enjoyment. About every three to four weeks students can decide to write about a book they have read. The purpose for this homework assignment is for students to discover something new about their book, discover themselves as a reader, and make discoveries about the author. In other words, I want students to learn something from writing the letter essay- mostly showing evidence that they are thinking critically about, and analyzing a book. In her book, The Reading Zone, Nancie Atwell explains that "every measure that looks at pleasure reading and its effects on student performance on standardized tests of reading tells us that the major predictor of academic success is the amount of time that a student spends reading" (Atwell, 2007, pg. 107). This assignment allows for choice reading, in addition to long term practice in critical thinking and writing since they will be writing me letter essays all year long.

In Classroom Instruction that works with English Language Learners, Hill and Flynn suggest that the purpose of homework should be identified and articulated (Hill, 2006). Because of this, I am sending home a letter to parents about what the letter essay is, how it works, and how it will be graded. Hill and Flynn also suggest that feedback should be provided and varied. I have made a rubric for students and parents to know up front how letter essays are graded. To accommodate and differentiate for my different levels of learners, I have  a graphic organizer (letter essay planner) as well as some sentence frames for ideas in writing (letter essay ideas) for viewing. I also have made an example letter essay to model for students. If you like to see any of these examples please contact me at smiklos@regis.edu

Week 6 Blog #9

Narrative Texts: As defined by www.foundationsforliteracy.com A story about fictional or real events, which follows a basic standard format. Narratives include a plot, setting, characters, structure (introduction, complication, resolution), and theme.

Expository Texts: As defined by www.foundationsforliteracy.com An expository text sets out to describe objects, events or processes in an objective manner, present or convey an argument, to state the solution to a problem or to explain a situation.

The types of graphic organizers I chose could be used for both narrative and expository types of text. I chose to focus on one graphic organizer that I use for teaching vocabulary usually with poems and with fictional reading called the New to Known Chart. In teaching how to think about words, a knowledge rating chart over vocabulary is helpful. Students check either “I know the word,” “I know something about the word,” or “I don’t know the word” (Blachowicz and Fisher, 2006). What I like most about this graphic organizer is that it can be used before, during, and after reading.

Another way for students to make meaning of narrative or expository text is an “It Says, I Say, So…” chart. This type of set up allows students to make inferences from the reading to what they know about the world around them. It is a way to achieve comprehension, and at the same time have students interact with their text. They can use this to help them comprehend poems, newspaper articles, magazines, and content related textbooks.

The last form of a graphic organizer I chose is based on comprehension/critical thinking skills.  This graphic organizer can be used with fiction and non fiction text. “When students represent similarities and differences in graphic or symbolic form, it enhances their ability to identify and understand similarities and differences,” (Hill, 2006, pg. 102). I used what I call a multi-flow map that shows multiple cause and effect relationships.

References:

Beers, Kylene.  (1999). When Kids Can’t Read, What Teachers Can Do: A Guide for Teachers 7-12. Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse Publishers.

Blachowicz, C. L. Z., & Fisher, P. J. L. (2006). Teaching vocabulary in all classrooms. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Hill, Jane & Kathleen M. Flynn. (most recent edition). Classroom Instruction That Works with English      Language Learners. Alexandria, VI: ASCD

Types of Text. (Oct 2010). Retrieved June 15, 2011 from: www.foundationsforliteracy.com

Week Five Blog # 8

I really enjoyed watching how this particular teacher, Ms. Krauss, sheltered lessons for ELL students while also teaching to the rest of her class. I specifically enjoyed how Ms. Krauss taught in relation to the reading process. Ms. Krauss used before reading techniques where she activating, assessing, and enhancing students' background knowledge. She also did some during reading strategies where she helped her students process and comprehend the text. And then Ms. Krauss used some after reading strategies to help students retain and master what they had learned through reading.
In addition to teaching through the reading process, I liked how she front loaded her content before tackling the book, Esperanza Rising. I noticed that when Ms. Krauss explicitly explained directions, she did so both verbally and written, which helped her ESL students with out dumbing down any content. She spoke in a loud and clear voice, used facial expressions, and hand gestures frequently; all of which are devices and procedures for sheltering instruction (Hill,2006). The teacher also used powerful modeling techniques like thinking-aloud to help make inferences, visualize, and question the text.
I observed the students participating because they were in a comfortable environment, and in a small class setting. The teacher made the environment comfortable by using positive reinforcement when the students interacted with the text. The teacher also provided tangible items, so the learning was accessible to them, another sheltering technique. The teacher allowed the opportunity for students to speak in their native language, and the students were set up in a way where they could work in collaboration, or independently.
During the pre-reading activities, the teacher used strategies around building and accessing prior knowledge, previewing vocabulary, looking for context clues, pictures, and previewing the story itself. The teacher also took the time to preview and teach vocabulary. She taught vocabulary words both written and orally, in addition to providing pictures and synonyms for the ESL learners as well. Both regular ed. and ESL learners benefit from this kind of instruction. This process to me really showed a successful sheltered lesson.
Next, the teacher did some during reading instruction. Here the teacher read aloud to the class modeling fluency for her students. She encouraged students to code the text, make inferences, question the text, and predict. Repititon of vocabulary was provided, as was additional wait time for her ELL learners.
Lastly, the teacher did some post-reading activities that included reviewing key and high frequency vocabulary. She went back to her original goal/objective, and asked students to make one connection, one visual, and one inference from the reading.
Overall, I felt that this teacher did a phenomenal job or teaching a book relevant to culture without dumbing down any content material. She encouraged students to make connections over and over again, benefiting her ELL students in seeing relevance, and increasing comprehension. The lesson was very successful because the teacher took time to front load the lesson, and because she sheltered it for her ELL learners.

References:

Hill, Jane & Kathleen M. Flynn. (2006). Classroom Instruction That Works with English Language Learners. Alexandria, VI: ASCD

Week Four Blog #7

The two ELL students I chose to administer this test on are both Hispanic students. The first student, a girl, my language arts teacher on team and I chose because her parents were concerned with her reading level as she prepared to enter high school. She had tested out of the an ESL class in 7^th grade, but her parents and the 8^th grade team felt she would have benefited from a more structured reading environment like READ-180 instead of mainstream Language Arts class. The other student, a young male, was on an ILP because he was an ELL student. I chose him as a candidate for the reading test because I was curious about his reading level since the READ-180 teacher said that he would not be in READ-180 next year in high school.

            The first student, Robin, was expecting the test. She is a student very in to her image at school, so the language arts teacher and I pulled her out of an elective to administer the test (DRA-2). We gave her background information on the test she was taking to help calm her nerves even though she knew the test was coming. She read aloud from the benchmark book, The Missing Link, which was an 8^th grade level book. She was confident as she read aloud, and cautious at the same time. She read the passage in one minute and 52 seconds. For 211 word count passage, this time put her in the instructional level of reading. Her oral reading rate was 113.03 words per minute. Robin had 5 miscues while reading which put her in the independent category for reading. Her miscues while reading included a couple omissions, but mostly substituting words that were visually similar. While I calculated Robin’s oral reading fluency, she continued to work on the comprehension part of the assessment. She was very cautious as she completed this part of the assessment. She did not speak to me or the language arts teacher who helped me administer the test, but instead completed it using the entire 50 minutes to do so. Once she was finished I was able to grade her comprehension part of the test, and she received a 17 out of 24. Robin comprehended at the instructional level almost at the independent level. She was on the cusp of being an independent reader and an instructional reader. Robin’s reflection part of the assessment showed that she could use some help identifying important information and/or key vocabulary in the text. She struggled before with identifying the significant message in a story, and discussing theme, and he test proved we still needed to work on this. As teacher’s we know that we need to teach Robin how to support opinion with details from the text. I felt that this assessment was a fair assessment to show Robin’s capabilities in reading and writing, and was surprised that this test actually showed her reading lower than what she had produced on CSAP and Acuity, our district benchmark test. Robin had been proficient in writing and partially proficient in reading, but this DRA2 showed her closer to being partially proficient.

            The second student, Victor, was my hand chosen student for this assessment. Victor is a student who really does not come across as motivated by classwork, but is still a kid who participates in class. Victor has been in been in the READ-180 class the last two years. His READ-180 teacher was very proud of him and said that he would not be in the READ-180 classroom in high school. Victor also took the DRA2 and started off by reading the same benchmark story, The Missing Link, since that was the 8^th grade book. Victor was cheery and more than willing to participate, and was very excited about the book. The Missing Link, is a science fiction novel, and he was so curious to read about robots. Victor read his passage aloud in one minute 46 seconds. This put him at the instructional level. As he read aloud I noticed that he had multiple pauses in the wrong areas, and had to reread some of what he already read. There was repetition in Victor’s reading. I calculated Victor’s words per minute to be 119.4. Victor only had one substitution and 3 repetitions, so that put him on the high end of independent almost advanced in accuracy. Victor was doing really well, and I could not wail for him to finish his comprehension part of the test.

            Victor only took only 40 minutes to complete the second part of the DRA2. At first glance his test did not look nearly completed as Robin’s. He did not even write full sentences in some of his reflection pieces. His during reading notes were sufficient. He missed one character, and got 2 out of 5 of the main events, but he nailed the resolution and summery in the story. Victor’s interpretation of the story was on target and his reflection included the main idea. I was shocked that Victor was able to hit the main idea and express it in such few words. Here was a student who I did not expect to read or comprehend at grade level, and yet his comprehension score was 18 out of 24! Victor surpassed what all teachers on our team expected of him. His CSAP and Acuity had him right on the cusp of being proficient and partially proficient. He was at 69% on his Acuity, the district’s benchmark test, and at 66% a student is considered partially proficient. He is that student that makes me reflect on schools needing to develop much more fair and authentic writing assessments for. The NEA (2003), states, “Most assessment systems are out of balance, with standardized tests dominating. …no single assessment can meet everyone’s information needs… To maximize student success, assessment must be seen as an instructional tool for use while learning is occurring and as an accountability tool to determine if learning has occurred. Because both purposes are important, they must be in balance”(pg. 6). Although Victor’s score was on the lower end of independent and his reading was still instructional, I feel like if Victor would have slowed down to really write down everything he was thinking and feeling, he could have done better.

Running records were created for closely observing and recording a child's oral reading behaviors, and for planning instruction (Morrow, 2009, pg. 47). Running records record the number and types of errors a child makes while reading aloud. A benefit from running records, are they determine the appropriate material for instructional purposes and for independent reading (Morrow, 2009). Running Records allow teachers to run an assessment-driven, differentiated program that targets the specific needs of students (NEA, 2003). First, it allows the teacher to identify an appropriate reading level for the student. Second, it reveals how well a student is self-monitoring their reading, and finally, it identifies which reading strategies a student is using (or not using) (NEA, 2003). While performing a running record test, a student’s frustration level with reading can be identified. This helps instructors to come up with strategies for instruction based on the errors made during the assessment. Running records indicate errors students make in oral reading, and is not intended to evaluate the student’s ability to comprehend text (Morrow, 2009, pg. 47).

            Running records are intended to be tested with a benchmark book accompanying the assessment. This is not always the case though. Running records can be taken on a book that has never been seen by the reader or one that has been read once or twice. There are two parts to the running record assessment: the running record and a comprehension check. To perform a running records test, one must use symbols and marking conventions explained below to record a child’s reading behavior as he or she reads from the book. When the session is complete the recorder can calculate the reading rate, error rate, and self-correction rate, and enter them in the boxes. It is the role of the teacher to talk to children about the types of errors they make in a running record to give them strategies to help figure out what they are reading (Morrow, 2009, pg. 50).

            Again, the purpose of taking a running record is to document a child’s oral reading behavior, determine error, accuracy, and self-correction rates, and help teacher to plan instruction. To score a running record as suggested by Morrow (2009), record the number of words in the testing passage. Then count the number of errors made by the child and subtract that from the number of total words in the passage. Divide the number of errors by the total words in the passage. Then multiply by 100. The result equals a percent of accuracy for the reader (Morrow, 2009, pg. 48). This scoring process is essential for teachers to internalize. They can ask themselves, why errors are being made in the first place, and determine the next step for instruction.  In the end, Running Records allow teachers to make data-based decisions to guide whole-class instruction (using modeled or shared reading), small-group instruction (guided reading), and to ensure students are reading appropriately challenging texts during independent reading (NEA, 2003).

References:

Morrow, M. Literacy development in the early years; Helping children read and write. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

National Education Association of the United States (2003). Balanced Assessment: The Key to Accountability and Improved Student Learning. Portland, OR. Pp 1-16. Retrieved May 31 from: http://blog.classroomteacher.ca/23/running-records-and-miscue-analysis/

Blog # 6 Week 3

Freemen and Freemen (2004), hold that there are two approaches in how teachers teach and design their lessons. One approach is through learning and word recognition, which I feel is a more explicit and direct teaching approach. The other approach is an acquisition perspective, where the classroom is more of a collaborative learning environment, and the teaching focuses on making meaning and connections.Here is a list of activities that occur in classrooms that are broken down between what is learning (L) and what is acquisition (A).

From the students perspective:

 L   looking up words in the dictionary to write definition
 A  making a Venn diagram to compare two stories
  L &A practicing sounding out words
  L  read in round-robin fashion 
  L  correct peers when they make a mistake during reading
  A  identify words on a big book page that start with the same sound
  A  grouping cards with classmates' names by a criterion such as first or last letter

A&L Writing rhyming poetry and discussing different spelling for the same sound 
  L  asking the teacher how to spell any word they don't know
  A  read a language experience story they have created with the teacher
  A  working in pairs to arrange words from a familiar chant into sentences
  L dividing words into syllables

  A  on a worksheet, draw a line from each word to the picture that starts with the same sound
  A  make alphabet books on different topics is creative and authentic

The teacher perspective:

  L  preteaches vocabulary
  A  does a shared reading with a big book
  L  makes sure that students read only books that fit their level
  L  has students segment words into phonemes

  L  writes words the students dictate for a story and has students help with the spelling of difficult words
  A  asks students to look around the room and find words starting with a certain letter
  L&A  uses decodable texts
  L  sets aside time for SSR each day
  L  teaches Latin and Greek roots
  A  has students meet in literature circles
  L  conducts phonics drills
  A&L  chooses predictable texts
  A  teaches students different comprehension strategies
  A  does a picture walk of a new book
  L  uses a variety of worksheet to teach different