BCTELA 2013, CR4YR and Collaboration


Published on

Full day session with Maureen Dockendorf, highlighting results of CR4YR 2012-13, explaining the theoretical framework, and applying to our current practice.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

BCTELA 2013, CR4YR and Collaboration

  1. 1. Success for All Readers BCTELA  2013   Faye  Brownlie  &  Maureen  Dockendorf   www.slideshare.net/fayebrownlie  
  2. 2. Learning Intentions •  I  can  find  evidence  of  current  reading  research   in  my  pracJce   •  I  have  a  plan  to  incorporate  a  pracJce  that  is   different  to  me   •  I  am  leaving  with  a  quesJon  
  3. 3. •  What would happen if… •  Belief •  Practice
  4. 4. We CAN teach all our kids to read. •  Struggling  readers  need  to  read  MORE  than   non-­‐struggling  readers  to  close  the  gap.   •  Struggling  readers  need  to  form  a  mental   model  of  what  readers  do  when  reading.   •  Struggling  readers  need  to  read  for  meaning   and  joy     •  Struggling  readers  do  NOT  need  worksheets,   scripted  programs,  or  more  skills  pracJce.  
  5. 5. Building Independence •  Build  criteria  with  your  students   –  What  do  good  readers  do?     •  NoJce  when  the  students  are  using  the  co-­‐ created  criteria   •  Ask  the  students  “What  should  I  noJce  about   what  you  are  doing  when  you  are  reading?”  
  6. 6. We  now  have  good  evidence  that  virtually  every   child  who  enters  an  American  kindergarten   can  be  reading  on  level  by  the  end  of  first   grade  (Mathes,  et  al,  2004;  Phillips  &  Smith,   2010;  VelluJno,  et  al,  1996).     -­‐Richard  Allington,  keynote  address,  IRA,  2011  
  7. 7. 98% on grade level at year end:   Mathes,  et  al  (2004);  VelluJno,  et  al  (1996);   Phillips,  et  al  (1998)   •  Every  successful  intervenJon  study  used   either  1-­‐1  expert  tutoring  or  1-­‐3  very  small   group  expert  reading  instrucJon.     •  None  of  the  studies  used  a  scripted  reading   program.     •  All  had  students  engaged  in  reading  2/3  of  the   lesson.    
  8. 8. -­‐grades  1  and  2  –  60  minutes  reading,  30   minutes  on  skill   -­‐aim  for  your  kids  to  read  6  books  in  school  and   6  more  acer  school  
  9. 9. High Success Reading •  99%  accuracy   •  Reading  in  phrases   •  90%  comprehension  
  10. 10. Our key questions: Did  that  make  sense?  
  11. 11. Our key questions:   How  did  you  figure  that  out?  
  12. 12. M  –  meaning   Does  this  make  sense?   S  –  language  structure   Does  this  sound  right?   V  –  visual  informaJon   Does  this  look  right?  
  13. 13. The  best  way  to  develop  phonemic   segmentaJon  is  through  invented  spelling;   children  with  pens  and  pencils,  drawing  and   wriJng.    -­‐Marilyn  Adams,  1990   -­‐about  20%  of  children  do  not  develop   phonemic  segmentaJon  readily  
  14. 14. •  K/1  –    spend  a  maximum  of  10  minutes/day  on   phonics  –  small  impact  on  phonic  knowledge;   no  difference  on  comprehension   •  Beyond  grade  1  –  no  staJsJcal  difference  for   any  phonics     •  NaJonal  Reading  Panel  
  15. 15. “Every  Child,  Every  Day”  –  Richard  Allington  and   Rachael  Gabriel   In  EducaJonal  Leadership,  March  2012   6  elements  of  instrucJon  for  ALL  students!  
  16. 16. 1.    Every  child  reads  something  he  or  she   chooses.  
  17. 17. 2.  Every  child  reads  accurately.   -­‐intensity  and  volume  count!   -­‐98%  accuracy   -­‐less  than  90%  accuracy,  doesn’t  improve   reading  at  all  
  18. 18. Strategy Cards – Catching Readers Before They Fall (Johnson & Keier)
  19. 19. 4.  Every  child  writes  about  something   personally  meaningful.    -­‐connected  to  text    -­‐connected  to  themselves    -­‐real  purpose,  real  audience  
  20. 20. K/Grade 1 Writing Commons & Jakovac   Samples  from  June  7th,  2012  
  21. 21. 3.  Every  child  reads  something  he  or  she   understands.      -­‐at  least  2/3  of  Jme  spent  reading  and   rereading  NOT  doing  isolated  skill  pracJce  or   worksheets      -­‐build  background  knowledge  before   entering  the  text      -­‐read  with  quesJons  in  mind        
  22. 22. Shared Reading Lesson Picture Book Strategy Lesson
  23. 23. Gr 3 Joni Cunningham, Richmond •  •  •  •  •  Building  vocabulary  from  pictures   Establishing  ficJon/non-­‐ficJon   PredicJng     Directed  drawing   WriJng  to  retell  and  connect  
  24. 24. The Swaps Who   Give  away   Want   scarecrow   hat   walking  sJck   badger   walking  sJck   ribbon   crow  
  25. 25. 5.    Every  child  talks  with  peers  about  reading   and  wriJng.  
  26. 26. 6.  Every  child  listens  to  a  fluent  adult  read   aloud.      -­‐different  kinds  of  text      -­‐with  some  commentary  
  27. 27. Professional Collaboration •  InteracJve  and  on-­‐going  process   •  Mutually  agreed  upon  challenges   •  Capitalizes  on  different  experJse,  knowledge  and   experience   •  Roles  are  blurred   •  Mutual  trust  and  respect   •  Create  and  deliver  targeted  instrucJon   •  GOAL:    beper  meet  the  needs  of  diverse  learners  
  28. 28. No plan, no point
  29. 29. Why Collaboration/Co-teaching? •  Based  on  the  belief  that  collabora6ve  planning,   teaching  and  assessing  be:er  addresses  the   diverse  needs  of  students  by  crea6ng  ongoing   effec6ve  programming  in  the  classroom   •  It  allows  more  students  to  be  reached                      Learning  in  Safe  Schools,  page  102  Chapter  9  
  30. 30. •  Based  on  the  belief  that  collabora6ve  planning,  teaching   and  assessing  be:er  addresses  the  diverse  needs  of   students  by  crea6ng  ongoing  effec6ve  programming  in   the  classroom   •  It  allows  more  students  to  be  reached   •  It  focuses  on  the  ongoing  context  for  learning  for  the   students,  not  just  the  specific  remedia6on  of  skills   removed    from  the  learning  context  of  the  classroom   •  It  builds  a  repertoire  of  strategies  for  teachers  to  support   the  range  of  students  in  classes                                          Learning  in  Safe  Schools,  page  102   Chapter  9  
  31. 31. Why Collaboration/Co-teaching? •  Based  on  the  belief  that  collabora6ve  planning,  teaching   and  assessing  be:er  addresses  the  diverse  needs  of   students  by  crea6ng  ongoing  effec6ve  programming  in   the  classroom   •  It  allows  more  students  to  be  reached   •  It  focuses  on  the  ongoing  context  for  learning  for  the   students,  not  just  the  specific  remedia6on  of  skills   removed    from  the  learning  context  of  the  classroom   •  It  builds  a  repertoire  of  strategies  for  teachers  to  support   the  range  of  students  in  classes   •  Impera6ve  students  with  the  highest  needs  have  the   most  consistent  program                            Learning  in  Safe  Schools,   page  102  Chapter  9  
  32. 32. Goal:   •  to  support  students  to  be  successful  learners   in  the  classroom  environment    
  33. 33. Rationale:   By  sharing  our  collecJve   knowledge  about  our  classes  of   students  and  developing  a  plan  of   acJon  based  on  this,  we  can   beper  meet  the  needs  of  all   students.  
  34. 34. A Key Belief •  When  interven6on  is  focused  on  classroom   support  it  improves  each  student’s  ability  and   opportunity  to  learn  effec6vely/successfully   in  the  classroom.  
  35. 35. Co-Teaching Models (Teaching in Tandem – Effective Co-Teaching in the Inclusive Classroom – Wilson & Blednick, 2011, ASCD) •  •  •  •  •  1  teach,  1  support   Parallel  groups   Sta6on  teaching   1  large  group;  1  small  group   Teaming  
  36. 36. 1 Teach, 1 Support •  most  frequently  done,  least  planning   •  Advantage:  focus,  1:1  feedback,  if  alternate   roles,  no  one  has  the  advantage  or  looks  like   the  ‘real’  teacher,  can  capitalize  one  1’s   strengths  and  build  professional  capacity   •  Possible  piPall:  easiest  to  go  off  the  rails  and   have  one  teacher  feel  as  an  ‘extra  pair  of   hands’,  no  specific  task  (buzzing  radiator)  
  37. 37. 1 Teach, 1 Support: Examples •  demonstra6ng  a  new  strategy  so  BOTH   teachers  can  use  it  the  next  day  –  e.g.,  think   aloud,  ques6oning  from  pictures,  listen-­‐ sketch-­‐draW   •  Students  independently  working  on  a  task,   one  teacher  working  with  a  small  group  on   this  task,  other  teacher  suppor6ng  children   working  independently  
  38. 38. Parallel Groups •  both  teachers  take  about  half  the  class  and   teach  the  same  thing.       •  Advantage:    half  class  size  -­‐  more  personal   contact,  more  individual  a:en6on   •  Possible  piPalls:    more  6me  to  co-­‐plan,   requires  trust  in  each  other,  each  must  know   the  content  and  the  strategies.  
  39. 39. Parallel Groups: Examples •  word  work.    At  Woodward  Elem,  the  primary  worked  together  3   X/week,  with  each  teacher,  the  principal  and  the  RT  each  taking  a   group  for  word  work.    Some  schools  have  used  this  with  math   ac6vi6es.   •  Focus  teaching  from  class  assessment.  Westwood  Elementary:   Came  about  as  a  result  of  an  ac6on  research  ques6on:  How  do  we   be:er  meet  the  needs  of  our  students?:     –  primary  team  used  Standard  Reading  Assessment,  highlight  on  short   form  of  Performance  Standards,  Resource,  ESL,  principal  involved,   cross-­‐graded  groups  2X  a  week,  for  6  to  8  weeks  driven  by   informa6on  from  the  performance  standards  (Text  features,  Oral   Comprehension,  Risk  taking,  Cri6cal  thinking  with  words,  Gecng  the   big  picture,…  ,  repeat  process   –  NOT  paper  and  pencil  prac6ce  groups…teaching/thinking  groups    
  40. 40. Station Teaching •  mostly  small  groups   •  can  be  heterogeneous  sta6ons  or  more  homogeneous   reading  groups       •  each  teacher  has  2  groups,  1  working  independently   at  a  sta6on  or  wri6ng,  1  working  directly  with  the   teacher.     •  Advantage:    more  individual  a:en6on  and  personal   feedback,  increased  focus  on  self  regula6on     •  Possible  piPall:  self  regula6on    (needs  to  be  taught),   6me  to  plan  for  meaningful  engagement.  
  41. 41. Station Teaching: Examples •  Guided  reading:  4  groups;  RT  has  two  and  CT  has   two   •  math  groups  –  Michelle’s  pa:erning  (1  direct   teaching,  2  guided  prac6ce,  1  guided  prac6ce   with  observa6on)   •  science  sta6ons:  CT  and  RT  each  created  two   sta6ons;  co-­‐planning  what  they  would  look  like   to  ensure  differen6a6on,  teachers  moved  back   and  forth  between  groups  suppor6ng  self-­‐ monitoring,  independence  on  task  
  42. 42. 1 large group, 1 small group •  Advantage:      either  teacher  can  work  with   either  group,  can  provide  tutorial,  intensive,   individual   •  Possible  piPall:    don’t  want  same  kids  always   in  the  ‘get  help’  group    
  43. 43. 1 large group, 1 small group: Examples •  Wri6ng:    1  teacher  works  with  whole  class  prewri6ng   and  draWing,  small  groups  of  3-­‐4  students  meet  with  1   teacher  to  conference     •  Reading:  everyone’s  reading.  large  group:  teacher   moving  from  student  to  student  listening  to  short  oral   reads.  Small  group:  2  to  3  students  being  supported  to   use  specific  reading  strategies  or   –  small  group  is  working  on  a  Reader’s  Theatre   •  Math:  large  group  using  manipula6ves  to  represent   shapes,  small  groups,  rota6ng  with  other  teacher,   using  iPads  to  take  pictures  of  shapes  in  the   environment  
  44. 44. Teaming •  most  seamless.       •  co-­‐planned     •  teachers  take  alternate  roles  and  lead-­‐taking  as  the   lesson  proceeds   •  Most  oWen  in  whole  class  instruc6on  and  could  be   followed  up  with  any  of  the  other  four  co-­‐teaching   models     •  Advantages:  capitalizes  on  both  teachers’  strengths,   models  collabora6on  teaching/learning  to  students,   can  adjust  instruc6on  readily  based  on  student  need,   flexible   •  Possible  piPalls:    trust  and  skill  
  45. 45. Teaming: Examples •  Brainstorm-­‐categorize  lesson  –  1  teacher  begins,   other  teacher  no6ces  aspects  the  first  teacher  has   missed  or  sees  confusion  in  children,  adds  in  and   assumes  lead  role.   •  Modeling  reading  strategies:  two  teachers  model  and   talk  about  the  strategies  they  use  to  read,  no6ng   things  they  do  differently.   •  Graphic  organizer:  Teachers  model  how  to  use  a   seman6c  map  as  a  post  reading  vocabulary  building   ac6vity,  teacher  most  knowledgeable  about  seman6c   mapping  creates  it  as  other  teacher  debriefs  with   students;  both  flow  back  and  forth