Allington powerpoint april 14

1,347 views
1,192 views

Published on

Presentation for graduate class on Richard Allington

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,347
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This evening we will present … Information about Dr. Allington’s life, six articles focusing on aspects of his research, share activities with you, and some of Richard Allington’s publications.
  • First- Allington’s life and achievements
  • Dr. Allington’s academic career began in Michigan where he grew up on a dairy farm. His first school was the one room Pioneer School pictured here from his website- teachersread.net
  • Richard Allington’s academic career spans almost 5 decades, from 1965 to the present.
  • Dr. Allington did his undergraduate work at Western Michigan University and taught 4 th and 5 th grades in Kent City Schools Michigan. He quickly discovered the difficulty his students had with reading and began graduate work in reading and special education at Western Michigan and continued with his PhD at Michigan State University.
  • In 1974 Dr. Allington received the Outstanding Dissertation Award from the International Reading Association for his “An evaluation of the use of color cues to focus attention in discrimination and paired-associate learning” Institution:  Michigan State University
  • Dick Allington moved to the State University of New York at Albany to become the Chair of the Department of Reading
  • In 1990, Allington and Anne McGill-Franzen received the Albert J. Harris Award In 1995 he was inducted into the IRA Reading Hall of Fame And also was president of the National Reading Conference
  • He moved to the University of Florida where he was the Fien distinguished professor of Education
  • In 2005 He was the President of the IRA and moved to the University of Tennessee In 2007 he received the William S. Gray Citation of Merit from the IRA
  • All of his work aims at helping to accelerate needy readers – (list) We chose 6 articles from Allington’s research studies, book chapters, and journal articles across several of his interests.
  • The first article…
  • The third article…
  • To replicate the data collection in this article, Jackie video taped a student in her school reading for 1 minute out of all the texts in his desk that day. Your handout includes several passages on which you may take an informal running record. For each passage calculate wcpm, % accuracy, and evaluate fluency as Good, Fair, Poor. Enter on padlet at website.
  • (make sure everyone has the passages, understands the directions, and that the prezi is loaded- show videos as class records and calculates)
  • Discuss the access to readable texts for this student. How would this impact his learning all day long? To replicate the class observations Jackie recorded 3 rd grade classrooms at various times of the morning and afternoon over a 4/5 day period. As you watch the videos of each room, record whole class, small group, side x side, and calculate % whole class – record on padlet
  • (make sure all have paper to note on, or padlet up to record on, and understand directions while the prezi is loading)
  • Discuss results of the classroom observation activity – look at padlet to see numbers for each room and each format as well as % whole group How does this impact at risk third graders’ learning all day long?
  • Allington has continued to be interested in struggling readers as shown in the 3 articles Eileen shared. 2 federally funded programs with different entering, exiting requirements and different regulations serve similar populations Research Questions… Perspective : Mental Discipline due to time on task; Information Processing because they implied the benefit of explicit instruction; Social Constructivism because of importance of differentiation Methodology : Observed amount and type of instruction coding instructional setting within time (quantitative) field notes (qualitative), and interviews to corroborate data collected
  • Method: Participants- mix of urban, suburban, rural; other 24 from same district or school/ grade Materials: Data: lesson (language arts, math), program (regular education, Chapter 1), grouping (whole class, sub group), group size (#), format (active teaching, guided work, testing, management, surrogate- computer), instructor (classroom teacher, special ed teacher, assistant) spreadsheet and data software to analyze Findings: Chapter 1 more time Total RLA than special education as well –almost 14 minutes a day
  • Means Ranges!
  • Another focus of Allington’s work was effective teaching- research group which studied fourth grade and first grade teachers. research question … Began with just observing and coding the teacher characteristics and behaviors- analyzed for theory and focus- focused observation as time went on. Grounded theory approach - “Thus, although observations at the beginning of the study were open ended, they became more focused as conclusions about a teacher emerged, consistent with grounded theory methods (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) Not one theory: “In general, these outcomes did not support any theory that emphasizes just one particular component (e.g., skills instruction, whole language emphasis) as the key to effective Grade 1 literacy; rather, excellent Grade 1 instruction involves multiple instructional components articulated with one another.” Engaged – motivation, learning context, adjust as child progresses; also behaviorism: positive success oriented; inquiry learning: high level skills, collaboration; metacognitive theory: gradual release of responsibility; social constructivism: zone of proximal development, scaffolding; social learning theory: modelling, self-efficacy
  • Participants: school principals selected ‘very effective’ teachers and more typical teachers based on effectiveness in promoting student achievement; 15 pairs- researchers evaluated student engagement and quality of student reading and writing to corroborate; later narrowed to most effective and least effective for state = 10 teachers reported out. Data: …221 most effective behaviors narrowed to 103 which appeared in all 5 states and placed into 7 overarching categories Observers: “In doing so, the observers commented on the following: the daily schedule in the class, the nature of reading instruction and the types of reading that occurred, the nature of writing instruction and the types of writing that occurred, how skills development was addressed, the extent and nature of opportunistic teaching, the extent and nature of across-curricular connections, and the methods and effectiveness of classroom management .”
  • Most effective from all 5 states demonstrated: Classroom management included: coordinated instruction from other adults/paraprof. to insure integrity of curriculum for struggling readers, monitored student reading and book selection Environment : exceptionally positive- no negativity noted Skills/Literature/ Reading writing balance : explicit teaching, modeling, re-teaching in context of ongoing reading and writing activities, reading all day, writing process Accelerating demands- scaffolding: texts, tasks and scaffolding matched student needs – ZoPD Self- regulation: students engaged- ‘lost in their work’ Curriculum: integration
  • Some least effective also demonstrated the same characteristics and behaviors- the ones demonstrated by ONLY the most effective teachers were: Teaching: opportunistic- at point of need Writing: high demands – process and mechanics; scaffolding in place to reach including class made books
  • You read the Addressing Summer Reading Setback among economically disadvantaged elementary students article from 2010 by Richard L. Allington, Anne McGill-Franzen, Gregory Camilli, Lunetta Williams, Jennifer Graff, Jacqueline Zeig, Courtney Zmach & Rhonda Nowak Your turn in group…
  • Show padlet- each group discuss and post responses. Share out for a few minutes- discuss if differences.
  • From IRA convention- shows fall to spring growth pattern, spring to fall SES difference, increasing gap (use curser to show)
  • Questions… Perspective – engaged learning due to student choice Lenses – cognitive processing – ‘self-teaching hypotheses’ and volume/ proficiency link; sociolinguistic comparing SES groups; mental discipline – practice and time on task; unfoldment theory – provide books, choice; constructivism/ engagement – authentic texts, choice, variety, purpose; literacy development theory – rich home environment, natural development Methodology …
  • Participants… Material… Data… Findings…
  • In comparing the articles we chose- Breadth of topics/ methods/ lenses- theory over the years. Each study lead Allington to another area to study or another way to study the area to refine the information. All relate to struggling readers and all are practitioner friendly.
  • Most of Allington’s research interests are depicted in these two short clips. This 3 minute clip is about what we know about teaching reading. What are Dr. Allington’s main points about instruction? Discuss
  • This 2 and a half minute clip is about interventions. How does Dr. Allington’s concept of intervention differ from what is happening in the schools? Discuss- What did you notice about Allington’s political undertones in these two videos?
  • In addition to being a standard at national conferences, Dr. Allington published… and served or serves…
  • Some of the books Richard Allington edited recently include Reading to Learn and Learning to Read –the studies of exemplary fourth and first grade teachers; Big Brother and the National Reading Curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence describes how federal mandates impede improved reading instruction and public schools; Schools that work describes effective schools and district and what makes them work while Classrooms that work details what goes on in individual classrooms that is effective; No Quick Fix details how to make literacy programs more effective; The What Really Matters series includes Fluency , Struggling Readers, and Response to Intervention; Essential Readings on Struggling Learners are articles from IRA publications and the Handbook of Reading Disability Research brings together a wide variety of research on causation, assessment and remediation of reading disabilities. His latest work is Summer Reading which compiles the research on summer reading comparing it to summer school effectiveness and comparing its effects on different socioeconomic levels and in different formats. Podcast 13:40 minutes long- on interventions and RtI from IRA
  • My concept of Dick Allington’s work is that he makes research accessible to the classroom teacher. His work is often elegantly simple, clear, and straightforward. These attributes make it more likely that his studies will be implemented in our schools. Questions?
  • Allington powerpoint april 14

    1. 1. DR. RICHARD L. ALLINGTON Eileen Richards and Jackie Atkins EDUC802
    2. 2. ALLINGTON PRESENTATION oBiography oFocus of Research – Six Articles oActivity oDr. Allington in his own words oPublications
    3. 3. DR. RICHARD L. ALLINGTON Timeline of Education and Achievements
    4. 4. PIONEER SCHOOL “THIS IS AN OLD PHOTO OF THE ONE ROOM SCHOOL DR. ALLINGTON ATTENDED. IT WAS PIONEER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 10 MILES OUTSIDE OF CEDAR SPRINGS, MI. THIS PHOTO SHOWS THE “IMPROVED” BUILDING, WITH THE BATHROOM AND FURNACE ROOM ADDITION TO THE BACK. IT HAD A WOOD STOVE AND AN OUTHOUSE WHEN DR. ALLINGTON BEGAN SCHOOL.” -DR. ALLINGTON’S WEBSITE: TEACHERSREAD.NET
    5. 5. TIMELINE 1965 TO PRESENT
    6. 6. 1965-1973  1965–1968, B.A., Western Michigan University, Social Science/Elementary Education  1968–1969, Classroom Teacher, Grade 4/5, Kent City Schools, MI  1968–1969, M.A., Western Michigan University, Reading Education  1969–1972, Title I Director/reading teacher, Belding Area Schools, MI (poor, rural district)  1969–1973, Ph.D., Michigan State University, Elementary and Special Education  1971–1973, Graduate Assistant and Lecturer, Michigan State
    7. 7. 1973-1981  1973–1978, Assistant Professor/Teaching and Research, State University of New York at Albany  1974, Outstanding Dissertation Award, International Reading Association  1976, Visiting Professor/Teaching, University of Minnesota  1978–1981, Associate Professor/Teaching and Research, State University of New York at Albany
    8. 8. 1981-1989  1981, Visiting Professor/Teaching, Eastern Montana College  1982–1988, Chair, Department of Reading, State University of New York at Albany  1987–1989, Director, Center for Teaching Effectiveness, State University of New York at Albany
    9. 9. 1989-1996  1989–1999, Professor, Teaching and Research, University at Albany  1990, co-recipient (with Dr. Anne McGill- Franzen) of the Albert J. Harris Award for contributions to improving professional understanding of reading/learning disabilities  1995, inducted into the International Reading Association Reading Hall of Fame  1995-1996, President of National Reading Conference
    10. 10. 1995-2004  1995–1999, Chair, Department of Reading & Senior Research Scientist National Research Center for English Learning and Achievement University at Albany  2000–2004, Fien Distinguished Professor of Education, University of Florida
    11. 11. 2005-PRESENT  2005-2006, President of International Reading Association  2005- Present, Professor of Education at the University of Tennessee  2007, received the William S. Gray Citation of Merit from IRA for his contributions to the organization and the profession
    12. 12. FOCUS OF RESEARCH Six articles from his range of work
    13. 13. ALLINGTON’S BODY OF WORK All helpingtoaccelerate needy readers  Reading and learning disabilities  At risk readers  Effective instruction/ exemplary teachers  Public policy  Fluency  Strategy instruction  Reading volume  Summer reading
    14. 14. THE6TSOFEFFECTIVEELEMENTARY LITERACYINSTRUCTION Time Texts Teach Talk Tasks Test  Observed 1st and 4th grade teachers in 6 states  10 instructional days (observing, interviewing, and videotaping)  Teachers produced higher standardized test results (but did not spend time in test preparation)  Allington created a list of 6 common features to effective elementary literacy instruction
    15. 15. THE6TSOFEFFECTIVE ELEMENTARYLITERACY INSTRUCTION Time Texts Teach Talk Tasks Test Time Read and write for ½ the school day Texts Reading experiences where students have a high level of accuracy, fluency, comprehension Teach Direct, explicit demonstrations and strategy models Talk More student talk (student-student, student-teacher Tasks Longer assignments Test Student work based on effort and improvement not just achievement
    16. 16. THE6TSOFEFFECTIVE ELEMENTARYLITERACY INSTRUCTION Time Texts Teach Talk Tasks Test  Key words: time, texts, teach, talk, tasks, test, summary  Purpose: To demonstrate that effective teachers are more important than curriculums, programs, and approaches  Perspective: Engaged Learning  Methodology: Qualitative
    17. 17. YOUCAN’TLEARNMUCH FROMBOOKSYOUCAN’T READ  Too few schools offer remediation for older readers (grades 5-12)  The average classroom is using textbooks written two or more years above grade level of students  What exemplary teachers do:  Create a multi-sourced, multi-leveled curriculum  Did not rely on traditional area textbooks  Offered students choices to show what they had learned  Tailored instruction to meet students needs
    18. 18. INTERVENTIONALLDAYLONG: NEWHOPEFORSTRUGGLING READERS  Key words: Intervention, textbooks, struggling readers, all day  Purpose: To evaluate a way that we can provide intervention to meet the needs of struggling readers  Perspective: Natural Learning Social Constructivism  Methodology: Quantitative and Qualitative (through student observation)
    19. 19. INTERVENTIONALLDAYLONG: NEWHOPEFORSTRUGGLING READERS  Struggling readers need books they can read accurately, fluently, with strong comprehension in their hands all day long  Reader-Text Match Tool  Lesson Delivery Tracking Sheet  To reflect how groups of students are organized during classroom lessons
    20. 20. INTERVENTIONALLDAYLONG: NEWHOPEFORSTRUGGLING READERS
    21. 21. ACTIVITY  For each text take a running record, calculate wcpm, % accuracy, evaluate fluency, and record on padlet at  http://is.gd/EDUC802b  107 wcpm (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006)  For each room record instructional format, calculate % whole class for each room, record on padlet Watch Videos Watch Videos
    22. 22. READING PASSAGE VIDEOS http://prezi.com/y20yqrcft6co/reading-passages-for-activity/
    23. 23. ACTIVITY  For each text take a running record, calculate wcpm, % accuracy, evaluate fluency, and record on padlet at  http://is.gd/EDUC802b  For each room record instructional format, calculate % whole class for each room, record on padlet Watch Videos Watch Videos
    24. 24. CLASSROOM FORMAT VIDEOS  Classroom Format Videos
    25. 25. ACTIVITY  For each text take a running record, calculate wcpm, % accuracy, evaluate fluency, and record on padlet at  http://is.gd/EDUC802b  For each room record instructional format, calculate % whole class for each room, record on padlet Watch Videos Watch Videos
    26. 26. SCHOOLRESPONSETOREADING FAILURE:INSTRUCTIONFOR CHAPTER1ANDSPECIAL EDUCATIONSTUDENTSINGRADES TWO,FOUR,ANDEIGHT  Research Question:  What is the quantity (amount) of literacy instruction for special education students as compared to Chapter 1 students?  What is the quality (nature) of literacy instruction for special education and Chapter 1 students?  Perspective: Mental Discipline; Information Processing; Social constructivism  Methodology: Ethnographic study, Observation of students (qualitative and quantitative), face to face interviews of teachers Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). School response to reading failure: Instruction for chapter one and special education students in grades two, four, and eight. Elementary School Journal,89(5), 529-42.
    27. 27. SCHOOLRESPONSETOREADING FAILURE:INSTRUCTIONFOR CHAPTER1ANDSPECIAL EDUCATIONSTUDENTSINGRADES TWO,FOUR,ANDEIGHT  Method:  Participants: 64 students in grades 2, 4, 8 from Chapter 1 and Special Education (20 matched pairs +)  Materials: Instructional setting, time  Data Collection and Analysis: observation with ‘Student Observation Instrument’ –coding lesson, program, grouping, group size, format, and instructor over time; field notes  Major Findings:  Chapter 1 had 35 minutes more reading/language arts instruction in regular education classroom than special education  Special education teachers provided less active teaching and more seat work than Chapter 1 or regular education teachers
    28. 28. SCHOOLRESPONSETOREADING FAILURE:INSTRUCTIONFOR CHAPTER1ANDSPECIAL EDUCATIONSTUDENTSINGRADES TWO,FOUR,ANDEIGHT
    29. 29. ASTUDYOFEFFECTIVE FIRST-GRADELITERACY INSTRUCTION  Research Question: What are the characteristics of effective first- grade literacy instruction?  Perspective: Not one theory, “multiple instructional components articulated with one another” p.4, grounded theory approach, Engaged Learning  Methodology: Ethnographic qualitative study; observation by “privileged observer approach,” face to face interviews, triangulation (2 observers, 1 interview) Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C. C., Morrow, L., Tracey, D., Woo, D. (2001). A study of effective first-grade literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(1), 35-58.
    30. 30. ASTUDYOFEFFECTIVE FIRST-GRADELITERACY INSTRUCTION  Method:  Participants: 30 first grade teachers in New York, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Texas, California  Materials: teaching processes, classroom materials, student performance and outcomes.  Data collection and analysis: categories emerged from data collected, ongoing analysis confirming or disconfirming conclusions  Collected on most-effective-for-locale and least-effective-for-locale teachers  List teaching behaviors, categorize, unique to effective teachers
    31. 31. ASTUDYOFEFFECTIVE FIRST-GRADELITERACY INSTRUCTION  Major Findings: Behaviors and characteristics typifying the most effective teachers
    32. 32. ASTUDYOFEFFECTIVE FIRST-GRADELITERACY INSTRUCTION  Major Findings: Distinguishing the Most Effective Teachers from the Least Effective
    33. 33. ADDRESSINGSUMMERREADING SETBACKAMONGECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGEDELEMENTARY STUDENTS YOUR TURN…  Perspective:  Methodology:  Participants:  Major Findings: Allington, R. L., McGill-Franzen, A., Camilli, G., Williams, L., Graff, J., Zeig, J., . . . Nowak, R. (2010). Addressing summer reading setback among economically disadvantaged elementary students. Reading Psychology, 31(5), 411-427.
    34. 34. ACTIVITY: ADDRESSING SUMMER READING SETBACK  As your group discusses the article, post your responses to  Methodology  Theory  Subjects  Findings on the padlet at:  http://is.gd/EDUC802
    35. 35. ADDRESSINGSUMMERREADING SETBACKAMONGECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGEDELEMENTARY STUDENTS Allington, R. L., McGill-Franzen, A., Camilli, G., Williams, L., Graff, J., Zeig, J., . . . Nowak, R. (2010). Addressing summer reading setback among economically disadvantaged elementary students. Reading Psychology, 31(5), 411-427. Lower and Higher SES Summer Reading Loss (Chicago IRA, 2012)
    36. 36. ADDRESSINGSUMMERREADING SETBACKAMONGECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGEDELEMENTARY STUDENTS  Research Questions:  Does easy access to self-selected books for summer reading over 3 successive years limit summer reading setback?  Will the FCAT performance of the treatment students exceed those of the control group?  Will the FCAT performance of the free lunch-eligible students in the treatment group exceed those of the control group?  Perspective: Engaged Learning; cognitive processing, sociolinguistic  Methodology: Longitudinal experimental study, face to face written survey with oral questions Allington, R. L., McGill-Franzen, A., Camilli, G., Williams, L., Graff, J., Zeig, J., . . . Nowak, R. (2010). Addressing summer reading setback among economically disadvantaged elementary students. Reading Psychology, 31(5), 411-427.
    37. 37. ADDRESSINGSUMMERREADING SETBACKAMONGECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGEDELEMENTARY STUDENTS  Method:  Participants: 852 students from 17 high poverty schools (experimental), 478 students from same schools (random control)  Material: self-selected trade books 12 per student for each summer  Data Collection and Analysis: Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test, Literacy Habits Survey (written)  Major Findings:  Access to books improved outcomes on FCAT as compared to control (summer school produced same positive effect)  Larger effects for most economically disadvantaged students
    38. 38. COMPARISON OF ARTICLES
    39. 39. DR. ALLINGTON In his own words…
    40. 40. DR. ALLINGTON – WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT DOESN’T WORK
    41. 41. THEORY ON INTERVENTION AND HOW IT CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN READING
    42. 42. DR. ALLINGTON’S PUBLICATIONS
    43. 43. PUBLICATIONS Published over 100 articles, chapters, monographs, and books. Served or serves on the editorial advisory boards of: Reading Research Quarterly Review of Educational Research Journal of Educational Psychology Reading Teacher Elementary School Journal Journal of Literacy Research Remedial and Special Education
    44. 44. RECENT BOOKS
    45. 45. ACCESSIBLERESEARCH ELEGANTLYSIMPLEAND CLEAR

    ×