How I get started down this road District literacy initiative. . .
Comprehension strategy theory- licensed and expert teachers direct instruction small class sizes The problem is not illiteracy, but comprehension” (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004, p. 10). The work of Jeanne Chall(1983; 1986) introduced the reading community to the notion that children learn to read in grades kindergarten through three, and then read to learn from grades three on up. In reality, as the demands of the content and the difficulty levels of the text as well as the vast amount of information the child must navigate as they make their way through each subject during school, the reader must be able to not only read the words on the page, but understand and attach meaning to those words. In order to do so, the reader must be able to construct meaning of difficult vocabulary, sift through the many details to determine what is most important, activate prior knowledge to attach new learning with previous learning, think critically, and do all of this while continuing through the text fluently.( Allington, 2006; Irvin, et al., 2007; Snow & Biancarosa, 2003). Zone of Proximal Development—individualized, customized instruction. . .scaffolding to support students through the process. I do, we do , you do Formative Assessment to determine zone. . .strengths, areas to improve, etc. Engagement/self-efficacy Dweck and Kohn—Performance vs. growth mindsets, meaningful feedback, Guthrie and Wigfield and Guthrie: choice, control, relevance, Obrien and Vacca— I can because I think I can “ Students who struggle the most re-engaged and REDEFINED themselves as competent when engaged in activities they viewed as relevant using digital tools and popular media” ~ O’Brien, 2008 Research base: Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998: Guthrie, 2008; Smith & Wilhelm, 2002; Strickland & Alverman, 2004) Confidence building is KEY—students must see themselves as academic. . .successful. . .often Striving students sometimes view themselves as outsiders at EVHS—pull them IN
Scores: Engagement Fall: 3.4 Spring Engagement: 5.3 Fall Fluency: 9.9 Spring Fluency: 12.3 Fall Comprehension: 13 Spring Comprehension: 17.2 Fall Total: 26 Spring Total: 34.9 Goal is to get students out of instructional zone and into independent 6/8; 12/16 Fluency; 18/24 Comprehension Formative Assessment: Conferencing. . .
ANOVA— simply tell us –yes there is a difference somewhere in these three groups. Scheffe will tell us where exactly those differences exist.
Discuss why—control and al9 similar populations of students all id’d striving readers, adolescent reading growth is slow. . .research has shown can’t catch up in one year (Allington, 2009) Practical significance—gap between AL9 and Gen9 is narrower than between Control group and Gen9 Using Mean scores. . .but important to note that mean/median scores for all are very similar. . .
NPR—important b/c it is what we use to id students. Based on national norms—50% means right smack in the middle compared to students across the nation. . .important to note that general population is skewed to the left w/ mean 71.9% (50 th percentile RIT=223) Practical significance—40 th percentile no longer id’d as striving reader. . .
Discuss why—control and al9 similar populations of students all id’d striving readers, adolescent reading growth is slow. . .research has shown can’t catch up in one year (Allington, 2009) Practical significance—gap between AL9 and Gen9 is narrower than between Control group and Gen9 Important implication—in order to narrow reading gap must accelerate reading growth (Allington). Important note: In 8 th grade, Con had negative growth (went backwards); AL9 remained flat (no digression or growth); and general population made approx 4 point gain. . .
Fix to show what each group means—green is mean and purple is median add text boxes underneath to label each group.
Numeracy coordinator. . . .working with (reading and math)
The best teachers and principals demand that those kids receive the same rigorous education we want for all kids, the rich education each student deserves (Beers, 2009, p. 4). National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) President Kylene Beers (2009) argues that those students are our students of poverty who are continually marginalized and given a lesser education than these children of affluence in American society. Other researchers argue those students are poor, disabled, or even male students (Kozol, 1991; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Wilhelm & Smith, 2006). This researcher contends that in schools across the nation those students are often also students from literacy impoverished childhoods. In order to narrow the achievement gap, provide equal education for all, and fulfill the American promise to all children born with the right to a public education, educators must examine the evidence provided by this study and others like it. When implementing systematic, strategic, and evidence-based reading intervention, those students, striving readers from literacy poor backgrounds, can experience the accelerated reading growth necessary to pursue their dreams, and take their place in this competitive and rapidly changing global arena.
Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker Eastview High School Apple Valley, MN Literacy Coordinator/Reading Specialist Presentation to MASA/MASE Conference Brooklyn Park, MN March 18, 2010
Are we partnering with our SpEd and ELL colleagues to effectively and efficiently offer intervention to ALL who need it?
Are we offering equal attention for our striving readers as we do for our GT or AP students (i.e. access to technology, field trip opportunities, our most talented and trained staff, policy to ensure sustained programming)?
Are we looking at data and assessment effectively? (relying on triangulation, recognizing unintended consequences, looking for ways to get baseline assessment for new students, training our staff—teachers and counselors on data use)?