Abortion 1. What according to Warren are the 5 conditions .docx

Abortion
1. What according to Warren are the 5 conditions for
personhood? Why is it relevant to the abortion
debate?
2. What is a necessary/sufficient condition? Give examples.
What does it have to do with the abortion
debate?
3. What is the traditional argument against abortion? Is it valid?
4. Why is the notion of personhood important to the argument
against abortion?
5. Explain why a fetus, according to Warren, does not have a
right to life.
6. What is the space explorer analogy and what is it supposed to
show?
7. What is (are) an (the) objection(s) to Warren’s argument
against banning abortion? Are there any
objections against it? Does she have any replies to those
objection(s)? Are her replies any good? Explain
why or why not.
8. What part of the traditional argument for the banning of
abortion does Thompson attempt to
undermine? (How does she go about doing so?)
9. What is the violinist example in the Thompson article? What

is it meant to show?
10. What is Marquis’ thesis about? Why does he think killing of
innocents is wrong?
11. What argument does Marquis’ propose instead of the
traditional personhood argument?
12. What are the implications of Marquis’ argument against
abortion?
13. What are the various answer that Marquis considers to the
question of why killing is wrong? Which
is the answer that he favors?
14. What is the discontinuation account of wrongful killing?
How does it relate to Marquis’s argument?
Animal Ethics
15. What is “Speciesism”? Why is it wrong according to Singer?
What are reasons for thinking this is a
kind of unjust discrimination?
16. Explain why Singer thinks it is impossible to justify the
principle of equality among humans on the
basis of an actual, factual equality between humans.
17. Where should we draw the line between the beings who are
worth of moral consideration, and the
ones who are not, according to Singer?
18. On which notion of right does Machan base his claim that
animals do not have rights? How does it
relate to his argument about animal rights?

19. What is the fundamental difference between animals and
humans according to Machan? How does
it relate to his argument about animal rights?
20. What are four ways of responding to the Norcross’s “causal
argument”? Explain them.
21. State and explain Singer's response to the following
objection: Animals and humans can't be morally
equal because they are factually very different from each other.
22. State and explain Singer's response to the following
objection: Humans and animals should not get
equal treatment since this would involve absurdities like giving
animals the right to vote and providing
them with a high school education.
23. What is the difference between a consequentialist moral
theory like utilitarianism and a rights view
like Machan’s? Which factors do they consider when
determining if an action is right/wrong? What is
Machan’s criterion of moral standing? Is a tree morally
considerable for Regan? What about a fetus or 1
year-old baby? Explain.
24. What makes a being sentient? Are there any living beings
that are not sentient?
25. Must a utilitarian weigh animal and human pain equally
when it is of the same intensity, duration,
and quality? Could a utilitarian discount animal pain? Why or
why not?
26. Does equal treatment require identical treatment? Why or

why not? Give examples.
27. State, explain, and evaluate Tom Regan's two criticisms of
utilitarianism.
28. Do laws prohibiting abortion require pregnant women to act
as Good Samaritans? Why or why not?
What does Thomson say?
29. Explain the purpose of Thomson’s violinist example. Is it an
effective way to present her defense of
abortion? Why or why not?
30. On what premise does most opposition to abortion rest,
according to Thomson? What does
Thomson think of this premise? What role does it play in her
argument?
31. Does the question of abortion’s moral status hinge on
whether a fetus is considered a person? In
your answer, be sure to explain what you mean by “person” and
compare your view to those of Warren
and Thomson.
32. Do some fetuses have more valuable futures than others?
Why or why not? What implications does
your answer have for the abortion debate? In explaining your
position, be sure to make reference to
Marquis’s argument about the immorality of abortion.
33. What two considerations does Marquis argue support the
claim that killing a being with a valuable
future is wrong? How much support do these claims lend to
Marquis’s central claim? What other
considerations, if any, may lend additional support to Marquis’
conclusion?

34. Do you think there is a “sharp line,” with some animals
having rights and some not? If so, how
should we decide where to draw that line? If there is no sharp
line, must we say that all animals have
rights, or that none do?
35. Do animals possess rights? What about human beings who
lack moral capacity (e.g., those with
severe intellectual disabilities)? Do we have any obligations to
beings that lack rights? Be sure to address
Machan’s arguments in your answer.
Sex Ethics
1. Evaluate and outline (in your answer) McMurtry’s arguments
against monogamous marriage. Examine
the four principles that he attacks. Are his arguments
convincing? Explain your answer.
2. What does Russell focus on in "Our Sexual Ethics" (don't just
say "how we sex")? What are his
criticisms of it (and reasons for)? What does he claim that we
have to do to make it better? Do you
agree with him? Why or Why not?
Chp 13
1. What is a “maxim” for Kant? What role do maxims play in
Kant’s ethics? Provide an example of a
maxim and explain how it would figure in the moral assessment
of an action in Kant’s view.

2. Explain what Kant means when he says that the human being
is an “end in itself.” What does this
imply about how human beings are to be treated?
3. Is it ever morally acceptable to lie? What does Kant say? Do
you agree with him? Why or why not?
4. Under what conditions does an act have moral worth,
according to Kant? Give an example to illustrate
this idea. Do you find Kant’s position plausible? What do you
think is the strongest objection to it?
Chp 14
1. A number of popular TV shows and films in recent years
(e.g., The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Da
Ali G Show, Borat) have gotten big laughs by involving
unsuspecting people in interviews, conversations,
and other interactions that the shows’ producers and viewers
know to be absurd hoaxes. What do you
think Kant would make of this trend in comedy? If you are
familiar with any shows of this type, it might
be helpful to develop your answer with reference to specific
examples.
2. Suppose if you tell one lie, (and thereby treat a rational agent
as a mere means), you may prevent five
other people from being used as mere means. Should you tell
the lie? Would it violate the categorical
imperative? Why or why not? How might this case be used as an
objection to Kant?
3. You may either repay a debt you owe and your family will
starve to death, or you may break your
promise and feed your family. Which choice would you make?

How would O’Neill evaluate your
decision?
Chp 15
1. Mill mentions those who object to utilitarianism on the
grounds that it holds humanity to an
excessively high moral standard. Why might someone make this
argument? How does Mill respond to
it? What is your view: Are the requirements of utilitarianism
excessively demanding? Why or why not?
2. Someone who saves a person from drowning in the hopes of
being paid for it is acting morally
according to Mill. Why does he say this? Would Kant agree? Do
you? Why or why not?
3. What is the greatest happiness principle? On what does it
make the rightness of our actions depend?
Do you think it provides a reliable guide to our moral
obligations? Why or why not?
4. What is the only thing that is desirable for its own sake
according to Mill? How does he argue for this
claim? Do you agree with him? Can you supply a
counterexample?
Chp 16
1. With the cruise ship you’ve been traveling on sinking fast,
you and several of your shipmates scramble
toward one of the few available lifeboats. Eight of you manage
to make on it board; the problem is, the
boat can seat only six safely. If all eight remain on the boat, it

will sink, and everyone will drown. No one
volunteers to leave, but the man next to you recommends
ganging up to throw overboard the two
heaviest passengers, sacrificing their lives to spare the other
six. Would a utilitarian agree to this plan?
Why or why not? How about you? That is, would you help push
two passengers into the sea?
2. Do you find utilitarianism’s moral standards too demanding?
Why or why not?
3. Which of the objections Pojman discusses do you think is the
most powerful challenge to
utilitarianism? Can you provide a better reply than that offered
by Pojman?
Chp 17
1. Can you think of any examples of feelings or actions that
might be morally right for one person but
not for another? What would Aristotle say about this?
2. Aristotle claims that “virtue is a kind of mean.” What does he
mean by this, and how does he argue
for it? Is this an illuminating way of thinking about the virtues?
3. Do you have to be a virtuous person to perform a virtuous
action? If you do, does this present a
problem for Aristotle’s account of how virtue is acquired? If
you do not, explain how it is possible for
someone who lacks a particular virtue—courage, for example—
to do something courageous.
4. What role does education play in the good life, according to
Aristotle? What sorts of education and
training does he think are required if we are to become

virtuous? Do you agree?
Chp 18
1. Driver suggests that virtue ethics is intuitively appealing
because we often deliberate about moral
problems by reflecting on what admirable people would do. Do
you agree that such reflection is useful
when resolving moral dilemmas?
2. Driver considers the objection that virtue ethics is not action
guiding. Present the objection and her
reply. How compelling is the objection? Must a moral theory
always give agents clear instruction on how
to act?
3. What is the doctrine of the mean? Offer your own example of
a virtue that can be modeled on this
doctrine and an example of one that cannot be adequately
modeled.
4. The virtuous person does the right thing and is happy to do
so. It comes easily. The “continent”
person does the right thing but it requires effort. Should we
think more of the person that wants to be
moral or the person who overcomes a desire not to be moral?
Chp 19
1. What makes the ethics of care of different from other moral
theories? Do you see it as an appropriate
approach to moral problems? Why or why not?

2. What role does emotion play in the ethics of care? How does
Held conceive its relation to reason in
ethical deliberation?
3. According to Held, care ethics places significant weight on
the emotions. Why does Held think the
emotions are important to proper thinking about morality? Do
you agree with her argument? Why or
why not?
4. Held claims that, unlike dominant moral theories, care ethics
does not try to abstract or universalize;
rather, it focuses on attending to the needs of particular,
dependent others. Do you think this is a virtue
of the theory or a vice? Explain your answer.
Chp 20
1. What does Hobbes mean by the “war of every man against
every man”? Is it possible to escape this
condition? If so, how?
2. What is Hobbes’s conception of human nature? Given this
account of human nature, what does he
think life would be like in the absence of government? Do you
agree with him about this? Why or why
not?
3. Do you think everyone has a natural right to all things? Why
or why not? What does Hobbes say about
this?
Chp 21
1. Rawls states, “Injustice, then, is simply inequalities that are

not to the benefit of all.” Do you agree
with this claim? Why or why not? How does this conception of
injustice manifest itself in Rawls’s
theory?
2. Can you think of an example of a current social policy that
people in the original position would not
agree to adopt? How about one they would? In explaining your
answer, be sure to make reference to
Rawls’s two principles of justice.
3. Try to put on the veil of ignorance and imagine yourself in
the original position. Are the principles
Rawls identifies the same as those you would choose? Why or
why not?
The Reading Teacher, 61(4), pp. 318–329 © 2007 International
Reading Association
DOI:10.1598/RT.61.4.4 ISSN: 0034-0561 print / 1936-2714
online
G
uided reading is a component of a balanced
literacy program providing differentiated,
small-group reading instruction to four to six
students with similar strengths and instructional needs
(Fountas & Pinnell, 1996) or to heterogeneously
grouped students (Cunningham, Hall, & Sigmon,
2000). It is recommended that these groups meet at
least three to five times per week for 20 to 30 minutes
each session in order for students to make consistent
reading gains (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). This ap-

proach to reading instruction provides teachers the
opportunity to explicitly teach children the skills and
comprehension strategies students need, thus facili-
tating the acquisition of reading proficiency. Multiple
copies of graded leveled books are carefully selected
and used by the teacher based on the children’s in-
structional needs and interests. According to Reutzel
and Cooter (2005), graded leveled books are typically
categorized to include four levels of children’s reading
development: early emergent, emergent, early fluency,
and fluency. The language of these leveled texts devel-
opmentally matches the syntax and organization of
most young children’s speech. It is important that texts
chosen for the guided-reading groups provide children
with a reasonable challenge but also present an oppor-
tunity for potential success. In implementing guided
Modified Guided Reading: Gateway
to English as a Second Language
and Literacy Learning
Mary A. Avalos, Alina Plasencia, Celina Chavez,
Josefa Rascón
Modified guided reading provides
students with the understanding that
reading is about creating and gaining
meaning from text.
reading, teachers act as a guide to build upon the
knowledge, skills, and strategies the children already
possess.
All students benefit when teachers use the guided-
reading instructional model. These benefits include in-
dividualized instruction, the use of books at students’
reading levels, the opportunity to create and sustain

meaning, the exposure to language that is context em-
bedded, the structured format of the lesson, and the
systematic evaluation of students’ progress (Fountas
& Pinnell, 1996; Knox & Amador-Watson, 2002). Active
student involvement is key as the children talk about
the story, ask questions, and build their expectations
of the text. This active involvement includes everyone
in the group as students simultaneously read and re-
ceive support from the teacher and peers. In addition,
reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills are im-
plemented in a social environment by engaging in
conversations before and after reading.
English-language learners (ELLs) also benefit from
these aspects of guided reading; however, when a mod-
ified approach is used, they gain additional language-
learning opportunities that native speakers typically
acquire implicitly. The modifications described here
enhance and enrich language- and literacy-learning
opportunities to include detailed vocabulary instruc-
tion, variables concerning second-language text struc-
ture (e.g., semantics, syntax, morphology), and
cultural relevance. Modified guided reading (MGR)
addresses these variables, enabling language and lit-
eracy instruction to be emphasized in small-group set-
tings (Figure 1). First we describe why modifications
are necessary for ELLs and provide a theoretical frame-
work for this approach. Then we describe the compo-
nents of MGR and walk through a lesson by means of a
318
planning guide, ending the manuscript by sharing a
small pilot study using this approach.

Why Modify for ELLs?
Some researchers have determined that ELLs are not
generally ready for English reading instruction until
they are at the intermediate stage of English-language
acquisition ( Knox & Amador-Watson, 2002), while
others advocate that reading and a second language
are best acquired simultaneously (Anderson & Roit,
1998; Barrera, 1983). Collier and Thomas (1999) found
that ELLs who receive support in their native language
can take 4 to 7 years to achieve 50th normal curve
equivalents in English reading and 7–10 years if sup-
port in the first language (L1) is not provided. More
recently, Slavin and Cheung (2005) reviewed experi-
mental studies comparing bilingual and English-only
reading programs for ELLs. Although only 17 studies
met the criteria to be included in their review, the ma-
jority favored bilingual approaches to reading instruc-
tion for ELLs; however, paired bilingual strategies
teaching reading in both the L1 and L2 simultaneous-
ly were especially successful. Slavin and Cheung con-
cluded that more longitudinal studies with
randomized designs are needed to determine how
reading instruction for ELLs should be approached.
In working with ELLs at all grade levels, we have found
Modified Guided Reading 319
Figure 1
Benefits of the Guided Reading and MGR Instructional
Approaches
Benefits of MGR for English-language learners
Benefits of guided reading for all students

that the key to determining readiness appears to be
the student’s reading level in the first language, indi-
cating the importance of L1 literacy assessment to
guide L2 instruction.
Generally, if the student is a proficient reader in
the L1, the act of reading is a known process (Heath,
1983; Jiménez, García, & Pearson, 1996; Krashen,
1985). With proper support from the teacher, students
in the early L2 acquisition stages can be successful L2
readers (Anderson & Roit, 1998; Avalos, 1999; Barrera,
1983; Goodman, Goodman, & Flores, 1979). Our expe-
riences working with L2 readers mirror these findings
in that students with a higher proficiency in the L1
most often have a smoother transition to L2 oral and
reading proficiencies. It should be noted, however,
that students who were not proficient readers in the L1
have also made gains using the MGR approach.
While basic interpersonal conversation skills
(BICS) are acquired using guided reading or other in-
teractive approaches, students’ cognitive academic
language proficiency (CALP) will develop more quick-
ly when instructional needs pertaining to language are
considered as well. CALP is academic language, or the
language of texts. According to Cummins (1981), BICS
takes two to three years to acquire and CALP, the tier of
language necessary for academic success, five to seven
years. When using texts as the instructional vehicles,
CALP will be enhanced as teachers focus on students’
combined literacy and language instructional needs. In
addition, small, flexible groups lend themselves to ac-

celerated learning; however, teacher planning for stu-
dents’ needs is the key to learning gains (Foorman,
Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Juel
& Minden-Cupp, 2000; Wiggins, 1994).
Guided reading provides teachers with a system-
atic, yet open-ended framework for evaluating stu-
dents’ needs while building upon the strengths
students have already demonstrated (Fountas &
Pinnell, 1996). MGR adds to this supportive framework
by stretching the lesson from one or two 20- to 30-
minute sessions to three or more per text, adding a
shared reading of the guided-reading text and incor-
porating word work with objectives pertaining to mor-
phological and phonemic awareness, as well as
phonics and explicit instruction of semantics and syn-
tax (Table 1). Reading, writing, listening, and speak-
320 The Reading Teacher Vol. 61, No. 4 December
2007/January 2008
Table 1
Comparing and Contrasting Guided Reading and Modified
Guided Reading
Guided reading Modified guided reading
■ Instructional cycle varies (one to two days, 20-
minute sessions)
■ Teacher presents the text through a guided
discussion connecting the content and language
structure to students’ personal lives (e.g., picture
walk, predicting)
■ Emergent and early fluent readers vocalize softly

as they read the text; fluent readers read silently
■ Teacher coaches the students by reinforcing
correct strategies and prompting to problem
solve during miscues
■ Word work focuses on phonological and
orthographical awareness
■ Instructional cycle of three or more days (20- to
30-minute sessions)
■ Teacher presents the culturally relevant text
through a guided discussion connecting the
content and language structure to students’
personal lives (e.g., picture walk, predicting)
■ Teacher reads guided-reading text aloud to
model fluency and generate discussions regarding
comprehension and vocabulary guided by teacher
and students
■ ELLs with higher L2 oral proficiency vocalize softly
as they read the text
■ Teacher observes and coaches students by
reinforcing correct strategies and using word-
recognition prompts to problem solve
■ Word work focuses on morphological awareness,
phonemic awareness, or phonics connected to
guided-reading text
■ Vocabulary journals and writing assignments
connect to guided-reading texts

ing are integrated and grounded within the selected
texts, offering relevant, meaningful instruction that val-
idates and builds on what ELLs already know.
Theory to Practice
The theory guiding the development of MGR is the in-
teractive reading model (Rumelhart, 1977). The inter-
active reading model divides the reading process into
two components: the reader’s experiences or back-
ground knowledge (top down) and the reader’s cog-
nitive processing strategies (bottom up). Birch (2002)
explained that both components work together in or-
der for the reader to gain access to the text and cre-
ate meaning. She further explained how the reader’s
world knowledge base and “cognitive processing
strategies must be working together so accurately and
efficiently that they work at an unconscious level. All
the knowledge of English graphemes, morphemes,
and words must be readily accessible in long-term
memory” (Birch, 2002, p. 148).
Using the MGR approach during literacy instruc-
tion aims to increase automaticity and improve com-
prehension of texts through an interactive
understanding of the reading process. MGR builds
stronger “understandings and appreciation for the
low-level knowledge and processing strategies” in-
volved in L2 literacy learning (Birch, 2002, p. 146).
Planning and Teaching a Guided-
Reading Lesson for ELLs
Authors specializing in guided reading suggest differ-
ent procedures for a guided-reading lesson; however,
they all have similar teaching emphases and out-

comes (see Cunningham et al., 2000; Fountas &
Pinnell, 1996; Knox & Amador-Watson, 2002). We syn-
thesized guided-reading approaches with Birch’s
(2002) focus on bottom-up processing to meet the
needs of ELLs simultaneously learning to read and
speak in a L2. A sample MGR framework for lesson
planning (Figure 2) presents a model for the reader
to use when planning an MGR lesson. Because of
space limitations, this article does not discuss how to
group students, determine the purpose of the lesson,
or select a text for guided-reading lessons (see afore-
mentioned guided-reading authors). Instead, we be-
gin here with “analyzing the text” where MGR is
substantially different than a typical guided-reading
lesson.
Analyzing the Text. Once selected, the teacher ana-
lyzes the text to prepare for the introduction, shared
and student readings, word work, and writing re-
sponse for the lesson cycle. This is done to proactively
identify possible problem areas for ELLs within the
text as well as to embed the teaching objectives with-
in a guided-reading context. The teacher begins by
reading the entire text (or portion of the text if stu-
dents are reading at a higher level) and notes poten-
tial points of confusion with the semantics (meaning)
of the text. Two to three receptive and five to nine pro-
ductive vocabulary words are identified for lesson em-
phasis. Receptive vocabulary words are those that are
low frequency and not necessarily used in everyday
speech (CALP), and productive vocabulary words
may be new or confusing to ELLs even though they
are commonly used.
Figurative language or phrases without literal
translations are other probable areas of confusion for

ELLs. Native speakers would read the word nevermind
and typically not have a problem with comprehen-
sion; but there is rarely a literal translation for it in oth-
er languages, making it confusing for ELLs. Similes
and metaphors are other examples of figurative lan-
guage that would be difficult for ELLs to understand
(e.g., “The moon looked like a big, round cheese”), al-
though not all texts contain figurative language.
The teacher also needs to note homophones and
homographs within the text. Fry, Kress, and
Fountoukidis (2000) defined homophones as words
that sound the same but have different meanings and
at times different spellings (e.g., bear cub and bare
bones). Homographs are defined as words that are
spelled the same but have different meanings and dif-
ferent origins. For example, a bat can be (a) used to
hit a baseball, (b) a flying animal, or (c) a wink. Some
homographs are also heteronyms, meaning they have
different pronunciations (e.g., bass as in a low male
voice and bass as in the freshwater fish). These types
of words potentially change the meaning of the text
for ELLs who are not familiar with their multiple defini-
tions. (See Fry et al., 2000, for comprehensive lists of
common homographs and homonyms.)
Complex grammar or syntax (word order) is some-
thing else the teacher looks for when scanning the
text. For example, when working with emergent read-
ers, the text may lend itself to instruction about com-
ma placement when writing a list. Embedding skills
within a context provides meaningful instruction for

2007/January 2008
Figure 2
MGR Lesson-Planning Framework
School: Date of lesson:
Planning the lesson(s)
1. Determine objectives of lesson(s) based upon instructional
needs (English-language learning and literacy
learning).
a. Determine the main idea or essential message from text and
supporting information.
b. Read for information to use in performing a task and learning
a new task.
c. Identify words and construct meaning from the text.
2. Group students by name/oral L2 level–instructional reading
level (e.g., Student 1/1-first grade, Student 2/1-first
grade).
3. Select guided-reading books based upon objectives and
students’ instructional reading levels.
4. Analyze the text and identify literacy challenges based upon
your knowledge of the students.
a. Semantics:
i. Vocabulary:

1. Focus on common English morphemes (e.g., affixes) or
orthographic patterns
2. Identify two to three words for receptive vocabulary and five
to nine words for productive
vocabulary
3. Understand the meaning of the story whenever possible
ii. Figurative language:
iii. Homophones (words that sound the same, different
meanings):
1. Homographs (words that are spelled the same but have
different meanings and origins):
b. Grammar (complex syntax, punctuation):
c. Text structure (narrative, expository):
d. Content or concept (cultural relevance):
e. Strategy instruction (if needed, identify good places to insert
strategy instruction during shared reading
[e.g., think-alouds, elicitation of predictions, word solving])
Extending the lesson(s)
Word work:
Writing:
Possible minilessons:

Note. As ELLs become more proficient (orally and literary),
they will need less support. This framework should be adjusted
to reflect more student
responsibility as the teacher facilitates learning and guides
when necessary.
ELLs and enables them to learn from authentic uses of
the skill rather than isolated, workbook exercises.
Knowing curricular goals and objectives facilitates
identification of grammatical and syntactical teaching
points in order to match them with the group’s instruc-
tional needs.
Teachers should also be aware of how many nar-
rative and expository texts are used during reading
instruction so that ELLS receive an instructional bal-
ance of text types. Expository texts use language differ-
ently with a greater number of low-frequency words
(Latin and Greek origin) and complex sentence struc-
tures that assist CALP development. Narrative texts
generally have more figurative language and varying
story structures or genres that not only facilitate lan-
guage development but also provide a means for de-
velopment of cultural knowledge. Table 2 outlines the
differences between expository and narrative text
types (Derewianka, 1998), demonstrating how they
each contribute to language development for ELLs.
Strategy instruction, word work, and writing are
other components of an MGR lesson that need to be
addressed before teaching the MGR lesson. Writing
should be connected to the guided-reading text and
considered a means of response. Story innovations, in-
formational reports, poems, and journal entries are ex-

amples of assignments that can be connected to
guided-reading texts. When this analysis of the text
and examination of students’ needs have been com-
pleted and matched, it is a win-win situation for teach-
ers and ELLs. Although the text analysis may seem to
be a lengthy process, with time it becomes automat-
ic. As texts are analyzed and recorded, teachers just
need to refer to their notes when using the same texts
to make any necessary modifications for different
groups of students. Finally, reviewing the concept or
content of the text is important to ensure that your stu-
dents have the background knowledge necessary to
successfully comprehend the text. Visuals or other
supplemental materials can be used to build the back-
ground knowledge during the introduction of the text
if necessary. For example, when planning a MGR les-
son for a group of fourth-grade ELLs, one of the au-
thors realized that the story was about jackals, and
the text did not have any type of picture support. The
students in the group were all from Cuba or Nicaragua
and would more than likely not know what a jackal
was. Pictures of jackals were found on the Internet
with basic information on how they survive in the
wild. This information was discussed with students
during the introduction of the text, and they were bet-
ter prepared to comprehend the story. (For a com-
plete discussion on supporting ELLs with content
learning see Echevarria, Vogt, and Short, 2000.)
Setting the Scene or Introducing the Text. The
introduction sets a successful reading experience by
mediating access to the text. Most introductions are
brief; however, it may differ for second-language
learners due to the language structures, the students’
background knowledge, or the content and character-

Table 2
Text Types and Language Features
Expository text language features Narrative text language
features
Note. Adapted from Derewianka (1998).
Some action verbs (e.g., climb, quake, eat)
Generally in the “timeless” present tense
Many linking verbs relating one part of a clause
to another
Language focuses on defining, clarifying,
and contrasting
Descriptive language that is factual and precise
Writing is usually in a formal and objective style that is
likely to contain technical vocabulary; first-person
pronouns generally unacceptable
Mainly action verbs
Generally past tense
Many linking verbs to do with time
Dialogue typically included with tense changes
from past to present to future

Descriptive language enhances and develops the
story by creating images in the reader’s mind
Can be written in the first person (I, we) or third
person (he, she, they)
istics of the book. If a concept is unfamiliar to the
students, the introduction should be as long as neces-
sary to scaffold the text. When a great deal of back-
ground knowledge building is required, it should be
done during other components of the balanced liter-
acy program (e.g., shared reading, read-aloud) or oth-
er subject-area instruction (Batzle, 1994).
Manipulatives or realia may be used to facilitate con-
versation and scaffold the meaning of the text.
Unfamiliar vocabulary can be presented at this time;
however, it is important to note that vocabulary is gen-
erally taught within the context of the story either be-
fore or during the shared reading with productive and
receptive vocabulary words identified by the teacher
during the planning phase of an MGR lesson.
The teacher may also have the students sample
part of the text by reading a sentence to call attention
to semantic or syntactic structures that may be unfa-
miliar to them. An example of this type of minilesson
would be explaining the use of called in the sentence,
“‘Gala! Kiss!’ she called.” (Scholastic, 1996, p. 254).
The owner of two dogs named Gala and Kiss was call-
ing them to come to her in this story. In a study inves-
tigating ELLs’ L2 text comprehension, Avalos (1999,
2003) found that Spanish-speaking ELLs, from begin-
ning to advanced English proficiency, interpreted this
sentence using the meaning of called as the Spanish

llamarse, which means to call oneself or to be named.
Participants in the study therefore interpreted the sen-
tence as “the woman was named Gala Kiss” when
completing written recalls to check story comprehen-
sion. This interpretation completely changes the au-
thor’s intended meaning and demonstrates the
importance of the need for teachers to be sensitive,
aware, and knowledgeable of their students’ L1 syntax
and semantic structures. The introduction should pro-
vide enough support for the students to read the text
fluently while using known strategies, yet it should al-
low opportunities for problem solving and discussion
to facilitate literacy and language learning, specifical-
ly with regard to vocabulary, phonics, and compre-
hension.
Shared Reading. Shared reading is an excellent way
to engage learners with texts, particularly learners
from diverse backgrounds (Allen, 2002; Koskinen et
al., 1999; Meier, 2003). Knox and Amador-Watson
(2002) recommend a shared-to-guided reading for-
mat. Shared reading of the guided-reading text sup-
ports L2 readers by providing teachers the opportunity
to model fluent reading, discuss the story and vocab-
ulary as the text is read aloud, make connections and
scaffold the content or concepts that may be differ-
ent for the students, and focus on strategy demonstra-
tions (e.g., think-alouds, chunking words to decode)
before the students read with guidance as needed
from the teacher. Using MGR enables ELLs to see read-
ing as a meaning-making process while vocabulary
and strategy instruction are introduced within the con-
text of texts.
Students discussing their understanding of the text

could reveal a misinterpretation due to a literal trans-
lation from L1 to L2, a different experience base than
the author’s, or a need for vocabulary instruction. It is
recommended that teachers of L2 readers assess com-
prehension in a manner that is open-ended and con-
ducive to discovering language-learning needs
(Avalos, 1999). Bernhardt (1991) expressed this well
by explaining that L2 readers “approach a text from
their first language framework” (p. 16). Thus, there is
the possibility of a divergent understanding before any
reading ever takes place. These diverse understand-
ings are a result of various causes ranging from mi-
crolevel text features (e.g., orthography) to
grammatical structures (e.g., How does word order
differ in the L1 versus L2?) to the issue of literacy ac-
cess in the primary culture (e.g., What is a supermar-
ket tabloid or fairy tale?). Examples of open-ended
comprehension assessments include retelling (i.e.,
written or oral in the L1 or L2), asking open-ended
questions without “known answers” (Heath, 1983), or
inviting the student to infer and explain a character’s
action (e.g., “Why do you think the grandmother al-
ways sat in the chair by the window?”).
Reading the Text. After the teacher has set the
scene, introduced the text, and conducted the shared
reading, the students read the book to themselves.
Emergent readers will vocalize softly as they read, pro-
gressively moving toward silent and independent
reading. The softly vocalized reading may initially dis-
tract some students, but soon they become accus-
tomed to the routine and the soft vocalization is no
longer an issue.
The teacher’s role is to maintain anecdotal records
as he or she listens and observes the students imple-

ment strategies, stepping in to guide by reinforcing
and providing appropriate prompting as teachable
moments present themselves. The teacher also rein-
forces positive reading behaviors by calling attention
2007/January 2008
to the strategies being used by a student or by using
this time to model effective reading strategies.
Fundamental to the success of this approach is the
teacher’s ability to create a learning environment that
facilitates a high level of comfort. Students must feel
that their remarks and conversation are important.
How teachers react to students’ comments determines
how and if they will continue to share their thoughts
about texts, take risks in using the L2, and inquire
about language use (Krashen, 1982).
When a child does not use a cueing system cor-
rectly he or she is making a miscue. For many strug-
gling readers, particularly ELLs, it is common for
students to make miscues because the form (language
graphophonics, syntax, or semantics) is new and the
content could also be unfamiliar; therefore, both are
competing forces while performing or reading aloud.
Syntactic (language structure) cues may be one of
the most difficult for ELLs to understand because they
may not always know if a sentence sounds right due to
their developing English-language proficiency. Knox
and Amador-Watson (2002) stated that
Typical lists of coaching prompts used during guided

reading lessons are often incomprehensible for English
language learners. For example, “Does it make sense?”
or “Does it sound right?” require the student to call on a
native speaker’s intuitive grasp of English, which the sec-
ond language learner naturally does not have. Many
prompts include abstract language that describe unseen
processes inside the reader’s head and are inaccessible
to ELLs who need concrete support for language to be
comprehensible. (Unit 7, p. 95)
Instead of prompting, it is recommended that ELLs
be coached with explicit demonstrations integrating
the cueing systems using a three-step process. First, the
teacher models the strategy, describing the process by
thinking aloud. Then the student applies and demon-
strates the strategy modeled by the teacher. Finally,
the student is asked to verbalize the strategy by think-
ing aloud in order to internalize the process.
Returning to the Text. When the students have
completed their independent reading of the text, the
teacher engages the students in a conversation similar
to the introduction. Students share their thoughts
about the text, including questions and connections
they may have had during the reading. The teacher
asks open-ended questions to enhance comprehen-
sion and generate dialogue. Accepting students’ an-
swers without criticism is key. Repeating the student’s
response to a question and then asking why they think
that provides teachers with clues as to how the text
was interpreted in such a way. This in turn provides
teachable moments and a guide for future instruction.
Upon subsequent teacher analyses of retellings, when
consistent language patterns or miscues are noted,
assessment will drive instruction as language- and

literacy-learning needs are identified and met.
Responding to the Text. Many books lend them-
selves to the extension of learning activities through
art, writing, or drama in response to the reading, thus
expanding the meaning of the text. Although it does
not always seem feasible to plan such activities for
every book because of time constraints, these exten-
sions can be beneficial for ELLs to further develop
their understanding of concepts and reading or lan-
guage skills. Whenever possible, the teacher should
plan to have students respond to the texts using dif-
ferent activities that are tied in with identified objec-
tives. It is highly recommended that reading, writing,
listening, and speaking be integrated as much as pos-
sible throughout the curriculum for ELLs (Au, 1993).
Word Work. ELLs learn more when new concepts
are context embedded (Cummins, 2003). Guided-
reading lessons provide optimal opportunities for stu-
dents to apply and learn word-solving skills
throughout the lesson. Word work can be taught ex-
plicitly after the text has been read in order to mini-
mize interruptions of the reading process. This explicit
instruction is particularly important for ELLs because
of their developing language proficiency. The word-
work lessons should incorporate systematic phonics
as well as morphological instruction. ELLs are in the
process of acquiring the sounds and structure of the
L2 and typically encounter difficulties with pronunci-
ation of sounds that are not found in their L1 (e.g., the
English /th/ sound for Spanish speakers). The Words
Their Way (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston,
2004) approach to word study allows us to assess
spelling and integrate word work within our MGR les-
sons at appropriate levels according to the ELLs’

knowledge of the English sound system.
MGR in Classrooms
We have used MGR with elementary, middle, and
high school ELLs in a large, urban school district. Each
time we have implemented MGR in these various
classroom settings, reading gains have been made.
Because of space limitations, only the results of a
small study with middle school students will be report-
ed here (Table 3).
After nine months of working in Ms. Lopez’s class-
room (all names are pseudonyms), her group of 13
students gained an average of 1.8 grade levels in L2
reading. Ms. Mays’s 10 students made an average gain
of 1.3 grade levels within four months of implement-
ing MGR. Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate the growth
recorded for each participant. Students 9 and 10 from
Ms. Mays’s groups (Figure 4) appeared to make no
progress; however, they were reading at the preprimer
level with frustration for the pretest and at an instruc-
tional level for the posttest. Students 6, 7, and 8 made
1–2 grade level gains, reading at the preprimer (in-
structional level) for the pretest.
Student perceptions of the MGR approach, as
measured by a survey following the intervention peri-
ods, were overwhelmingly positive. All participants
enjoyed participating in the intervention and felt they
learned more about reading, writing, and speaking

English during the MGR sessions. Specifically, they
learned more about English sounds and how those
sounds related to the letters. Participants also felt that
the small-group instruction format helped them to
comprehend what was being read because they could
ask questions and clarify anything they didn’t under-
stand. In addition, they all agreed that they enjoyed lis-
tening to books being read aloud by the teacher and
would like to continue using the MGR approach for
reading instruction.
Creating and Gaining Meaning
From Text
From our work with MGR in elementary and secondary
classrooms, ELLs have enjoyed this approach to read-
ing and English-language instruction. Student engage-
ment was high when working in small groups; thus,
literacy and language learning needs were met using
2007/January 2008
Table 3
Context of Pilot Study
Ms. Mays Ms. Lopez
School population (% ELL) 2,100 (22%) 1,363 (10%)
Environmental context of school Inner-city urban Urban
School population qualifying 96% 65%
for free or reduced-cost lunch
program
Assessment instrument used Ekwall/Shanker informal

Burns/Roe informal
reading inventory reading inventory
Number of students receiving MGR 10 13
Mean age of students 13 13
Months in USA (Average/range) 25/3–48 months 36/24–48
months
Range of Spanish (L1) instructional Preprimer to fourth grade
At or above fourth grade
reading levels prior to MGR
Range of English (L2) instructional Preprimer to second grade
First to fourth grade
reading levels prior to MGR
Time receiving MGR 24 30-minute sessions 36 30-minute
sessions
Average reading level gains in 1.3 grade levels 1.8 grade levels
L2 after receiving MGR
Figure 3
Reading Gains of Students in Ms. Lopez’s Classroom (as
Measured by the Burns/Roe Informal Reading
Inventory)
Figure 4
Reading Gains of Students in Ms. Mays’s Classroom (as
Measured by the Ekwall/Shanker Informal

Reading Inventory)
texts as vehicles to provide meaningful instruction.
MGR also allowed us to get to know the students bet-
ter as we had many conversations that enabled them to
make connections between the texts and their lives.
MGR provides students with the understanding
that reading is about creating and gaining meaning
from text. Teachers work with students as they devel-
op the strategies, allowing the students to be success-
ful when they encounter syntax, contexts, or
vocabulary that is unfamiliar to them. More research
needs to be conducted in order to assess the extent
of MGR’s effectiveness when instructing ELLs. The
goal of guided reading is for children to progress and
read more challenging texts independently and suc-
cessfully. Using this modified instructional model,
teachers are able to monitor ELLs’ progress, meet their
needs in order to facilitate literacy and language learn-
ing, and enable students to self-extend their reading
and language proficiencies by building on what is
known in their L1.
Avalos teaches at the University of Miami, Florida,
USA; e-mail [email protected] Plasencia and
Chavez teach in the Miami-Dade County Public
Schools in Florida. Rascón teaches in the Boulder
Valley School District in Boulder, Colorado, USA.
References
Allen, J. (2002). On the same page: Shared reading beyond the
pri-

mary grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1998). Reading as a gateway to
language
proficiency for language-minority students in the elementary
grades. In R.M. Gersten & R.T. Jiménez (Eds.), Promoting
learn-
ing for culturally and linguistically diverse students: Classroom
applications from contemporary research (pp. 42–54). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Au, K.H. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings.
Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
Avalos, M.A. (1999). Elementary students’ second language
litera-
cy development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of California, Riverside.
Avalos, M.A. (2003). Effective second language reading
transition:
From learner specific to generic instructional models. Bilingual
Research Journal, 27, 171–205.
Barrera, R. (1983). Bilingual reading in the primary grades:
Some
questions about questionable views and practices. In T.H.
Escobedo (Ed.), Early childhood bilingual education: A
Hispanic perspective (pp. 164–183). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Batzle, J. (1994). Guided reading in the child-centered
classroom.
Crystal Lake, IL: Rigby.
Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F.

(2004).
Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and
spelling instruction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Bernhardt, E.B. (1991). Reading development in a second lan-
guage: Theoretical, empirical, and classroom perspectives.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Birch, B.M. (2002). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collier, V.P., & Thomas, W.P. (1999). Making U.S. schools
effec-
tive for English language learners, part 2. TESOL Matters, 9(5),
1, 6.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development
in
promoting success for language minority students. In Schooling
and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp.
3–49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment
Center, California State University.
Cummins, J. (2003). Reading and the bilingual student: Fact and
friction. In G.G. Garcia (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the
highest level of English literacy (pp. 2–33). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Cunningham, P.M., Hall, D.P., & Sigmon, C.M. (2000). The
teacher’s
guide to the four blocks: A multimethod, multilevel framework
for grades 1–3. Greensboro, NC: Carson-Dellosa.
Derewianka, B. (1998). Exploring how texts work. Newtown,
NSW,

Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2004). Making content
compre-
hensible for English learners: The SIOP model (2nd ed.).
Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Schatschneider,
C., &
Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read:
Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.
Fry, E.B., Kress, J.E., & Fountoukidis, D.L. (2000). The reading
teacher’s book of lists (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodman, K., Goodman, Y., & Flores, B. (1979). Reading in
the
bilingual classroom: Literacy and biliteracy. Rosslyn, VA:
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words Language, life, and work
in
the communities and classrooms. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Jiménez, R.T., García, G.E., & Pearson, P.D. (1996). The
reading
strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful
English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading
Research Quarterly, 31, 90–112.
Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words:
Linguistic units and instructional strategies. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35, 458–492.

Knox, C., & Amador-Watson, C. (2002). Responsive instruction
for
success in English (RISE): Building literacy and content knowl-
edge with English language learners. Participant’s resource
note-
book and reading booklet. Barrington, IL: Rigby Professional
Development.
Koskinen, P.S., Blum, I.H., Bisson, S.A., Phillips, S.M.,
Creamer, T.S.,
& Baker, T.K. (1999). Shared reading, books, and audiotapes:
Supporting diverse students in school and at home. The
Reading Teacher, 52, 430–444.
Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practice in second
language ac-
quisition. New York: Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D. (1985). Inquiries and insights: Second language
teaching. Haywood, CA: Alemany.
Meier, T. (2003). “Why can’t she remember that?”: The
importance
of storybook reading in multilingual, multicultural classrooms.
The Reading Teacher, 57, 242–252.
Reutzel, D.R., & Cooter, R.B. (2005). The essentials of teaching
chil-
dren to read: What every teacher needs to know. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
2007/January 2008

Rumelhart, D.E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of
reading. In
S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI: Proceedings of
the sixth international symposium on attention and performance
Stockholm, Sweden, July 28–August 1, 1975 (pp. 573–603).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scholastic. (1996). Literacy place. New York: Author.
Slavin, R.E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on
lan-
guage of reading instruction for English language learners.
Review of Educational Research, 75, 247–284.
Wiggins, R.A. (1994). Large group lesson/small group follow-
up:
Flexible grouping in a basal reading program. The Reading
Teacher, 47, 450–460.

Abortion 1. What according to Warren are the 5 conditions .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Abortion 1. What according to Warren are the 5 conditions .docx

Similar to Abortion 1. What according to Warren are the 5 conditions .docx (9)

More from daniahendric

More from daniahendric (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Abortion 1. What according to Warren are the 5 conditions .docx