Successfully reported this slideshow.

Mase

744 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Mase

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. <ul><li>Your name </li></ul><ul><li>Your Role </li></ul><ul><li>Why you are here or what you hope to get from this round table. </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  3. 3. Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  4. 4. <ul><li>Highlight Components of Striving Reader Course: Academic Literacy 9 and share research/theoretical base. </li></ul><ul><li>Share Evidence Based Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Offer Research Conclusions </li></ul><ul><li>Offer Components needed for Effective Leadership in Systematic Literacy Intervention. </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  5. 5. <ul><li>A secondary striving reader in ISD196 is a student who scores at or below the 40 th percentile nationally in reading on at least two, preferably three, standardized test(s) (ISD 196, 2006). </li></ul><ul><li>Minnesota Department of Education: A Model Secondary (6-12) Plan for Reading Intervention and Development. January, 2006 </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  6. 6. <ul><li>Theoretical Framework: </li></ul><ul><li>Comprehension Strategy Theory (Chall, 1983, 1996; Harvey & Goudvis, 2000, 2007). </li></ul><ul><li>“ Zone of Proximal Development”; Just Right Challenge and Gradual Release of Responsibility (Vygotsky, 1978 ). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Formative Assessment Research (Afflerbach, 2007; Stiggens, Arter, Chappuis & Chappuis, 2006). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Engagement/Self-efficacy Theories (Dweck, 2007; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Guthrie, 2008; Kohn, 1999; O’Brien, 2008; Vacca, 2006; and Wilhelm, 1997). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multi-Literacy and Digital Literacy Research (Alvermann, 2001; Alverman & Eakle, 2007; Antsey & Bull, 2006; New London Group, 1996; O’Brien, 2006). </li></ul></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  7. 7. Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  8. 8. Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  9. 9. Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  10. 10. Podcasting, glogster, Moodle, animoto, wikis, poll everywhere, movie maker, digital photography, i-tunes, flip video cameras, the Internet. . . Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  11. 11. Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  12. 12. <ul><li>Benefit: </li></ul><ul><li>Accelerated Reading Growth </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  13. 13. t tests reveal statistically significant mean gains for all areas at the .01 level Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  14. 14. Students #1-28 Total score out of 48 Bar Plot to show differences between Spring DRA2 and Fall DRA2 total scores. Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  15. 15. <ul><li>27 of 28 showed growth in reading on the DRA2 </li></ul><ul><li>BUT. . . </li></ul><ul><li>Did they grow at a faster rate than their peers? </li></ul><ul><li>How does their growth compare to striving readers NOT in Academic Literacy 9: </li></ul><ul><li>How does their growth compare to ‘on grade level’ readers in 9 th grade? </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  16. 16. <ul><li>MAP RIT Score, National Percentile Rank, and Growth (Posttest minus the Pretest score) </li></ul><ul><li>Variance of Analysis (ANOVA) to determine if statistically significant difference in means (averages) exist between groups. </li></ul><ul><li>Post hoc analysis (Scheffe) to determine which means are significantly different from which other means </li></ul>AL9 (n=28)— treatment group Con (n=21)— control group Gen9 (n=257)— sample from general population Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  17. 17. <ul><li>ANOVA: Statistically significant mean difference detected at the .01 level </li></ul><ul><li>Scheffe: Mean difference is significant at the .01 level for the following pairs: </li></ul><ul><li>AL9 and Gen9 </li></ul><ul><li>Con and Gen 9 </li></ul><ul><li>No statistical significance for: </li></ul><ul><li>AL9 and Con </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  18. 18. <ul><li>ANOVA: Statistically significant mean difference detected at the .01 level </li></ul><ul><li>Scheffe: Mean difference is significant at the .01 level for the following pairs: </li></ul><ul><li>AL9 and Gen9 </li></ul><ul><li>Con and Gen 9 </li></ul><ul><li>No statistical significance for: </li></ul><ul><li>AL9 and Con </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  19. 19. <ul><li>ANOVA: Statistically significant mean difference detected at the .01 level </li></ul><ul><li>Scheffe: Mean difference is significant at the .01 level for the following pairs: </li></ul><ul><li>AL9 and Gen9 </li></ul><ul><li>AL9 and Control </li></ul><ul><li>No statistical significance for: </li></ul><ul><li>Gen9 and Control </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  20. 20. <ul><li>Benefit </li></ul><ul><li>Students on IEPs identified as Striving Readers experienced Accelerated Reading Growth </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  21. 21. Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  22. 22. Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  23. 23. N= 8 Academic Literacy 9 N=12 Control Group Academic Literacy 9 Control Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  24. 24. <ul><li>Benefit </li></ul><ul><li>Raised Self-Efficacy </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  25. 25. Strong relationship between reading growth and students’ perceived self-efficacy (.883) Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  26. 26. <ul><li>Adolescent Striving Readers need a Double Dose of Literacy Instruction </li></ul><ul><li>One Year of Strategic Intervention is not Enough for Most Striving Readers </li></ul><ul><li>Strong correlation exists between students’ self-efficacy and reading growth </li></ul><ul><li>Regular Ed programming for Striving Readers can partner with Special Ed programming to benefit students with reading needs. (Pyramid of Intervention or RTI) </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  27. 27. <ul><li>Questions to Ponder as a Leadership Team: </li></ul><ul><li>Are we offering continued support for striving readers throughout high school (9-12)? </li></ul><ul><li>Are we exploring ways to include our content area teachers in scaffolding to meet their needs? </li></ul><ul><li>Are we immersing our students in texts at their level in ALL their classes so they get MORE not LESS? </li></ul><ul><li>Are we resisting the tendency to PULL kids out of their content area classes and instead PUSH in so they are getting MORE not LESS? </li></ul><ul><li>Are we creative with our schedules to be sure striving readers are getting sustained double (or even triple) doses of literacy instruction? </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  28. 28. <ul><li>Are we partnering with our SpEd and ELL colleagues to effectively and efficiently offer intervention to ALL who need it? </li></ul><ul><li>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)? </li></ul><ul><li>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)? </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  29. 29. <ul><li>Our intervention plans must </li></ul><ul><li>• substantially expand the volume of daily reading; </li></ul><ul><li>• ensure access to appropriate texts all day long; </li></ul><ul><li>• provide needed expert, explicit, personalized instruction; and </li></ul><ul><li>• craft a coherent and balanced array of reading lessons and activities. </li></ul><ul><li>(Allington, 2006) </li></ul>Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D
  30. 30. Contact Information: Jennifer McCarty Plucker, EdD [email_address] [email_address] 651-283-8521 Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D

×