3. Program Strengths
Strengths
● Basal program with paper and online resources
● Knowledgeable Literacy Coaches
● Software Based literacy resources
● Use of technology for further instruction that allows for use of
another modality
● Collaborative Activities
● Interesting activities that engage students
● Teacher shows genuine altruistic investment in students
● Artifacts of previous lessons displayed in student language
● Evidence of student work is present
● Centers are present
4. Program Weaknesses
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
The basal program is not being consistently taught with fidelity throughout
each classroom.
Literary Coaches are not always available
No evidence of classroom based formative assessment to guide instruction
Over Reliance of summative assessment to guide instruction
Teacher does not spend enough time giving instruction on new concepts. This
leads to poor understanding thereby requiring clarifying questions throughout
the collaborative processes.
Activities may be interaction however the content is not challenging or does
not have depth.
Very little independent time for activities. Students are paired or grouped
but never appear to work independently on new concepts.
Poor library materials and accessibility
Little evidence of differentiation
5. Summative Overview of Interviews
● All instructional members were aware of district’s
initiatives and their leader’s vision.
● Reading teachers were knowledgeable of best
instructional practices, but readily admitted to “not
implementing best practices all the time” because of
the demands of the job.
● All members admitted that high stakes testing was at
the heart of the district’s vision and initiatives
6. Prevalent Overarching Issue Based on
Interviews with program participants
Reading assessments are marked by imbalance
within the program. Why?
Partly, because of the attention given to high
stakes summative assessments and the lack of
attention that is given to classroom based
reading assessments.
7. Imbalances that Teachers Require Explicit
Training On
1st Imbalance:Reading Processes Vs. Reading Products
2nd Imbalance: Reading Skills Vs. What the student understands from reading
3rd Imbalance:Cognitive & Affective Reading Outcomes Vs. Reader
Characteristics
4th Imbalance: Formative Reading Assessment Vs. Summative Reading
Assessment
5th Imbalance Assessments Done to the student Vs. Done with & by the
student
6th Imbalance: Demand of teacher Vs. Professional Development
Opportunities
8. Suggestions for Improvement
Teachers should strive for thoughtful
assessments. Thoughtful assessment seek to
use knowledge about what students should
know and combine this with our best
understanding of effective assessment. This is
done so that we can make inferences from
these reading assessments.
9. Assessments should be...
● Formative to shape our understanding of
developing reading
● Summative to provide evidence of students
meeting benchmarks
10. Suggestions for formative classroom
comprehension assessments
Because comprehension can be literal,
inferential, critical and evaluative teachers
should formulate questions that cover all four
levels. From these questions teachers can
make inferences about the development of
students’ reading comprehension.
11. Suggestions for classroom based
assessments
Talented teachers use their students’ characteristics and their understanding
of classroom based assessments to guide instruction.
Going forward teachers must be trained of effective classroom reading
assessments.
As they:
●
●
●
Inform for the purpose of important educational decisions
Helps the teacher determine student’s Zone of Proximal Development
Are balanced so that they provide teachers with rich and current info
about students
12. References
Bernhardt, V.L. (2000). Intersections: New routes open when one type of data crosses
another. Journal of Staff Development, 21(1), 33-36.
International Reading Association, N. E. (2002). Supporting young adolescents' literacy learning. A Joint Position Statement of the International
Reading Association and the National Middle School Association.
Illinois State Board of Education. (2013, December 8). No child left behind/adequate yearly progress. Retrieved from http://www.isbe.state.il.
us/ayp/htmls/faq.htm
Kamil, M. L., Pearson, P.D., Moje, E. B., & Afflerbach, P. P. (EDs). (2011). Handbook of reading research. Vol. IV. New York, NY: Routledge.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2008). Handbook of writing research. New York: The Guilford Press
Marchand-Martella, Nancy E., Martella, R. C., Modderman , S. L., Petersen, H. M. & Pan, S . (2013). Key Areas of Effective Adolescent
Literacy
Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., Rycik, J. A., & International Reading Association, N. E. (1999). Adolescent Literacy: A Position
Statement for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association.
Morrow, L. Gambrell. & Pressley, M. Eds (2007). Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (3rd E.d).New York: Guilford press.
Programs. Education & Treatment Of Children (West Virginia University Press) 36, no. 1: 161-184. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost
