bctela 2013, cr4yr and collaboration

Success for All Readers

BCTELA 2013

Faye Brownlie & Maureen Dockendorf

www.slideshare.net/fayebrownlie

Learning Intentions •  I can find evidence of current reading research in my pracJce

•  I have a plan to incorporate a pracJce that is different to me

•  I am leaving with a quesJon

•  What would happen if…

•  Belief •  Practice

We CAN teach all our kids to read.

•  Struggling readers need to read MORE than non-‐struggling readers to close the gap.

•  Struggling readers need to form a mental model of what readers do when reading.

•  Struggling readers need to read for meaning and joy

•  Struggling readers do NOT need worksheets, scripted programs, or more skills pracJce.

Building Independence •  Build criteria with your students – What do good readers do?

•  NoJce when the students are using the co-‐created criteria

•  Ask the students “What should I noJce about what you are doing when you are reading?”

We now have good evidence that virtually every child who enters an American kindergarten can be reading on level by the end of first grade (Mathes, et al, 2004; Phillips & Smith, 2010; VelluJno, et al, 1996).

-‐Richard Allington, keynote address, IRA, 2011

98% on grade level at year end: Mathes, et al (2004); VelluJno, et al (1996);

Phillips, et al (1998)

•  Every successful intervenJon study used either 1-‐1 expert tutoring or 1-‐3 very small group expert reading instrucJon.

•  None of the studies used a scripted reading program.

•  All had students engaged in reading 2/3 of the lesson.

-‐grades 1 and 2 – 60 minutes reading, 30 minutes on skill

-‐aim for your kids to read 6 books in school and 6 more acer school

High Success Reading •  99% accuracy •  Reading in phrases •  90% comprehension

Our key questions:

Did that make sense?

Our key questions:

How did you figure that out?

M – meaning

Does this make sense?

S – language structure Does this sound right?

V – visual informaJon Does this look right?

The best way to develop phonemic segmentaJon is through invented spelling; children with pens and pencils, drawing and wriJng.

-‐Marilyn Adams, 1990

-‐about 20% of children do not develop phonemic segmentaJon readily

•  K/1 – spend a maximum of 10 minutes/day on phonics – small impact on phonic knowledge; no difference on comprehension

•  Beyond grade 1 – no staJsJcal difference for any phonics

•  NaJonal Reading Panel

“Every Child, Every Day” – Richard Allington and Rachael Gabriel

In EducaJonal Leadership, March 2012

6 elements of instrucJon for ALL students!

1. Every child reads something he or she chooses.

2.  Every child reads accurately.

-‐intensity and volume count!

-‐98% accuracy

-‐less than 90% accuracy, doesn’t improve reading at all

Strategy Cards – Catching Readers Before They Fall (Johnson & Keier)

4.  Every child writes about something personally meaningful. -‐connected to text -‐connected to themselves -‐real purpose, real audience

K/Grade 1 Writing Commons & Jakovac

Samples from June 7th, 2012

3.  Every child reads something he or she understands. -‐at least 2/3 of Jme spent reading and rereading NOT doing isolated skill pracJce or worksheets -‐build background knowledge before entering the text -‐read with quesJons in mind

Shared Reading Lesson

Picture Book Strategy Lesson

Gr 3 Joni Cunningham, Richmond

•  Building vocabulary from pictures •  Establishing ficJon/non-‐ficJon •  PredicJng •  Directed drawing •  WriJng to retell and connect

The Swaps Who Give away Want

scarecrow hat walking sJck

badger walking sJck ribbon

crow

5. Every child talks with peers about reading and wriJng.

6.  Every child listens to a fluent adult read aloud.

-‐different kinds of text

-‐with some commentary

Professional Collaboration •  InteracJve and on-‐going process •  Mutually agreed upon challenges

•  Capitalizes on different experJse, knowledge and experience

•  Roles are blurred •  Mutual trust and respect

•  Create and deliver targeted instrucJon •  GOAL: beper meet the needs of diverse learners

No plan, no point

Why Collaboration/Co-teaching?

•  Based on the belief that collabora6ve planning, teaching and assessing be:er addresses the diverse needs of students by crea6ng ongoing effec6ve programming in the classroom

•  It allows more students to be reached

Learning in Safe Schools, page 102 Chapter 9


•  It allows more students to be reached

•  It focuses on the ongoing context for learning for the students, not just the specific remedia6on of skills removed from the learning context of the classroom

•  It builds a repertoire of strategies for teachers to support the range of students in classes

Learning in Safe Schools, page 102 Chapter 9

Why Collaboration/Co-teaching?


•  It allows more students to be reached •  It focuses on the ongoing context for learning for the

students, not just the specific remedia6on of skills removed from the learning context of the classroom

•  It builds a repertoire of strategies for teachers to support the range of students in classes

•  Impera6ve students with the highest needs have the most consistent program Learning in Safe Schools,

page 102 Chapter 9

Goal:

•  to support students to be successful learners in the classroom environment

Rationale:

By sharing our collecJve knowledge about our classes of students and developing a plan of acJon based on this, we can beper meet the needs of all students.

A Key Belief

•  When interven6on is focused on classroom support it improves each student’s ability and opportunity to learn effec6vely/successfully in the classroom.

Co-Teaching Models (Teaching in Tandem – Effective Co-Teaching in the Inclusive

Classroom – Wilson & Blednick, 2011, ASCD)

•  1 teach, 1 support •  Parallel groups •  Sta6on teaching •  1 large group; 1 small group

•  Teaming

1 Teach, 1 Support •  most frequently done, least planning •  Advantage: focus, 1:1 feedback, if alternate roles, no one has the advantage or looks like the ‘real’ teacher, can capitalize one 1’s strengths and build professional capacity

•  Possible piPall: easiest to go off the rails and have one teacher feel as an ‘extra pair of hands’, no specific task (buzzing radiator)

1 Teach, 1 Support: Examples •  demonstra6ng a new strategy so BOTH teachers can use it the next day – e.g., think aloud, ques6oning from pictures, listen-‐sketch-‐draW

•  Students independently working on a task, one teacher working with a small group on this task, other teacher suppor6ng children working independently

Parallel Groups •  both teachers take about half the class and teach the same thing.

•  Advantage: half class size -‐ more personal contact, more individual a:en6on

•  Possible piPalls: more 6me to co-‐plan, requires trust in each other, each must know the content and the strategies.

Parallel Groups: Examples •  word work. At Woodward Elem, the primary worked together 3

X/week, with each teacher, the principal and the RT each taking a group for word work. Some schools have used this with math ac6vi6es.

•  Focus teaching from class assessment. Westwood Elementary: Came about as a result of an ac6on research ques6on: How do we be:er meet the needs of our students?: –  primary team used Standard Reading Assessment, highlight on short

form of Performance Standards, Resource, ESL, principal involved, cross-‐graded groups 2X a week, for 6 to 8 weeks driven by informa6on from the performance standards (Text features, Oral Comprehension, Risk taking, Cri6cal thinking with words, Gecng the big picture,… , repeat process

–  NOT paper and pencil prac6ce groups…teaching/thinking groups

Station Teaching •  mostly small groups •  can be heterogeneous sta6ons or more homogeneous reading groups

•  each teacher has 2 groups, 1 working independently at a sta6on or wri6ng, 1 working directly with the teacher.

•  Advantage: more individual a:en6on and personal feedback, increased focus on self regula6on

•  Possible piPall: self regula6on (needs to be taught), 6me to plan for meaningful engagement.

Station Teaching: Examples •  Guided reading: 4 groups; RT has two and CT has two

•  math groups – Michelle’s pa:erning (1 direct teaching, 2 guided prac6ce, 1 guided prac6ce with observa6on)

•  science sta6ons: CT and RT each created two sta6ons; co-‐planning what they would look like to ensure differen6a6on, teachers moved back and forth between groups suppor6ng self-‐monitoring, independence on task

1 large group, 1 small group

•  Advantage: either teacher can work with either group, can provide tutorial, intensive, individual

•  Possible piPall: don’t want same kids always in the ‘get help’ group

1 large group, 1 small group: Examples

•  Wri6ng: 1 teacher works with whole class prewri6ng and draWing, small groups of 3-‐4 students meet with 1 teacher to conference

•  Reading: everyone’s reading. large group: teacher moving from student to student listening to short oral reads. Small group: 2 to 3 students being supported to use specific reading strategies or –  small group is working on a Reader’s Theatre

•  Math: large group using manipula6ves to represent shapes, small groups, rota6ng with other teacher, using iPads to take pictures of shapes in the environment

Teaming

•  most seamless. •  co-‐planned •  teachers take alternate roles and lead-‐taking as the lesson proceeds

•  Most oWen in whole class instruc6on and could be followed up with any of the other four co-‐teaching models

•  Advantages: capitalizes on both teachers’ strengths, models collabora6on teaching/learning to students, can adjust instruc6on readily based on student need, flexible

•  Possible piPalls: trust and skill

Teaming: Examples

•  Brainstorm-‐categorize lesson – 1 teacher begins, other teacher no6ces aspects the first teacher has missed or sees confusion in children, adds in and assumes lead role.

•  Modeling reading strategies: two teachers model and talk about the strategies they use to read, no6ng things they do differently.

•  Graphic organizer: Teachers model how to use a seman6c map as a post reading vocabulary building ac6vity, teacher most knowledgeable about seman6c mapping creates it as other teacher debriefs with students; both flow back and forth

bctela 2013, cr4yr and collaboration

Education