Archive

Posts Tagged ‘esl reading’

Eight Reading Intervention Models

Administrators, special education teachers, ELD coordinators, reading specialists, teachers, and parents need to work together to mesh Response to Intervention (RtI) guidelines with resources, personnel, and schedules  to plan and implement effective reading intervention programs that will work for their own schools. Following are eight intervention models with proven track records. After all, why re-invent the wheel? Each of the following models is described and analyzed in pro-con format and includes suggestions for successful adaptations and preparations for your school site.

1. The Early-Late Reading/English-language Arts Model

Description

All students are grouped according to reading (or literacy) levels. The lower-middle group is scheduled to begin school, say 55 minutes before core instruction. The middle-upper group is scheduled to begin after the early group is dismissed. This traditional elementary school model has now been implemented by some middle schools. High schools and community colleges traditionally have larger student populations, which provide greater schedule flexibility with extended morning and afternoon classes at some sites.

Pro

*Reduces class size for both remedial and other readers

*Does provide a specific daily time for reading remediation

Con

*Reduces the instructional time for other content areas

*Arbitrary placement of students into “high” and “low” groups

Suggestions

*Make early-late placement flexible so students can transition from early to late and from late to early.

2. The After-School Remedial Reading Model

Description

Students are flexibly grouped according to reading levels. Teachers and/or instructional assistants provide compensatory instruction beyond the instructional day. Both full-year and half-year intensive programs are typically used in this model.

Pro

*Provides compensatory instruction so that students are able to “catch up” and “keep up” with grade-level instruction

*Is easily scheduled and allows for flexible student groupings and “in and out” transitions

Con

*Budgetary considerations

*Student and parent “buy-in”

Suggestions

*Explore flexible teacher scheduling e.g., split-schedules, part-time hires, shared contracts.

*Use a highly-trained reading teacher with excellent curricular resources.

3. The Pull-Out Remedial Reading Model

Description

Students are pulled from Reading/English-language Arts instructional blocks according to diagnostically assessed reading deficits and receive reading instruction, frequently from special education specialists.

Pro

*Does not disrupt student schedule

*Students can be remediated in ability groups

Con

*Interrupts student and teacher instruction and students miss out on core instruction

*Pull-outs can be perceived as embarrassing for students

Suggestions

*Pull out students at beginning or ending of period or during assigned reading time.

*Use a highly-trained reading teacher with excellent curricular resources.

4. The Reading Elective Model

Description

Students are assigned to a remedial reading class in lieu of their elective.

Pro

*Students can be scheduled throughout the day in roughly defined ability groups

Con

*Replaces the students’ elective choices

Suggestions

*Use a highly-trained reading teacher with excellent curricular resources.

5. The Replacement Model

Description

Students are assigned to a remedial reading class in lieu of their language arts, physical education, science, or social studies core classes, or combination thereof.

Pro

*Students can be scheduled throughout the day in roughly defined ability groups

Con

*Students miss out on grade level instruction

Suggestions

*Use a highly-trained reading teacher with excellent curricular resources.

6. The Reading/Language Arts Block Model

 Description

The school schedules an extended period (or days) of reading/language arts with time within the block allocated to Tier I and II differentiated reading instruction.

Pro

*Does provide for a specific time for reading intervention

*Does not disrupt student schedules

Con

*Requires all teachers to be proficient in and committed to remedial reading instruction

*May not provide enough time for remedial reading instruction

Suggestions

*Need school-wide professional development in remedial reading instruction.

7. The Heterogeneously Grouped Differentiated Instruction Model

Description

Students are grouped heterogeneously with the expectation that teachers will teach Tier II or III reading skills through differentiated instruction.

Pro

*Mixed class provides opportunities for flexible grouping and peer tutoring

*Does not disrupt student schedule

Con

*Requires all teachers to be proficient in and committed to remedial reading instruction

*May not provide enough time for remedial reading instruction

Suggestions

*Need school-wide professional development in remedial reading instruction.

8. The ELD and SDAIE Grouped Instruction Model

Description

English-language learners are grouped according to CELDT or other assessments into leveled ELD or SDAIE classes to receive differentiated reading instruction, support content instruction, and maximize language acquisition. Separate newcomers classes are usually the norm.

Pro

*Narrows ability grouping by language development levels

*Differentiates instruction

*Provides extensive support for newcomers

Con

*Limits student scheduling

*Tracking affects student attitude and behavior

*Requires extensive ELD or SDAIE expertise

Suggestions

*Train a cadre of teachers in specific teaching strategies.

*Guarantee “in and out” program mobility for students.

Mark Pennington, MA Reading Specialist, is the author of the comprehensive reading intervention curriculum, Teaching Reading Strategies. Designed to significantly increase the reading abilities of students ages eight through adult within one year, the curriculum is decidedly un-canned, is adaptable to various instructional settings, and is simple to use—a perfect choice for Response to Intervention tiered instructional levels. Get multiple choice diagnostic reading assessments , formative assessments, blending and syllabication activitiesphonemic awareness, and phonics workshops, comprehension worksheets, multi-level fluency passages recorded at three different reading speeds and accessed on YouTube, 586 game cards, posters, activities, and games.

Also get the accompanying Sam and Friends Phonics Books. These eight-page decodable take-home books include sight words, word fluency practice, and phonics instruction aligned to the instructional sequence found in Teaching Reading Strategies. Each book is illustrated by master cartoonist, David Rickert. The cartoons, characters, and plots are designed to be appreciated by both older remedial readers and younger beginning readers. The teenage characters are multi-ethnic and the stories reinforce positive values and character development. Your students (and parents) will love these fun, heart-warming, and comical stories about the adventures of Sam and his friends: Tom, Kit, and Deb. Oh, and also that crazy dog, Pug.

Everything teachers need to teach a diagnostically-based reading intervention program for struggling readers at all reading levels is found in this comprehensive curriculum. Ideal for students reading two or more grade levels below current grade level, English-language learners, and Special Education students. Simple directions and well-crafted activities truly make this an almost no-prep curriculum. Works well as a half-year intensive program or full-year program, with or without paraprofessional assistance.

Pennington Publishing's Teaching Reading Strategies

Teaching Reading Strategies

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary , , , , , , , , , , ,

Writing in an ELD Classroom

I teach seventh grade English-language arts in Elk Grove, California. I have a wonderful mix of students, including Filipino, Mexican, Hmong, Mien, Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, Ukrainian, Cuban, Colombian, and Korean children, each with varying degrees of proficiencies in their primary languages. These are not “newcomers,” or L1 or L2 classified students, but are L3, L4, and L5 students. This means that they have more than just “playground” familiarity with English, but some will have significant struggles with the academic language of the classroom. Each language brings special challenges to the world of expository writing.

Reading impacts writing. The reading-writing connection is more important than many of us realize. The Mien and Chinese primarily use a logographic written language, based upon the Chinese characters. Some of my students can write some of the symbols; some can’t. Most can read some of the more common characters because their parents still use them. The Hmong developed an alphabetic system only in the last last fifty-five years. Many of my Hmong parents would be considered illiterate in English. Russians and Ukrainians use the Cyrillic alphabet. The symbols are significantly different than those of our alphabetic code. Students are particularly adept at code-switching between languages; however not everything regularly “translates.”

Oral language proficiency most significantly impacts expository writing ability. The language of the playground is conducive to the narrative form. Students are more likely to ask “What did you do at lunch, which requires a narrative response, rather than “Tell me two reasons why you like this school and explain,” which requires an expository (informational, here) response. Additionally, even though our school does mix friendships across ethnic lines more than some, the predominant groupings are by languages. A mix of English and primary languages constitutes “out of classroom” talk. Primary language is even more emphasized when “newcomers” or L1-L2 students are part of the groups. This fact is often ignored in language acquisition research, because even if students have demonstrated L5 or full English proficiency, they still “hang-out” with friends with less English proficiency.

Compounding the challenges or teaching students of mixed primary languages is the issue of dialect. My Spanish-speakers have significantly different dialects and idioms. Mexican, Colombian, and Cuban speakers share the mother tongue of Spanish, but their pronunciations and expressions are different. Add to this mix my African-American students with mixed dialects.

All of my developing writers bring different degrees of oral language proficiencies and dialectical influences that will impact their ability to appropriate English vocabulary, diction, grammar, syntax, and usage. For example, Asian students struggle with singulars and plurals and articles. African-Americans struggle with double negation and the misplaced “to-be” verbs. Spanish-speaking students struggle with adjective placement. Even punctuation differences affect writing abilities.

In the mixed salad bowls of our classrooms, each culture and language contribute a distinctive flavor to our learning environment. Teachers reading articles such as this one are taking important steps to meet the instructional challenges of this diversity. Being aware of how oral language proficiency impacts writing is the first step. Differentiating instruction, accordingly, is the next step.

Find essay strategy worksheets, on-demand writing fluencies, sentence revision andrhetorical stance “openers,” remedial writing lessons, posters, and editing resources to differentiate essay writing instruction in the comprehensive writing curriculum,Teaching Essay Strategies.

Pennington Publishing's Teaching Essay Strategies

Teaching Essay Strategies

Grammar/Mechanics, Writing , , , , , , , , , ,