1 / 22

Maria Ceprano, Professor Buffalo State College Heather Lyon, Head of School

Raising the Bar for the ELA Field Experience: JPs Partnering with Teachers in the RTI Instructional Program. Maria Ceprano, Professor Buffalo State College Heather Lyon, Head of School Enterprise Charter School Jing Zang, Assistant Professor Buffalo State College.

bruce-brewer
Télécharger la présentation

Maria Ceprano, Professor Buffalo State College Heather Lyon, Head of School

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Raising the Bar for the ELA Field Experience:JPs Partnering with Teachers in the RTI Instructional Program Maria Ceprano, Professor Buffalo State College Heather Lyon, Head of School Enterprise Charter School Jing Zang, Assistant Professor Buffalo State College

  2. Response to Intervention (RtI) RTI -- A multi-tiered service system aimed at providing all students within a school with instruction tailored to their skill needs at their best level of instruction http://www.readinghorizons.com/Images/Blog3/RTI%20Triangle.jpg

  3. Enterprise’s RtI Model for 2013-2014 Teacher assisted more needy Tier 2 level students. JPs were assigned three Tier 1 and 2 students groups. The taught these groups 2 days each week. Each JP assisted: one group of first or second graders one group of second or third graders one group of fourth or fifth graders (Noguera, 2003)

  4. Main Tasks for JPs • Develop and teach three 2day contiguous lessons for each of their three groups. • Master the Guided Reading Strategy Weave special strategies within its 3 phases. • Choose children’s literature at the appropriate level for their assigned groups. • Evaluate children in assigned groups on a regular basis using running records.

  5. Schedule

  6. Each child receives instruction at his/her assessed Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to: Foster comprehension Develop vocabulary meaning Support other skill needs like: Advantages for Children • Decoding • Fluency • Silent reading, etc. • (Fountas and Pinnell,2010; Torgesen,1998; Wilson, H. M., 2008) http://www.reading.org/sf-images/reading-today/zpdrep.jpg?sfvrsn=0.4110916794743389

  7. Advantages for Teachers • Decreases the student to teacher ratio. • Increased support for having more children receiving comprehension instruction at their ZPD. (Burns and Parker, 2010) • Possibility of improved performance on State Assessments.

  8. Guided Reading • Phase 1 Before Reading Elicit Prior Knowledge Develop Tier Two and Tier Three Vocab. Provide General Pre- Questions • Phase 2 During Reading Silent Reading Individual Whisper Reading (Running Record & Assessment) • Phase 3 After Reading Scaffolding Strategies to develop comprehension

  9. Blue circle students are working with the teacher. Red circle students are working with the JP.

  10. Results:For Junior Practitioners • Mastering guided reading with procedural additions • Deeper level of understanding of the ZPD • Continued opportunities to do running records • Developing familiarity with children literature • Experience with primary and intermediate students • Opportunity to observe/experience different mentors • Field practice approximating EDTPA literacy requirements

  11. 3.5- upper K (C) 4.5- low 1st (D) 6.5 – Mid 1st (E) 9.0 - Mid 1st (H)

  12. Reading Level Label 5.5: Low 1st (D) 8.0: Mid 1st (G) 12.2:Low 2nd (J) 13.7: Mid 2nd (L )

  13. 4th 13.3: Low 2nd(K) 14.0: Mid 2nd (L) 14.25: Mid 2nd (L)15:00 Mid 2nd (M)

  14. Results for Children of Enterprise Percentage of Students at Proficiency for ELA

  15. Expansions for 2014-2015 • Expansions and Hopes • In the Spring of 2014 we had Medaille and Daemen to maintain the program initiated in the Fall with Buff State (Dr. Ceprano was on sabbatical). • In the 2014-15 school year we have been fortunate enough to have all three colleges working with our students to provide support three days per week.

  16. References Burns, M.K. & Parker, D.C. ( 2010). Using the Instructional Level as a Criterion to Target Reading Interventions. www.cehd.umn.edu/Reading/documents/reports/Burns-Parker-2010.pdf Fountas, I. & Pinnell ( 2009-2010). Research and Data Collection Project. Heinemann, www.heinemann.com/fountasandpinnell/research/LLIResearchDataCollectionExecSummary.pdf Noguera, P. (2003) City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of Public Education. Teachers College Press. Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator, 22, 32–39. Wilson, H. M. (2008). The effect of rereading text at a student’s instructional level upon reading fluency. In Proceedings: 4th Annual Symposium: Graduate Research and Scholarly Projects. Wichita, KS: Wichita State University, p.161-162

More Related