Tag Archive for 'Reading'

Page 3 of 6

Engelmann explains

Zig Engelmann, progenitor of Direct Instruction (DI), has posted a video of a talk he gave earlier this month. The presentation is an explication of the underlying principles of DI, “Theory of Direct Instruction.”

In the presentation (video below the jump), Mr. Engelmann shows some of his chops from his undergraduate degree in philosophy. He starts with philosophers’ fundamental arguments and shows how those correspond (or don’t) with learning and teaching concepts. For example, as he works through John Stuart Mills’ five methods of induction from A System of Logic, he makes clear how each would apply to teaching. I suspect that this particular sequence will show many people why DI instruction (the examples used in the scripts, not the teaching behavior) is structured the way it is.
Continue reading ‘Engelmann explains’

Sphere: Related Content

BEE on struggling readers

Under the auspices of the Best Evidence Encyclopedia, Bob Slavin and colleagues Cynthia Lake, Susan Davis, and Nancy Madden released an analysis of the research literature on methods for teaching students who are struggling to learn to read, “Effective Programs for Struggling Readers: A Best-Evidence Synthesis.” In the synthesis they report the results of their examination of nearly 100 studies that used randomized or well-matched control groups, lasted for at least 12 weeks, and employed trustworthy measures of outcomes. The results of their review, which include both effect sizes and narrative descriptions of the studies, provide valuable insight into effective methods for remediating reading problems.

Key Findings

Overall, 96 experimental-control comparisons met the inclusion criteria, of which 38 used random assignment to treatments. Effect sizes (experimental-control differences as a proportion of a standard deviation) were averaged across studies, weighting by sample size.

One-to-One Tutoring by Teachers: ES=+0.38 in 19 studies
• Reading Recovery: ES=+0.23 in 8 studies
• Other programs: ES=+0.60 in 11 studies

One-to-One Tutoring by Paraprofessionals and Volunteers: ES=+0.24 in 18 studies
• Paraprofessionals: ES=+0.38 in 11 studies
• Volunteers: ES=+0.16 in 7 studies

Small Group Tutorials: ES=+0.38 in 11 studies

Classroom Instructional Process Approaches (low achievers): ES=+0.56 in 16 studies
• Cooperative Learning: ES=+0.58 in 8 studies

Classroom Instructional Process Programs with Tutoring (Success for All, low achievers): ES=+0.55 in 9 studies

Instructional Technology (low achievers): ES=+0.09 in 14 studies

Salvin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2009). Effective programs for stuggling readings: A best-evidence synthsis. Best Evidence Encyclopedia: http://www.bestevidence.org/reading/strug/strug_read.htm

Sphere: Related Content

Do reading curricula make a difference?

Curricula Compared

  • Harcourt
  • Houghton Mifflin
  • Open Court
  • Reading Mastery
  • Scott Foresman
  • Success for All

Reporting in the Journal of School Psychology, Elizabeth Crowe and colleagues recount the methods and results of a study of children’s reading growth during the primary grades. They placed special emphasis on questions about whether different core curricula result in different rates of growth and whether students from lower-SES backgrounds achieve more under one or another curriculum. Although the results of the study do not provide conclusive evidence that any one curricula trumps all others, they give glimpses of programs’ different effects.

In their study, Crowe et al. examined growth in “oral reading fluency” for 30,000 students in Florida (US) receiving instruction using six different core reading curricula during 1st-3rd grades. Generally, they found that almost 3/4ths of the variation in students’ scores was attributable to child factors, but the 1/4th attributable to other factors included differences in the curricula they experienced. They also found, of course, that children’s reading performance, as measured in words read correctly per minute, increased over the grades; however, the increases began to slow late in 3rd grade. In addition, they reported that students from lower-SES backgrounds had lower reading rates than their advantaged peers, but that curricula did not produce different rates of growth for low- versus high-SES students.
Continue reading ‘Do reading curricula make a difference?’

Sphere: Related Content

Reading First advocates

I noticed with interest that there is a Web site entitled “The National Association for Reading First.” What’s it about? Here’s the text from the front page:

HomeMembershipState DataUpcoming EventsUSDOEShare Your VoiceContact UsAbout Us

Our Purpose

To promote the implementation of effective, scientifically-based K-3 reading instructional models related to addressing the literacy crisis in our nation

To promote and disseminate applied scientific research-to-practice information to guide effective reading instructional practices and interventions for all students

To foster a mutually informative relationship between scientific researchers and members of the professional educational community

Our Vision

All educational professionals will provide research-based instruction ensuring literacy success for all students.

Our Mission

Bridge scientific research and classroom practice to increase literacy achievement for all students.

Link to the Web site and explore on your own.

Reminder: I am a member of the Reading First Advisory Committee. I am not, however, speaking for the committee, my fellow panelists, nor the US Department of Education here. This entry simply reports the existence of the identified Web site so that others may know about it and make their own evaluations of it.

Sphere: Related Content

Hunh?

Could this be for real? Anyone seen any data? (Not likely.)

New iPhone Application to Help Children Learn to Read using Phonics

London, UK – Apps in My Pocket Ltd launches PocketPhonics for iPhone. Children can now enjoy learning to read using phonics on an iPhone or iPod Touch. Phonics is the reading system recommended by education specialists in both the US and UK.

Teacher, Sue Keen, said: “As a teacher of young children, I am always anxious that new resources for the classroom have a strong educational basis and actually work. I’ve used PocketPhonics with children aged 4 to 6 and the results have been very encouraging. You know you’re winning when the child doesn’t want to stop.”

John Friend, company director at Apps in My Pocket, said: “PocketPhonics starts by saying the sounds and showing children how to write them. It’s been developed from scratch with children in mind, for parents to use with their children or for use in the classroom. Children love to copy the writing on the handheld screen using their finger, and shake the iPhone to make their writing disappear. Sounds are taught in small groups so they can be quickly used together in a game to make short words.”

Pricing and Availability:
PocketPhonics costs $2.99 (USD) in the US and £1.79 in the UK, and is available to download now from Apple iTunes. It uses touch, graphics, animation and sound to make learning to read both fun and engaging for younger children. There’s also a free “lite” version so that people can see how it works before they buy.

Apps in My Pocket
PocketPhonics
PocketPhonics Lite (free version) Download Link
PocketPhonics purchase link
Main screen
Phonics game screen

Apps in My Pocket Ltd started in October 2008 to create useful and usable applications for Apple’s iPhone, iPhone 3G and iPod Touch. PocketPhonics is the first app to be launched. More information can be found at their website. Copyright 2008 Apps in My Pocket Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Apple, the Apple logo, iPhone and iPod are registered trademarks of Apple Computer in the U.S. and/or other countries.


[MacMegasite]

Sphere: Related Content

Reading First national conference

People at RF '08
Wrapping up ’08 RF conference

As reported previously, I had the pleasure of attending the Fifth Annual Reading First National Conference. I found it a very impressive event. Although I really am flattered to be among the folks shown in the accompanying photo (l-f: Donna Scanlon, Joe Conaty, Frank Vellutino, and Katherine Mitchell), I think my favorite part of the event was hearing what the teachers, coaches, and administrators had to say.

When I hear most other folks talk about reading, they use a very different language; they talk about book tubs, word walls, high-interest books, round-robin reading, and such. When I talk with a select few colleagues about reading instruction, I am accustomed to talking about students’ performance on specific measures of component skills, altering teaching demonstrations (e.g., pacing), features of instructional presentations, scaffolding instruction systematically, and etc. For the first time in my life, I was in a place where literally 1000s of people were talking the way I am accustomed to being able to talk with only a few colleagues.

The teachers, coaches, principals, and others whom I met in Nashville know their stuff! Not only that, they know that they can help each other by collaborating using their shared language. There are powerful teams capable of excellent reading instruction scattered around the US now. They know they can teach kids to read. They have done it.

As Joe Conaty pointed out in his closing remarks, no one can take away from those teams what they now know how to do. Remembering this really makes my emotional cup full to overflowing.

Previous posts about the conference: Laura Bush’s comments (29 July 2008); pin map (28 July 2008); overview (28 July 2008).

Sphere: Related Content

Moscovitch on RF

In an editorial opposite the editorial page of the Boston (MA, US) Herald, Edward Moscovitch advocated continuation of the Reading First program. Under the 8 July 2008 headline “No time to close book: Though threatened, reading program is working,” Mr. Moscovitch addresses many of the concerns discussed about Reading First. Here’s his lead:

Reading First, a major part of the No Child Left Behind law, encourages schools in low-income districts to use frequent assessments and research-based instruction to improve student reading. Report after report shows student gains.

And yet today the program is headed for the congressional chopping block – a victim of misunderstood studies and even more specious charges of insider dealings. If that happens, the nation’s children will be the real losers.

Continue reading ‘Moscovitch on RF’

Sphere: Related Content

Some factors affecting effectiveness

According to an analysis by Gregory J. Palardy and Russell W. Rumberger, differences in teacher effectiveness have larger effects on young children’s outcomes in reading and math than do differences in teachers’ backgrounds factors such as level of education and types of certifications held. The teacher quality effects were also substantially greater than the effects for children’s families’ SES in their study and than the effects for class-size reduction (25 25 versus 15 students per classroom) reported in another study.

Professors Palardy and Rumberger arrived at this conclusion by analyzing data from a large data set that is representative of students in the US. They used a sophisticated analytic approach that permitted them to assess the effects of inputs, processes, and outputs at the school, classroom, and individual student levels.

This study uses Early Childhood Longitudinal Study data to investigate the importance of three general aspects of teacher effects—teacher background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices—to reading and math achievement gains in first grade. The results indicate that compared with instructional practices, background qualifications have less robust associations with achievement gains. These findings suggest that the No Child Left Behind Act’s “highly qualified teacher” provision, which screens teachers on the basis of their background qualifications, is insufficient for ensuring that classrooms are led by teachers who are effective in raising student achievement. To meet that objective, educational policy needs to be directed toward improving aspects of teaching, such as instructional practices and teacher attitudes.

Palardy, G. J., & Rumberger, R. W. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 111-140.

Link to the abstract.

Sphere: Related Content




Bad Behavior has blocked 1049 access attempts in the last 7 days.

*/goog +1 script added 20110711 */