Individualizing Reading Strategies for Students. BY: Michelle Jennings Wichita State University. Where are YOU stuck?. “Stuck on the Escalator” ( youtube ). Helping All Students Read Requires:. A complete understanding and teaching knowledge of the “Big 5” in reading
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
These are all intertwined and relate to each other and can equal success for all students
http://www.fcrr.org/assessment/ET/essentials/Components/components.html (GREAT RESOURCE)
Find where students are when they enter the classroom
When evaluating the bottom quartile of readers all these pieces should be assessed
Upper elementary students can be deficient in phonemic awareness and alphabetic principle
FOCUS MORE ON VOCABULARY THE OLDER
When students cannot understand vocabulary within text, students are not comprehending.
Many words students decode, students do not comprehend.
Reading fluency focuses on rate, accuracy, phrasing and expression.
If students are not fluent readers first identify their vocabulary knowledge of the passage they are reading.
If decoding is the issue…evaluate phonics.
Student Birth NWEA (Sept. & May %) Read. Level (Sept. & May) KS Read.
A June ’99 15% - 69% Early 2nd - 5th Grade 93%
B Mar. ’00 19% - 48% Early 2nd - Late 3rd 88%
C Apr., 00 9% - 39% Early 2nd - 5th Grade 89%
D Dec., ’00 4% - 20% Early 1st - Late 2n 93% (KAMM)
Participants and their Services
Student Inclusion Services Reading Lab ELL No Services
A Yes No Yes No
B Yes No NoNo
C No NoNo Yes
D Yes No NoNo
E Yes No NoNo
F No Yes No No
G No NoNo Yes
H No Yes No No
Four students with Inclusion; Two students with Reading Lab Service, One ELL student and two students with no services.
No Inclusion students, four pull out students, two reading lab students,
no ELL students and two speech students and two students with no services.
Individualize As Much As Possible
Curtis, M.E., & Longo, A.M. (2001, Novemer). Teaching vocabulary to adolescents to improve comprehension. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/curtis/index.html
Herron, J. (2008, September). Why phonics teaching must change. Educational Leadership, 66(1), 77-80.
Juel, C., & Deffes, R. (2004, March). Making words stick. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 30-34. Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.wichita.edu/hww/results/results_single_ftPES.jhtml
McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005, Summer). Responding to nonresponders: an experienmental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 445-463.
Penner-Wilger, M. (February, 2008). Reading Fluency: a bridge from decoding to comprehension. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from AutoSkill Website: http://www.autoskill.com/pdf/fluency_research.pdf
Tomlinson, C. A. (2008, November). The goals of differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 26-30.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2004). Research-based methods of reading instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.