Considera7ons in the, P Chamberlain

Tags: Economic disadvantages, Culture differences, cultural competence, societal context, School climate, Academic achievement, informal assessments, Academic language, Core content, Exclusion Clause, Nonsense Word Fluency, Yesenia, Language Development, Language Survey, Discrepancy Method, cultural factors, peers, Emergent readers, Learning environment, reading comprehension, urban school, References, Student and teacher, B. Smolkowski, Hispanic students, The Journal of Special EducaAon, reading skill, English Language Learners, Patricia Chamberlain, formal language, Learning Problems, Cross cultural, formal schooling, family factors, Language proficiency, Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
Content: Considera*ons in the Considera*on in the Iden*fica*on and Support of English language Learners with Learning Problems March 2 9 , 2014 Language Ma2ers Loyola Conference Patricia Chamberlain [email protected]
Agenda · Current PracAces · Seven Factors To Consider · Case study · InstrucAonal ImplicaAons · ReflecAon
ACTIVITY: Use post--its.. · What pracAces support you in idenAfying children with disabiliAes? · What pracAces act as barriers in idenAfying children with disabiliAes?
Considera*ons for CLD Students · Personal and family factors · Psychological and physical factors · Previous schooling and performance · language proficiency · learning environment · Academic achievement · Cross cultural factors Hamayan, Marler, Sanchez--Lopez, Damico (2007)

Previous schooling and
Amount of formal schooling in L1
· Amount of formal language assistance programs
· Quality of programs
· Consistency
· Scope and sequence of curriculum
Personal and family factors · SES · Student responsibiliAes outside school · family dynamics · Mobility · ExpectaAons · Interests · ExperienAal background
BICS = Basic Interpersonal Communication skills CALP = Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (Cummins, 2000)
Language: The Big Picture
B Entering I Beginning C S Developing Expanding
Hands-on instruction Emergent readers Emergent writers Predictable books Copying Everyday communication Unedited speech Instant clarification of concept possible Playground conversation Contextualized, concrete Limited vocabulary Two to three years to attain
Academic language
Expository, formal language
Decontextualized, abstract
Required for literacy
Absence of features normally presented
in conversational discourse
Three to ten (or more) to attain
standardized tests
content areas
State Assessments
Rela*ve Language Proficiency
6 5 4 L2 3 2 1
12 3 4 5 6 L1
Academic achievement · Core content · Formal and informal assessments · Academic language (L1/L2) · Comparison to true peers · History
Cross cultural factors · AcculturaAon status · School climate · Resilience · Level of cultural responsiveness in educaAonal se]ng and bigger societal context · Staff's cultural competence · Cultural brokers · Level of biculturalism/mulAculturalism
Persistent Challenge: Applying the Exclusion Clause · Eligibility teams must rule out: ­ Environmental disadvantages ­ Economic disadvantages ­ Limited English proficiency
Persistent Challenge: Applying the Exclusion Clause · Eligibility teams find it difficult to apply the exclusion clause because so many factors are interrelated. ­ Culture differences ­ LinguisAC Differences ­ Poverty
Assump*ons Klingner/NCCRESt · Evidence based instrucAon is good for everyone · IntervenAons based on strong CLD theory · Learning to read in one's second language is similar to learning to read in one's first language · IntervenAons validated on similar populaAon · Students who fail to respond to research based instrucAon have some learning problem · Context influences validity of intervenAon
RTI: Dual Discrepancy Method · Unresponsiveness can be operaAonalized as dual discrepancy (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Speece, 2002): --Student performs substanAally below level compared to peers. --Student is not making saAsfactory progress --Student demonstrates a learning rate substanAally below peers.
Another Perspec*ve Wilkenson, OrAz and Robertson--Courtney (2004) · Expert panel agreed with slightly over Ѕ findings by IEP teams · Of qualified group, panel quesAoned LD classificaAon and suggested addiAonal info needed · For nonqualifiers, panel found: significant events not considered, records incomplete, inappropriate assessment, intervenAons not completed or not documented
Case Study -- Yesenia § Yesenia was born in the United States and is a second generaAon Mexican-- American. § She a2ended Head Start for one year where she had some instrucAon in Spanish. § She a2ended a bilingual kindergarten before moving to a school with an ESL--only model (no Spanish support) at the beginning of first grade.
Yesenia--con*nued § On the Woodcock--Munoz Language Survey ­ Revised, Yesenia scored a Level 3 in English and Spanish. § She qualifies for and must receive services from the federally-- funded Title III (English as a second language/English Language Development) program.
Academic Achievement § Since Yesenia had linguisAc and educaAonal experiences in two languages, she was screened in English (DIBELS) and Spanish (IDEL). § Both measures have been demonstrated to be reliable predictors of ELL students' reading outcomes (Baker, Cummings, Good & Smolkowski, 2007; Riedel, 2007; Vanderwood et al, 2008; Fien et al, 2008).
Problem Description
Expected Level of Performance
Letter Naming Fluency
Phoneme segmentation
> 35
Nonsense Word Fluency
Fluidez en nombrar letras
> 35

Fluidez en segmentaciуn de 53
Fluidez en las palabras sin 39
> 35

Instruc*onal Recommenda*ons · In small group brainstorm some ideas about Yesenia's literacy instrucAon. · Have a recorder keep a list · A reporter will share with the whole group · A task master will keep you on task.
Plan instrucAon § Since Yesenia is at low risk in L1 reading skills, she should receive Tier 1 (core curriculum) literacy instrucAon in Spanish or if not possible English using ESL techniques. § She should be taught to transfer what she knows in Spanish to English (although given her young age these may be limited because she has not yet developed a solid foundaAon in L1 literacy).
Interven*on Examples · Dialogic Reading h2p:// launching/roots/ · SIOP h2p:// Echevarria · Esperanza h2p:// · Hopscotch h2p:// hopscotch--el--sistema--de--la--intervencion--de-- lectura--sil.aspx

A Bridging Approach should be u*lized to
connect knowledge across 2 languages.
§ She will need explicit instrucAon in the, big ideas, vocabulary and language structures used in all instrucAon and intervenAons.
§ She will benefit from encouraging her family to
conAnue her naAve language development.

Urow and Beeman (2013)
QuesAons about intervenAon · What areas does the student have gaps in learning? · How is the intervenAon instrucAon designed to target these needs? · Is the intervenAon instrucAon explicit and systemaAc, with modeling and ample opportuniAes to pracAce and receive immediate correcAve feedback? Describe. · Describe the pracAce opportuniAes provided during a typical intervenAon lesson. · How many opportuniAes for correcAve feedback were provided during a typical lesson?
QuesAons about intervenAon · Did it take more intervenAon instrucAon than you expected for the student to master a strategy? · Explain what you did. · Does the student generalize the strategies and use them in other content areas? Give examples. · What aspects of the intervenAon contributed to the student's learning? (What worked?)
References · Baker, D. L., Cummings, K. D., Good, R. H., III, & Smolkowski, K. (2007). IDEL: Indicadores Dinбmicos del Йxito in la Lectura: Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instrucAonal recommendaAons in kindergarten through third grade (Tech. Rep. No. 1). Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group. · Brown, J.E., & Dooli2le, J. (2008). A cultural, linguisAc, and ecological framework for response to intervenAon with English language learners. Teaching ExcepAonal Children, 40(5), 67--72. · Fien, H., Baker, S. K., Smolkowski, K., Smith, J. M., Kame'enui, E. J., & Thomas Beck, C. (2008). Using nonsense word fluency to predict reading proficiency in K--2 for English learners and naAve English speakers. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 391--408. · Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English Language Learners: What the research does and does not say. American Educator, 8--44.
References · Gunn, B. Smolkowski, K., Biglar, A., Black, C., & Blair, J. (2005). Fostering the development of reading skill through supplemental instrucAon: results for Hispanic and Non-- Hispanic students. THE JOURNAL of Special EducaAon, 39, 66-- 86. · Haagar, D. & Windmueller, M. P. (2001). Early reading intervenAon for English language learners at--risk for learning disabiliAes: Student and teacher outcomes in an urban school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 235--250. · Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (2005). The Early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap. American Educator 27(1), 4--9.
References · Linan--Thompson, S., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research--based methods of reading instrucAon for English language learners: Grades K ­ 4. Alexandria, VA: AssociaAon for Supervision and curriculum development. · Riedel, B. (2007) The relaAon between DIBELS, reading comprehension, and vocabulary in urban first--grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 546--567. · Vanderwood, M. L., Linklater, D., & Healy, K. (2008). PredicAve accuracy of Nonsense Word Fluency for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 37, 5--17. · h2p:// wright_Classroom_Teacher_First_Responder_Packet_1_NECS D_Dec_2010.pdf · h2p:// RTI_for_English_Language_Learners_4--29--10FINAL.pdf

P Chamberlain

File: considera7ons-in-the.pdf
Author: P Chamberlain
Author: Patricia Chamberlain
Published: Mon Mar 24 23:28:13 2014
Pages: 28
File size: 0.89 Mb

TH Etech, 6 pages, 0.67 Mb
Copyright © 2018