How can I Best Support my Emergent Readers and Writers in their Literacy Development, AM Beckett, E Education, J Hankes

Tags: guided reading, Interactive Writing, control group, emergent writers, intervention, Spanish writers, development, assessment, action research, fluency, readers and writers, literacy development, las Palabras, Zone of Proximal Development, Experimental Group, stages of writing development, Transitional stage, developmental stage, monolingual children, writing sample, Small group, Green Bay Area Public School, Elementary Education, Curriculum and Instruction, Angela M. Beckett, emergent readers, literature review, Judith Hankes, Teberosky, Gentry, writing development, Sonidos de las Palabras, Ferreiro, experimental groups, primary intervention, Group Guided Reading Text, Anne Sullivan, Running Records Assessment Results Control Group Student, study participants, young children
Content: How can I Best Support my Emergent Readers and Writers in their Literacy Development? Angela M. Beckett December 2006 elementary education 792Seminar in Curriculum and Instruction Dr. Judith Hankes
2 How can I Best Support my Emergent Readers and Writers in their Literacy Development? Angela M. Beckett A Seminar Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science in Education Curriculum and Instruction University of Wisconsin- Oshkosh Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8621 December 2006
Approval
Date
First Reader: __________________________________________________
Second Reader: ________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Study Sequence Statement of the Problem Situating the Problem Literature Review Methods Participants Data Sources and Analysis Intervention Findings Conclusions Future Implications References Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C
3 page 4 page 5 page 6 page 6 page 8 page 14 page 14 page 16 page 17 page 22 page 23 page 24 page 25 page 29 page 32
4 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of small group Interactive Writing instruction, as a means to support emergent first grade Spanish writers in their writing fluency and native language literacy development. The study was motivated by the fact that my emergent writers had difficulty with writing fluency. They struggled when attempting to organize their thoughts into words and put their words into print. The results of this study indicated that small group Interactive Writing combined with guided reading and word work produced greater learning gains than guided reading and word work alone. The small group Interactive writing process positively impacted the writing fluency of my emergent writers and helped them move forward in their development as writers.
5 STUDY SEQUENCE September Brainstormed possible action research topics Identified action research topic Drafted statement of the problem Gathered and copied necessary pre/post assessment documents Consulted Anne Sullivan Elementary Literacy Coach, Andrea Landwehr Administered pre-assessment Began literature review research Began Guided Reading and Small Group Interactive Writing intervention Revised statement of the problem Drafted situating the problem Revised situating the problem Drafted literature review October Continued Guided Reading and Small Group Interactive Writing intervention Submitted UW-Oshkosh human consent form Drafted literature review (continued) Revised situating the problem (continued) Revised literature review Administered post-assessment Drafted methods section Graphed findings November Graphed findings (continued) Analyzed data Drafted findings section Attached appendices (pre/post assessments) Drafted conclusions and future implications section Drafted abstract Completed table of contents Submitted to second reader: Andrea Landwehr, Anne Sullivan Elementary Literacy Coach Submitted to first reader: Dr. Judith Hankes, UW-Oshkosh professor Revised draft
6 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The Bilingual Language Arts Grade Level Benchmark Eng.B1:1.2 of the Green Bay Area public schools curriculum framework states that first grade bilingual students should be able to express their ideas in writing, in Spanish, both clearly and effectively; yet many of my emergent Spanish writers lack writing fluency, the ability to organize their thoughts into words and their words into print. I conducted this action research study to determine whether small group Interactive Writing, in addition to guided reading and word work, would help my emergent Spanish readers and writers in their writing fluency and native language literacy development. SITUATING THE PROBLEM Currently, I team-teach in a first grade bilingual classroom at Anne Sullivan elementary school in the Green Bay Area Public School District. Sullivan is a kindergarten through fifth grade SAGE school, located on the east side of Green Bay. Approximately 76% of our students receive free or reduced lunch, and approximately 34% of our total population is Spanish-speaking. Sullivan has therefore recently implemented a transitional bilingual program model, to support the learning of our Spanish-speaking students. Our current program includes both pull-out and in-classroom models. Sullivan currently has three pull-out bilingual teachers servicing kindergarten through fifth grade, as well as three in-classroom teachers at the kindergarten, first and third grade levels. I serve as the in-classroom bilingual teacher for first grade. I teamteach with an English speaking classroom teacher. Our classroom consists of 30 students, 15 of whom are primarily Spanish-speaking and 15 of whom are Englishspeaking. During our literacy block, I teach Spanish literacy to the Spanish-speaking
7 students in Spanish, while my team-teaching colleague teaches English literacy to the English-speaking students. In the afternoon, together with all of the children, we teamteach math, science and social studies concepts, primarily in English with Spanish support as necessary. The Green Bay Area Public School's Bilingual Language Arts Curriculum Framework expects first grade bilingual students, at the culmination of the year, to be able to express their ideas in writing, in Spanish, both clearly and effectively. This is a difficult task for emergent writers, because writing is a very complex process that requires the student to organize thoughts into words and words into print. Most of my emergent Spanish writers lack this writing fluency. Their greatest challenge occurs with transcribing their intended message independently, as children at this level experience difficulty hearing and recording sounds in words, forming letters, writing words, and understanding conventions of print. Often during independent journaling time, many of my emergent Spanish writers will create their picture plan and come to me for guided writing support. They do not view themselves as writers and lack the self-confidence needed to take the risk to compose and transcribe their thoughts independently. The purpose of this action research study was to determine the effectiveness of small group Interactive Writing and its impact on developing writing fluency. Small group Interactive Writing is an instructional strategy used to support the progress of emergent writers. Small group Interactive Writing is a shared writing experience, between the teacher and a small group of emergent to early writers, which assists children in developing reading and writing strategies and skills, while working with print. In addition to guided reading and word work, I implemented small group Interactive
8 Writing, as an intervention method in my action research study, to support my emergent Spanish readers and writers, in an effort to improve their writing fluency and native language literacy development. The following review of literature focuses on emergent writing development and the effectiveness of Interactive Writing, as a means to support emergent readers and writers in their early literacy development. LITERATURE REVIEW Reading, writing, and speaking are all interrelated. One writes to communicate ideas to readers and reads to understand writing (Robb, 2003). Few would challenge the importance of writing in early literacy development, as the reciprocity between Reading and writing is evident (Askew, Frasier, 1999). According to Chomsky (1971), children write before they read and therefore use writing to gain knowledge of letter/sound relationships and how print works in books (Robb, 2003). Yet, writing is a very complex task, especially for the emergent writer, as it involves a complex series of actions: Children have to think of a message and hold it in the mind. Then they have to think of a how to start it, remember each letter form and its features, and manually reproduce the word letter by letter. Having written that first word (or an approximation), the child must go back to the whole message, retrieve it, and think of the next word. Through writing, children are manipulating and using symbols, and in the process learning how written language works. (Askew, Frasier, 1999) Young writers progress along a writing continuum, a series of developmental stages or levels. Their writing at each stage reflects their hypotheses and attempts of how to best represent their ideas in print (Freeman, Freeman, 1996). To support emergent writers in their writing development, educators need to understand the developmental stages of writing. Using Gentry's stages of writing development for monolingual English-speakers and Ferreiro and Teberosky's levels of writing development for mono-
9 lingual Spanish-speakers, the stages of writing development that emergent, early, and transitional writers progress through are summarized and compared below. Precommunicative stage- Gentry's precommunicative stage of writing development, Level 1 & 2 of Ferreiro and Teberosky's stages of writing development, is the initial developmental stage of writing. During the precommunicative stage, children scribble and write mock letters or real letters that do not correspond to sounds. Children in the precommunicative stage of writing development demonstrate an understanding that writing communicates a message and is different than drawing. When comparing monolingual Spanish-speaking children's early writing samples with monolingual English-speaking children's early writing samples, Kamii and Manning (1999) found both groups of children wrote random letters that were unrelated to the sounds of the letters (Rubin, Galvan-Carlan, 2005). Semiphonetic stage- During the semiphonetic stage of writing development, children understand that a relationship exists between letters and sounds, although they are not able to match all sounds with the corresponding letters. The child is beginning to understand and make sound-symbol connections. Letters are written to represent some of the sounds in words. Gentry's semiphonetic stage of writing development corresponds with Ferreiro and Teberosky's Level 3 of writing development, in which Spanishspeaking monolingual children represent each syllable in a word with a single vowel (Rubin, Galvan-Carlan, 2005). Phonetic stage-During the phonetic stage of writing, monolingual English speaking children demonstrate knowledge of sound/symbol correspondence. Children are able to match most phonetic sounds to the corresponding letters. Gentry's phonetic
10 stage of writing development corresponds to Ferreiro and Teberosky's Level 4 of writing development. In Ferreiro and Teberosky's Level 4 of writing development, children progress from writing a single vowel for each syllable to writing one letter for each sound heard (Rubin, Galvan-Carlan, 2005). Transitional stage- In Gentry's transitional stage of writing development, children write using common spelling patterns. The child is no longer sounding out words but demonstrates an understanding of common letter patterns that are used in English. The child demonstrates a greater sense of sentence structure and vocabulary, as well. Ferreiro and Teberosky do not have a corresponding level for monolingual Spanish-speaking students to Gentry's transitional stage, as Spanish words, for the most part, are spelled phonetically, and children move directly from Level 4, the phonetic stage of writing development, to Level 5, the conventional stage of writing development (Rubin, GalvanCarlan, 2005). Conventional stage- Gentry's conventional stage of writing development is the final stage of writing development. Regardless if children are writing in Spanish or English, children in the conventional stage of writing development, Level 5 of Ferreiro and Teberosky's stages of writing development, write using their knowledge of words, sounds, and spelling patterns to convey their meaning. At this stage of writing development, most words are spelled correctly. The length of the writing sample, word choice, and complexity of sentence structure becomes more complex, as well (Rubin, Galvan-Carlan, 2005). As stated earlier, by Askew and Frasier (1999), writing is a very complex task, and although young children desire to be writers, research states that young children
11 frustrated by a complex task tend to become distressed and avoid engagement (Cruikshank, 2001). "Tasks that are too difficult for a child even with the teacher's strong support cause frustration and can not be learned" (Robb, 2003). Learning in the frustration zone "can cause anxiety, a loss of self-confidence, and destroy young children's natural curiosity and motivation to learn" (Robb, 2003). It is therefore the responsibility of educators to guide and support children through the emergent stages of writing development, in hopes to keep young children's "excitement, interest, and confidence alive, while at the same time introducing young children to the way written language works" (McCarrier, Pinnell, & Fountas, 2000). Interactive Writing: Language and Literacy Coming Together Interactive writing is part of the early literacy framework, a balanced program of instruction and independent exploration, developed by educators at Ohio State University to provide rich, educational experiences for young children, particularly those considered to be low-progressing students (Button, Johnson, Furgerson, 1996). Interactive writing is an effective instructional strategy for children of all linguistic backgrounds, especially effective for those children transitioning into English literacy (McCarrier, Pinnell, Fountas, 2000). Interactive writing provides opportunities for the teacher to engage in instruction precisely within in the child's Zone of Proximal Development (Button, Johnson, Furgerson, 1996). When one teaches concepts and tasks by supporting children and using what they already know to understand new concepts, teachers are teaching and children are learning within the Zone of Proximal Development. In the Zone of Proximal Development children experience success with a new task, with teacher support. With
12 continued teacher support, children eventually complete the task independently (Robb, 2003). Interactive writing is an instructional strategy that models for children how written language works, while encouraging them to participate in the writing process, with teacher support. Together the teacher and children negotiate the meaning and structure of the text and then collaboratively transcribe the message together, sharing the pen (McCarrier, Pinnell, Fountas, 2000). To guide the interactive writing lesson, teachers question the children with the following prompts: How many words are there in our sentence? Where do we begin writing? After writing one word, what do we have to remember to do? Why? What word are we writing next? Say the word slowly. What sounds do you hear? Can you write the letter that stands for that sound? Can you find the letter on our alphabet chart that we need to write? What comes at the end of the sentence? Would that make sense? Does that look right? Would you point and read what we have written so far? (Button, Johnson, Furgerson, 1996) Through questioning, direct instruction and modeling, the children are learning conventions of print, such as spacing between words, left to right and top to bottom directionality, capital letters, punctuation, and phonetic structures. The teacher scaffolds according to the child's needs and prior knowledge of print conventions. The learning environment the teacher creates during the interactive writing lesson should be one that fosters risk taking. As children take an active role in negotiating and composing the text, one must remember they are still in the process of learning about print. Many of their responses will be approximations. Therefore the teacher needs to explain to the children that because they and others will be reading their writing, it is
13 important that the words be spelled conventionally. The teacher uses correction tape to correct any approximations and supports the students in writing the letter, word, or punctuation mark conventionally. Teacher sensitivity is necessary to validate the child's attempt yet also to teach the standard conventions of print (Button, Johnson, Furgerson, 1996). Daily interactive writing experiences provide many opportunities for children to explore the printed form of language. While creating and composing a text, children must do the following: attend closely to the features of letters learn about letters, distinguishing one from another access letter knowledge work with letter clusters work with words, constructing them from letters, letter clusters, or patterns work with syntactic knowledge of the language direct attention to page placement of text, directional rules, serial order, and spaces break down the task to its smallest segments while at the same time synthesizing the segments into words and sentences (Askew, Frasier, 1999) There is evidence that low-progressing children benefit from frequent opportunities to construct and compose text with the supporting guidance of a teacher. Through the interactive writing process, children become more self-regulated in writing independently, in incorporating strategic processes such as hearing and recording sounds in words, in acquiring a core of known words, and in using known words and word features to write new words (Askew, Frasier, 1999). Interactive writing helps "children learn how written language works so that they can become independent writers" (McCarrier, Pinnell, Fountas, 2000). While teachers must celebrate emergent writers competence and attempts, they must find ways to help
14 them move beyond approximations. Interactive writing is "a transition tool to help children move forward in their development as writers" (McCarrier, Pinnell, Fountas, 2000), as it enables children to transfer the strategies and skills learned to their independent writing. Interactive writing connects oral and written language (McCarrier, Pinnell, Fountas, 2000), while demonstrating the reciprocal nature of reading and writing (Button, Johnson, Furgerson, 1996). Through interactive writing, reading, writing, and speaking all come together (McCarrier, Pinnell, Fountas, 2000). METHODS Participants This study included both an experimental (intervention) group and a control group. Initially I chose six of my 15 first grade bilingual students as study participants, based on their comparable reading levels using the Spanish Dominie running records assessment. All participants of the study received in-classroom Spanish literacy instruction, as they were in the pre-production level of English proficiency. Due to the transient nature of the school population, only five of these students completed the study. Two were girls, and three were boys. The age of the children ranged from six to seven. The students' ability levels ranged from average to low-average. Data Sources and Analysis Students in both the intervention and control groups were assessed using the Spanish Dominie running records assessment. Additionally the Marie Clay's Observation Survey- Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (Instrumento de Observaciуn- Oнr y Anotar los Sonidos en las Palabras) was administered to the study
15 participants as a baseline assessment. This assessment asks the student to record a dictated sentence. The sentence is read aloud by the teacher and the child is encouraged to write the sounds he/she hears in the words dictated. The student's assessment is then scored by counting the representation of sounds (phonemes) by letters (graphemes). The score demonstrates the child's ability to analyze words and his/her awareness with regard to sound/symbol correspondence. Hearing and identifying the sounds in the words one writes is an authentic task, not a task solely completed for the purpose of assessment. The prompt for administering the assessment written in both English and Spanish is below: "I am going to read you a story. When I have read it through once I will read it again very slowly so that you can write down the words in the story." (Read the story at normal speed.) "Some of the words are hard. Say them slowly and think how you can write them. Start writing the words now." "Te voy a leer un cuento. Cuando termine de leerlo una vez, volverй a leerlo otra vez muy despacio para que tъ puedas escribir las palabras del cuento." (Lea el cuento con fluidez.) "Algunas de las palabras son dificiles. Dilas despacito a tн mismo y piensa de cуmo las podrнas escribir. Ahora, empieza a escribir las palabras." The dictated sentence of the Instrumento de Observaciуn- Oнr y Anotar los Sonidos de las Palabras is below: "Tengo un perro en la casa. Lo llevo al parque conmigo." The Spanish Dominie running records assessment and Marie Clay's Observation Survey- Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (Instrumento de Observaciуn- Oнr y Anotar los Sonidos en las Palabras) were then administered to both the control and experimental groups following the four-week small group Interactive Writing intervention. The control and experimental groups were pre-
16 and post- assessed in the same way. The Spanish Dominie running record assessment was administered to each participant individually prior to and following the intervention, while the Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words assessment was administered in small groups prior to and following the intervention. Intervention Small group Interactive Writing was the primary intervention method of this study. The control group of the study solely received guided reading/word work instruction. The participants in the control group received a new guided reading book at their instructional level everyday of the four-week intervention. The students were oriented to the theme of the text and a purpose for reading was set. The children then engaged in reading the text, while I scaffolded my level of support in prompting them to use sources of information to problem solve at difficulty. The control group also participated in a word work lesson prior to or following the reading of each new text. Each word work lesson focused on a skill or strategy that the students were expected to transfer to their reading of the guided reading text. The experimental group of the study received guided reading/word work instruction, as well as small group Interactive Writing during the four-week intervention, alternating guided reading/word work instruction with small group Interactive Writing. On Day One of the intervention, the participants in the experimental group received the same guided reading text and participated in the same corresponding word work lesson as the control group. On Day Two of the intervention, the experimental group reread the text from Day One and
17 participated in a small group Interactive Writing lesson, opposed to receiving a new guided reading text and participating in word work instruction as the control group did. Together the students and I negotiated the structure of the text, and then with my guidance and support, the students collaboratively composed the text. The negotiated text of the small group Interactive Writing lesson corresponded to the theme of their guided reading text. The intervention, in detail, proceeded as follows: (see appendix A).
FINDINGS
Both the experimental and control groups were at comparable reading levels prior
to and following the intervention. Figure 1 shows the results of the Spanish Dominie
running records assessment that was administered prior to and following the intervention.
Each child successfully passed the next level of text at an instructional level of accuracy
(90-94%) following the intervention.
Running Records Assessment Results
Control Group Student 1 Student 2
Dominie Running Record Level (Pre-Intervention)
Accuracy
Dominie Running Record Level (Post-Intervention)
Accuracy
Level 2 Level 2
91.5% 82.9%
Level 2A Level 2A
92.9% 94.7%
Experimental Group Student 1 Student 2 Student 3
Level 1B Level 1B Level 1B
96.7% 90% 93.4%
Level 2 Level 2 Level 2
91.5% 91.5% 91.5%
Figure 1
# of Phonemes/Graphemes Recorded (39 possible phonemes/graphems)
18
Control Group Pre/Post Assessment Results
38
38
35 31
30
27
25
20
15
10
5
0
Student 1
Student 2
Figure 2
Pre-Assessment Results Post-Assessment Results
Assessment Results Stanines
Control Group Pre/Post Assessment Stanines
7
7
7
6 6
5
5
4
3
2
1
0
Student 1
Student 2
Figure 3
Pre-Assessment Stanine Post-Assessment Stanine
The control group of the study solely received guided reading/word work instruction during the four-week intervention. Figure 2 indicates the students' pre and post assessment results on Marie Clay's Observation Survey- Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (Instrumento de Observaciуn- Oнr y Anotar los Sonidos en las Palabras). Figure 3 indicates the raw scores corresponding stanines.
19 Student One of the control group recorded 31 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes on the pre-assessment (Figure 2). A raw score of 31 on the Instrumento de ObservaciуnOнr y Anotar los Sonidos en las Palabras corresponded to stanine six, above-average (Figure 3). On the post-assessment, Student One recorded 38 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes (Figure 2). A raw score of 38 corresponded to stanine seven, the highest attainable stanine of the assessment (Figure 3). Student Two of the control group recorded 27 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes on the pre-assessment (Figure 2). A raw score of 27 corresponded to stanine five, above-average (Figure 3). On the postassessment, Student Two recorded 38 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes, as well (Figure 2). A raw score of 38 corresponded to stanine seven (Figure 3). Both students made gains on the Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (Oнr y Anotar los Sonidos en las Palabras) post-assessment. Although both students' preassessment results were considered above-average, both made further gains following the guided reading/word work intervention (see appendix B).
# of Phonemes/Graphemes Recorded (39 possible phonemes/graphemes)
20 Experimental Group Pre/Post Assessment Results
35
35
33
30
30
25
22
20
16
16
15
10
5
0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3
Figure 4
Pre-Assessment Results Post-Assessment Results
Experimental Group Pre/Post Assessment Stanines
Assessment Results Stanines
7
6
6
6
5 5
4 4
3
3
3
2
1
0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3
Figure 5
Pre-Assessment Stanine Post-Assessment Stanine
The experimental group of the study received guided reading/word work and small group Interactive Writing instruction during the four-week intervention, alternating guided reading/word work instruction with small group Interactive Writing. Figure 4 indicates the students' pre and post assessment results on Marie Clay's Observation Survey-
21 Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (Instrumento de Observaciуn- Oнr y Anotar los Sonidos en las Palabras). Figure 5 indicates the raw scores corresponding stanines. Student One of the experimental group recorded 22 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes on the pre-assessment (Figure 4). A raw score of 22 on the Instrumento de Observaciуn- Oнr y Anotar los Sonidos de las Palabras corresponded to stanine four, average (Figure 5). Following the intervention, Student One recorded 35 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes on the post-assessment (Figure 4). A raw score of 35 corresponded to stanine six, above-average (Figure 5). Student Two of the experimental group recorded 16 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes on the preassessment (Figure 4). A raw score of 16 corresponded to stanine 3, below-average (Figure 5). Following the guided reading/word work and small group Interactive Writing intervention, Student Two recorded 30 of 39 phonemes/graphemes on the postassessment (Figure 4). A raw score of 30 corresponded to stanine 5, above-average (Figure 5). Student Three of the experimental group recorded 16 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes on the pre-assessment (Figure 4). A raw score of 16 corresponded to stanine three, below-average (Figure 5). Following the intervention, Student Three recorded 33 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes on the post-assessment (Figure 4). A raw score of 33 corresponded to stanine six, above-average (Figure 5). Despite the fact that the control group made gains on the post-assessment without the small group Interactive Writing instruction, the experimental group made significant gains following the guided reading/word work and small group Interactive Writing intervention, in comparison. Each student in the experimental group improved by at least two stanines, improving from below-average results to above average results (see appendix C).
22 CONCLUSIONS Analysis of the pre-intervention and post-intervention data indicated that the guided reading/word work instruction combined with small group Interactive Writing instruction positively impacted students' writing fluency. Post-assessment data supported Button, Johnson, and Furgerson's (1996) claim that interactive writing is an effective strategy, particularly for those considered to be low-progressing students. The gains made by the experimental group from a below-average stanine to an above-average stanine provided evidence that low-progressing students do benefit from frequent opportunities to construct and compose text with the supporting guidance of a teacher. According to Robb (2003), children learn best when engaged in hands-on active learning experiences that emphasize the doing. Small group Interactive Writing proved to be a powerful instructional medium, one in which the children were encouraged to participate in the writing process with teacher support, collaboratively negotiate the structure of the text, transcribe the message, and share the pen in writing. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of small group Interactive Writing and its impact on writing fluency. The assessment data collected supported McCarrier, Pinnell, and Fountas's notion of Interactive Writing as a transitional tool to help children move forward in their development as writers. During informal observations, following the intervention, I observed that small group Interactive Writing instruction enabled the children to transfer the strategies and skills learned to their independent Journal writing. Small group Interactive Writing therefore positively impacted the children's writing fluency.
23 FUTURE IMPLICATIONS As a result of this study, I plan to continue implementing small-group Interactive Writing during guided reading instructional time, with the experimental group of this study, with the intentions to further develop their writing fluency and self-confidence as writers. I also intend to implement small-group Interactive Writing with my lowestprogressing group of first grade bilingual students, as a means to support their emergent reading and writing skills in their early literacy development.
24 REFERENCES Askew, B. J., & Frasier, D. (1999). Early writing: An exploration of literacy opportunities. Literacy teaching and learning, 4(1), 43-66. Button, K., Johnson, M. J., & Furgerson, P. (1996). Interactive writing in a primary classroom. The Reading Teacher, 49(6), 446-454. Clay, M. M. (1996). Instrumento de Observacion de los logros de la lecto-escritura inicial. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Cruikshank, M. (2001). The emergent writing process of a preschool child. International Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 10-17. Dorn, L. J., & Soffos, C. (2001). Scaffolding young writers: A writers' workshop approach. Portland: Stenhouse. Dulaney-Barclay, K. (1991). What children can teach us about emergent literacy. Illinois School Research and Development, 27(2), 62-69. Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (1996). Teaching reading and writing in Spanish in the bilingual classroom. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Gentry, R. J. (2005). Instructional techniques for emerging writers and special needs students at kindergarten and grade 1 levels. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(2), 113-134. Green Bay Area Public School District. (2004). ESL/Bilingual Program Information [Brochure]. Green Bay, WI: Author. Leonard-Lamme, L., Fu, D., Johnson, J., & Savage, D. (2002). Helping kindergarten writers move toward independence. early childhood education Journal, 30(2), 73-79. McCarrier, A., Pinnell, G., & Fountas, I. C. (2000). Interactive writing: How language and literacy come together, K-2. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Robb, L. (2003). Literacy links: Practical strategies to develop the emergent literacy atrisk children need. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Rubin, R., & Galvan-Carlan, V. (2005). Using writing to understand bilingual children's literacy development. The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 728-739. Strickland, D. S., & Mandel-Morrow, L. (Eds.). (2000). Beginning reading and writing. New York: Teachers College Press.
Appendix A
25
Day 1 (09-14-06)
Control/Experimental Group
Guided Reading Text: Veo, veo Publisher: ETA Cuisenaire Text Level: DRA 2 Word Work: un/una
Day 2 (09-15-06) Control Group
Guided Reading Text: En el mercado Publisher: Rigby Text Level: DRA 2 Word Work: gusta/gustan
Experimental Group
Interactive Writing Negotiated Text- Veo a unos niсos afuera.
Day 3 (09-18-06)
Control/Experimental Group
Guided Reading Text: El zoolуgico Publisher: Rigby Text Level: DRA 2 Word Work: mira/miro
Day 4 (09-19-06) Control Group
Guided Reading Text: ЎAlto! Publisher: Rigby Text Level: DRA 2 Word Work: aquн
Experimental Group
Interactive Writing Negotiated Text- Ven y mira el leon.
Day 5 (09-20-06)
Control/Experimental Group
Guided Reading Text: їDonde estan los bebes? Publisher: Rigby Text Level: DRA 2 Word Work: estб/estбn
Day 6 (09-21-06) Control Group
Guided Reading Text: Los hogares de los animales Publisher: Benchmark Education Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: estб/estamos
Experimental Group
Interactive Writing
26
Negotiated Text- Los pescados viven en el mar.
Day 7 (09-22-06)
Control/Experimental Group
Guided Reading Text: El listуn Publisher: Hampton-Brown Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: pongo
Day 8 (09-25-06) Control Group
Guided Reading Text: Orejas Publisher: Hampton-Brown Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: que/qui/aquн/quien
Experimental Group
Interactive Writing Negotiated Text: Me pongo el listуn en el regalo.
Day 9 (09-26-06)
Control/Experimental Group
Guided Reading Text: Mi mochila Publisher: Rigby Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: pongo
Day 10 (09-27-06) Control Group
Guided Reading Text: El gato nuevo Publisher: Pacific Learning Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: bebн/bebiу/comн/comiу
Experimental Group
Interactive Writing Negotiated Text: Yo pongo mi tarea en mi mochila.
Day 11 (09-28-06)
Control/Experimental Group
Guided Reading Text: Me gusta leer Publisher: Rigby Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: gusta/gustan/gusto
Day 12 (09-29-06) Control Group
Guided Reading Text: En la maсanita Publisher: Hampton-Brown Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: que/qui/quiero/quiere
27
Experimental Group
Interactive Writing Negotiated Text: Me gusta leerle a mi amigo en la escuela.
Day 13 (10-02-06)
Control/Experimental Group
Guided Reading Text: Todos usamos agua Publisher: Benchmark Education Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: usan/usamos/para
Day 14 (10-03-06) Control Group
Guided Reading Text: La hora de acostarse Publisher: Bebop Books Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: quiero/quiere/tengo
Experimental Group
Interactive Writing Negotiated Text: Usamos agua para lavar las manos.
Day 15 (10-04-06)
Control/Experimental Group
Guided Reading Text: їQuien soy yo? Publisher: Hampton-Brown Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: soy/voy/hoy/tengo
Day 16 (10-05-06) Control Group
Guided Reading Text: La gorra de Omar Publisher: Pacific Learning Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: dijo/dije/quitate
Experimental Group
Interactive Writing Negotiated Text: Un leуn tiene dientes largas.
Day 17 (10-06-06)
Control/Experimental Group
Guided Reading Text: El gato goloso tiene hambre Publisher: Pacific Learning Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: al/la/algo/lago/buscaba
Day 18 (10-10-06) Control/Experimental Group Guided Reading Text: Las semillas
28
Publisher: Benchmark Education Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: mira/tiene
Day 19 (10-12-06) Control Group
Guided Reading Text: La ciudad Publisher: Pacific Learning Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: veo/vivo/encanta
Experimental Group
Interactive Writing Negotiated Text: Las manzanas y las calabazas tienen semillas.
Day 20 (10-13-06)
Control/Experimental Group
Guided Reading Text: Los lentes de Nicolбs Publisher: Pacific Learning Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: estб/estбn/estoy/donde
29 Appendix B Pre-Assessment Post- Assessment
30 Pre-Assessment
31 Post-Assessment
32 Appendix C Pre- Assessment
33 Post-Assessment
34 Pre-Assessment
35 Post- Assessment
36 Pre- Assessment Post- Assessment

AM Beckett, E Education, J Hankes

File: how-can-i-best-support-my-emergent-readers-and-writers-in-their.pdf
Title: How can I Best Support my Emergent Readers
Author: AM Beckett, E Education, J Hankes
Author: Green Bay Area Public Schools
Published: Fri Oct 26 09:24:15 2007
Pages: 36
File size: 0.88 Mb


, pages, 0 Mb

The Ancient Jewish Wedding, 22 pages, 0.41 Mb

Everything's an Argument, 9 pages, 0.15 Mb

Stories and poems, 66 pages, 2.1 Mb
Copyright © 2018 doc.uments.com