I found the article, Data, Our GPS to be very interesting. Throughout the article the authors focus on the ELL population. While this is important, the strategies used within this school district can and should be used with various sub groups of students. I think that using the methods presented in the article can be a great way to help students and collaborate with fellow teachers.
As I read the sentences about the student Sergio, I found it interesting that his accident had not been discussed before. As mentioned in this module's power point, ELL students need to be monitored closely and it is important to know whether or not an ELL student struggled in their native language. This information, or data, is vital and can provide a lot of information as to how to teach that student. It is important to understand if an ELL student has struggled with native language reading and if not then the student is having difficulties with the English language and not the reading skills.
As noted in the Opitz text, Response to Intervention is key in determining how to teach struggling students. My school district automatically puts every child in Tier 1 of RTI because the use of differentiation cause be used with any student. Through RTI, data is collected that determines the skills the student needs to work on and then the teacher designs lessons centered around those skills. RTI is a constant cycle of data collection, instruction, and checking for udnerstanding.
I also liked how the authors of this article discussed district testing. My distrcit uses Elements, a computer system that administers tests for each subject. The questions are written by teachers within the district who have content knowledge for those grade levels. Stuents are given these Interim/Benchmarks tests on teh computer each nine week period. The tests are scored automatically through the computer system and as the teacher, I have a detailed look at each standard that was tested and the percentage of students who missed that standard. I am also able to see which students met or did not meet on standards. It is a great tool not only to guide my instruction, but to show to parents as well. Not only do we have that testing, but I am required to use the F&P tests on my students three times per school year. This gives valuable information on decoding, fluency, and comprehension. I can then use this information to guide instruction for small groups and one on one conferencing. Again, this use of data drives my instruction.
We have PLC meetings at my school once a week. In these meetings we discuss student progress and student data. On page 58 of the article Smith, Johnson, and Thompson mention that their teachers identify groups of students with particular needs and group them for instruction. A few years ago my school used CQI to group students for math and each week an assessment was given and then students were regrouped based on the skills they needed. We have moved away from that since we use workshop methods for each subject area and we are expected to be using the workshop as a way to use flexible groupings in order to meet the needs of each student. I feel as though CQI has been replaced with RTI.
When I compare the text and the article I definitely see that the use of RTI is valuable and important and ELL students need to be monitored closely. However, I feel as though the article gave more real classroom and school examples of how these processes are being handled and the book merely explained what each of these processes are. I think they both incorporate the ideas of collecting data in order to guide instruction. Both references were different in that the article did not go in depth with the levels of language when discussing the ELL students.
Opitz, Michael F., Rubin, D., and Erekson, J. Reading Diagnosis and Improvement: Assessment and Instruction. 6th ed. Boston, Mass.: Pearson, 2011. Print.
Smith, R., Johnson, M., & Thompson, K. (2012). Data, our GPS. Educational Leadership, 69(5), 56-59.
No comments:
Post a Comment