Topic teaching group presentation
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
1 gostou•1,475 visualizações
Presentation on author Jim Cummins, Kristin Brown, and Dennis Sayers book "Literacy, Technology, and Diversity"
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Destaque
Semelhante a Topic teaching group presentation
Semelhante a Topic teaching group presentation (20)
Mais de Angie Rogers
Último
Último (20)
Topic teaching group presentation
- 1. Literacy, Technology, and Diversity Teaching for Success in Changing Times
- 2. Part 1: Changing Times, Changing Schools • Chapter 1: Literacy • Chapter 2: Pedagogy • Chapter 3: Assessment • Chapter 4: Technology
- 3. Anticipation Guide Whole-language instruction should be meaning True centered rather than skills driven. Phonics instruction helps students in grades 2 through False 6 comprehend text. NAEP achievement scores have shown steady False improvement over the last 30 years because of school reform efforts.
- 4. Anticipation Guide Continued 65% of U.S. fourth-graders receive more than six hours of True reading instruction per week compared to the international average of 28%. The gap in reading performance between students in the top True and bottom quarters of wealth in the U.S. is 85 points compared to an average difference of 34 points in other countries There has been a political push for equality of access to funding as a means of raising achievement in inner-city and False rural schools that serve low-income students.
- 5. Anticipation Guide Continued The NRP (National Reading Panel) has exerted a huge True impact on the way reading is taught throughout the U.S. Under NCLB schools that are in need of improvements False are eligible to provide supplemental services to their students.
- 6. U.S. Student Performance on NAEP Reading Grade 4 1992-2011 •
- 7. U.S. Student Performance on NAEP Reading Grade 8 1992-2011 •
- 8. U.S. Student Performance on NAEP Reading Grade 8 By Race/Ethnicity 2011 •
Notas do Editor
- The purpose of this text is to provide a blueprint for implementing educational approaches that promote literacy engagement among low-income and minority students. The authors emphasize how instruction and curriculum have been hijacked to focus primarily on rote memorization of content unconnected to students’ experiences or life aspirations. When instruction focuses on topics of relevance to students’ lives and when it engages them cognitively, students will read more, think more, write more, and ultimately learn more. Diversity and technology can become a catalysts for deeper learning.
- NAEP:(National Assessment of Educational Progress) True: The core of whole language is providing children with interesting texts and helping them understand these textsFalse: Phonics instruction helps reading-disabled students in grades 2 through 6 comprehend text but does not help normally achieving and low-achieving students in grades 2 through 6 to comprehend text.False: Data from 1971-2005 show a pattern of flat lined reading achievement despite the fact that during this period many states implemented reforms designed to rid schools of any evidence of “child-centered” and “whole-language” instruction.)
- 4: true5: true6:Despite the strong correlation between academic failure and the collective poverty level of children in school, there has been little political will to push for equality of access to funding as a means of raising achievement in the inner-city and rural schools that serve low-income students.)
- #7 T (The NCLB Act drew on research from the NRP that pointed to the role of phonological awareness training and systematic phonics instruction in helping children learn to read-However, this spin on the NRP data omits mentioning that systematic phonics instruction produced no benefits in reading comprehension for normal achieving and low-achieving students in grades 2 through 6). #8 F ( Schools that are in need of improvement are not eligible to provide supplemental services to their own students, and school districts that are designated as failing are also ineligible to provide such services. They are not able to use federal education funds taken from Title 1 allotments that provide services for tutoring, after-school services, and summer school programs).
- U.S. students in 1998 read just about like U.S. students in 1971 and in 2005, they read at a similar level to U.S. students in 1998. This demonstrates the minimal progress in closing the reading achievement gap between different social groups during this period.
- Race/Ethnicity for 2011. In spite of intensive educational reforms during the 1990’s focused on early reading attainment, there has been no reduction in the gap between Euro-American students, on the one hand, and African American and Latino/Latina students on the other.
- Jim Cummins Perspective