O slideshow foi denunciado.
Seu SlideShare está sendo baixado. ×

"Reading Achievement of ELLS and Response to Intervention Model" presented by Dr. Jung

Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio

Confira estes a seguir

1 de 26 Anúncio
Anúncio

Mais Conteúdo rRelacionado

Diapositivos para si (20)

Semelhante a "Reading Achievement of ELLS and Response to Intervention Model" presented by Dr. Jung (20)

Anúncio

Mais de crealcsuf (20)

Anúncio

"Reading Achievement of ELLS and Response to Intervention Model" presented by Dr. Jung

  1. 1. READING ACHIEVEMENT OF ELLS AND RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODEL Adrian Jung, Ph.D.
  2. 2. Response to Intervention (RTI)  Is a model used by schools around the US.  Result of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004) and No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).  Scientifically-based instructional practices to be used (Cummings, Atkins, Allison, & Cole, 2008, p. 24).
  3. 3. Basis for RTI Model  RTI relies on quality instruction  Needs of ELLs and at-risk students identified by skilled teachers (McMaster, Kung, Han, & Cao (2008).  All can benefit  Language abilities no longer an issue  Instruction starts where children are at  Instruction tied to evidence/scientifically-based practices (Xu & Drame, 2008).
  4. 4. RTI Model RTI Model regarded as alternative to current practice addressed disproportionate numbers of children qualifying for special ed. services and increase in ELL student populations.
  5. 5. English Language Learners (ELLs)  ELLs often placed in special education classrooms (Orosco & Klinger, 2010).  RTI important in decreasing the over representation of ELL populations in special education settings, (McMaster, Kun, Han, & Cao, 2008).
  6. 6. Importance of RTI for ELLs  Additional source of data gathered from instruction. RTI procedures assist schools (Rinaldi & Samson, 2008). Students can be identified and academic failure addressed early (Mellard, 2004).
  7. 7. “Identifying students who are not achieving at the same level and rate as their peers and providing appropriate interventions are two features that RTI advocates emphasize” (Mellard, 2004, p.
  8. 8. RTI Research  There are gaps in the research on how RTI affects the academic performance of ELLs.  ELLs often grouped with English Only students.  Districts given freedom in their interpretation of RTI guidelines.
  9. 9. Language Development  There are correlations between oral language delay and reading difficulties. (Lovett et al., 2008).  The success of RTI may be validated after a review of instruction.  ELL participant data results have been skewed.
  10. 10. Assessments  Measurement of reading achievement happens at the end of second grade.  Concerns are warranted.  Teacher competency in teaching reading acquisition is limited (Brown & Doolittle, 2008).  Fidelity to research based practices needed
  11. 11. Research-Based Practices  ELLs respond to direct reading instruction (Haager, Calhoon & Linan-Thompson, 2007).  ELLs benefit from effective instructional practices, targeted assessment (Brown & Doolittle, 2008, Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn, & Ciullo, 2010).  Examples include:  small group support  language support/remediation
  12. 12. The purpose of this study/research was to examine the relationship between RTI and the reading acquisition of ELLs.
  13. 13. Targeted Areas of Research  Researched:  RTI and ELLs in general education settings.  Pre-service teacher programs.  Acquisition of grade level reading skills  ELLs as an independent population
  14. 14. METHODS
  15. 15. Setting and Participants  An Urban K-8 school district in LA and OC  Two of the seven elementary schools in the district  130 (EL) & 227 (EO): 2010-2011  122 (EL) & 174 (EO): 2011-2012  Both schools used reading assessment data from CST and teacher-administered reading assessments to determine grouping for ELLs and EOs.
  16. 16. Instrument and Data Collection  Repeated-measures design with English proficiency as the one between-groups factor, and California Standardized Tests (CST) as the one repeated-measures factor with three levels.  collected CST scores for both ELL and EO students over the course of two years  Scores were separated according to the language designation of the student earning the score.
  17. 17. RESULTS
  18. 18. Table2 Differenceinreadingprogressbetweentwogroups Source df F Sig. Groups 1 216 7.40 .01* *p<0.5
  19. 19. CONCLUSION DISCUSSION LIMITATIONS IMPLICATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
  20. 20. Discussion & Conclusion  RTI significantly impacts schools on multiple levels  The relationship b/w reading progress for ELLs and participation in RTI  ELLs would demonstrate a faster rate of reading achievement than ELLs who did not participate in RTI
  21. 21. Limitations  Conducted in a district that serves a largely homogeneous community  Served by the district contains a relatively homogeneous population  Because the focus was on reading, other subjects commonly addressed in RTI, such as math, were not studied.  Limitations also include examining the relationship between RTI and ELL reading achievement over a period of two years.
  22. 22. Implications  School administrators can use the results of this study to guide their RTI model implementation.
  23. 23. Recommendations  Need for longitudinal data  Study of a more diverse sample  RTI and older students.

×