Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

EDU20001: Developing Literacy Assessment 3: Portfolio part B

No description
by

Rachelle La Pierre

on 26 May 2016

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of EDU20001: Developing Literacy Assessment 3: Portfolio part B

Description:
This resource of Silly Sentences (First Grade Fresh, 2012) is a game suited to children between the ages of five to seven years. The game can be used in various formats to suit varying age levels and abilities. The game consists of word cards which are colour-coded by function such as noun, verb, article etc. Children select a word from each colour group and place it in their word line. Once they have chosen a word from each colour group, they read their sentence out to the class/group. This resource could be used in Foundation Year or Grade One as part of a literacy block to support students in their reading skills.
Resource:
"Silly Sentences" (First Grade Fresh, n.d) http://firstgradefresh.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/workstation-revamp-silly-sentences.html
Discussion & Analysis
This resource supports the development of writing of children in the Foundation Year and Year One. Shared writing experiences provide opportunities for students to observe other writers at work, whilst participating in authentic and meaningful writing events that provide support through interaction with text and their peers (Gibson, n.d; Winch et al., 2004). Shared writing allows teachers to model written text whilst actively engaging children in the writing process (Gibson, n.d). In addition, this writing resource gives students the chance to learn writing forms and functions, through observation and participation. According to Gibson (n.d), learning is further enhanced when shared writing is followed up with independent writing. Furthermore, the effective implementation of shared writing presents demonstration, explanation, and modelling for students to gain a comprehension of how texts are properly structured. This would include the discussion of where a sentence starts, the use of finger spaces, punctuation, spelling by looking at high frequency words, capital and lower case letters, descriptive words and transcription (Winch et al., 2004). Deeper understanding of how texts function is fostered through effective modelling and collaborative peer group work that provide rich dialogue about the subject in question (Gibson, n.d). Using writing exercises in classroom practice to foster handwriting development is still a fundamental concept that children must accomplish, even in an evolving world where computers and ICT flourish (Winch et al., 2004). In addition, having the ability to produce legible handwriting work is important and can be accomplished as students practice their writing skills ensuring they understand “left to right and top to bottom orientation”, along with “matching spoken words with written words” (p. 223). Winch et al., (2004), also suggests that handwriting activities should be implemented into regular classroom lessons rather than stand alone practice sessions, however in the early primary years, ensuring proper writing skills are being developed is a considerable requirement. Furthermore, as children produce written text in collaborative environments through shared writing, they experiment with phonics in a meaningful manner and can be encouraged to emphasise the sounds that are heard as text is written and letters are found. This resource links into the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2015) in the Area of English and Literacy (ACELY1651) where students create short texts using familiar words, (ACELY1652) students participate in shared editing for meaning, spelling, capital letters and full stops, (ACELY1653) students produce upper and lower case letter formations.
Reading and Writing In Primary
EDU20001 Developing Literacy Assessment: Portfolio part B
References:
Resource:
"Independent Writing" [Image] (NCLS Je Ju Reception, 2015). http://nlcsjejureceptionmrrobbins.tumblr.com/
This resource incorporates the use of ICT with the teacher leading a shared writing task on an interactive whiteboard which can be seen as an example in picture one. As a group, students discuss and write a story about an event that they have participated in such as a sports day, swimming or an excursion. The teacher asks questions throughout the exercise such as where should a sentence start? Do I use capital or lower case letters to begin a sentence and so forth. Once complete, students must copy writing this off the interactive whiteboard into their writing exercise book and draw an accompanying picture. This is represented in picture two.
Description:
This resource supports the development of children’s reading skills in a fun and engaging manner and is suitable for students in Foundation Year or Grade One. Seely-Flint, Kitson, Lowe & Shaw (2014) define the four different practices of code-breaker, text user, text participant and text analyst (p. 225) contributing to how young children become successful readers. Through code-breaking, students decode the principles of written and visual text while connecting the relationship between the grammar that is used within the text as well as text structure. Text users links to how students become successful in understanding written and visual text along with the various purposes that text serves. Successful text participants make sense of written and visual text by using prior knowledge and experiences with text. Text analysts are successful by representing their “views, values and interests” (Seely-Flint et al., 2014, p. 225) while understanding that texts can impact on or have an empowering or disempowering connection with its reader. Through spelling activities, students gain fundamental knowledge of phonics (Wray & Medwell, 2008). “Phonemic blending” (Seely-Flint et al., 2014, p. 228) gives children the ability to articulate the sounds that make up a word, while “phonemic segmentation” (p.228) refers to how children learn to break words up individually into sounds. This is often done in teaching practice as young children begin “stretching words” (Morgan, 2011) to hear individual sounds in words. Further to this, Morgan (2011) argues that having a good grasp of phonemes is a fundamental predictor of reading success in young children. Winch et al., (2004) discuss the importance of working with phonemes, blends and diagraphs in early reading development, as the incorrect pronunciation of words is often the cause of incorrect spelling. This resource also builds on the concepts of “graphological information” (Winch et al., 2004, p. 38) which refers to the comprehension of letters, blends, diagraphs, syllables, prefixes and suffixes. Graphological information also considers aspects of text such as line direction, spaces, punctuation, syntax and sight or high frequency words. This resource links into the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2015) in the area of English and Language (ACELA1438) students use knowledge of letters and sounds to spell words, (ACELA1817) students read and write high-frequency and other familiar words, (ACELA1819) segment sentences into individual words and orally blend words.
Discussion & Analysis:
References:
Reading Recovery (NSW Government & Training, Curriculum & Support Innovation Centre, n.d) is a research based early intervention program developed in the 1970’s by Professor Dame Marie Clay, for students in the lowest 20% achievement standards of reading and writing in Year One (Victoria State Government, 2015). By intervening in Year One, the program aims at preventing a “cycle of failure” (NSW Government & Training, Curriculum & Support Innovation Centre, n.d, para. 7) via rigorous individualised instruction for thirty minutes each day, as a means of raising low performing students up to average classroom performance levels. The program is supplemental to existing classroom literacy learning. Early intervention is crucial to student success, as without early detection, difficulties in achieving literacy outcomes continue to spiral, leading to a drop in student motivation (NSW Government &Training, Curriculum & Support Innovation Centre, n.d). This ultimately adds to continuing academic battles, impacting all areas of student life, not just in the classroom. Throughout the average twenty week Reading Recovery block, students gain strategies to become independent learners, allowing them to participate in class with minimum help (Victoria State Government, 2013). In addition, whilst in the program, teachers initiate problem solving exercises to foster developing effective reading and writing.
According to Reading Recovery Works (n.d), over one hundred studies have been conducted to document the effectiveness of Reading Recovery. Furthermore, the program has received strong student achievement ratings compared to unassisted students in the areas of “alphabetics, fluency, comprehension, and general reading” (para. 2). However, some would argue that any intervention is going to produce better results than having done nothing at all. According to Hammond (2015) questions have been raised recently regarding the Reading Recovery program’s effectiveness. Studies conducted in 2011 revealed that Australian children’s reading standards ranked lowest amongst English speaking countries when benchmarked against each other. The long term gains of Reading Recovery are short lived, whilst only offered to struggling students (Morton, 2016; Smith, 2015). Learning the English language is complex and at times obscure. Many children struggle to comprehend the concepts of what they are being taught and how to definitively discern the sounds that are found in each word, along with finding word patterns. Reading Recovery fails to specifically focus on the key areas where students are struggling when beginning to read, including speech sounds, spelling and phonics (Hammond, 2015). Furthermore, Hammond states that reading is one of the most studied aspects of human behaviour, however the way in which it is taught simply does not replicate what actually works best for all children. Reading Recovery does not consider multi-literacies or digital technologies of the modern era, focusing predominantly on print based material. As stated by Professor Chapman (cited by Topsfield, 2014), Reading Recovery is an outdated program that was devised in the 1970’s and needs to be replaced by programs that meet the needs of contemporary children.

Reading Recovery:
Hammond, L (2015). There are many remedial programs superior to Reading Recovery. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/there-are-many-remedial-programs-superior-to-reading-recovery-39574

Morton, R (2016). Reading Recovery literacy program should be dumped: experts. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/reading-recovery-literacy-program-should-be-dumped-experts/news-story/aa1f1a3a3179e60a74d6ff07687b0c23?nk=59480cdc460e8a9b7fc394515e03ca93-1463196149

NSW Department of Education & Communities (n.d). A Reading Recovery Lesson. Retrieved from http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/earlyyears/reading/read_recov/read_recov_les.htm

NSW Department of Education & Communities (n.d). Reading Recovery Trifold. Retrieved from http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/earlyyears/reading_recovery/pdf/trifold.pdf

NSW Department of Education &Training, Curriculum & Support Innovation Centre (n.d). What is Reading Recovery? Retrieved from http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/earlyyears/reading_recovery/whatis.tm

Smith, A (2015). Reading Recovery program used in 960 NSW public schools does not work. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/reading-recovery-program-used-in-960-nsw-public-schools-does-not-work-20151218-glqplg.html

Topsfield, J (2014). Reading Recovery a 'failed program'. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/reading-recovery-a-failed-program-20140902-10biol.html

Victoria State Government (2013). Participation. Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/english/Pages/participate.aspx

Victoria State Government (2015). Reading Recovery. Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/english/Pages/readrecovery.aspx

References:
"Frog's Life Cycle Shared Writing" [Image] (Bishop's Blackboard, 2013). http://bishopsblackboard.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/frog-life-cycle-shared-writing.html

This resource could be adapted and extended to support children with varying skills, to align with the Australian Teaching Standard 1.5 (Graduate) “Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities” (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], n.d, para. 5). The initial shared writing learning experience sees a class construct a story together and then re-write the story with a picture in their writing books. During interactive writing, there are many opportunities to differentiate instruction to cater to individual student learning (Roth & Dabrowski, n.d). Teacher’s can select how each individual student participates in lessons as well as navigating key teaching concepts by basing instruction on how students are interacting. For students that require extra work to extend their learning, they could write an extra sentence about their experience. For example, if the class were writing about an excursion, that child could extend their writing by constructing a sentence about their favourite aspect of the excursion or something they did not like about it.
Adaptation:
This resource could be adapted to support children with varying skills, aligning with the Australian Teaching Standard 1.5 (Graduate) “Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities” (AITSL, n.d, para. 5). For children who need extension on this activity they could be asked to write their silly sentence out into their writing exercise book to incorporate and build on linking reading and writing together.
Adaptation:
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2015. English - Foundation Year. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/english/curriculum/f-10?layout=1

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL] (n.d). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list

First Grade Fresh (2012). Silly Sentences. Retrieved from http://firstgradefresh.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/workstation-revamp-silly-sentences.html

Morgan, A (2011). Stretching Words – Playful Ways to Practice Phonemic Awareness. Retrieved from http://notjustcute.com/2011/06/10/stretching-words-playful-ways-to-practice-phonemic-awareness/

Seely-Flint, A., Kitson, L., Lowe, K., & Shaw, K. (2014). Literacy in Australia: Pedagogies for engagement. Milton, Qld: Wiley.

Winch, G., Johnston, R. R., Holliday, M., Ljungdahl, L., & March, P. (2004). Literacy: reading, writing, and children's literature (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Wray, D., & Medwell. (2008). Primary English: extending knowledge in practice. Learning Matters Ltd.


Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2015. English - Foundation Year. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/english/curriculum/f-10?layout=1

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL] (n.d). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list

Bishop’s Blackboard (2013). Frog Life Cycle Shared Writing. Retrieved from http://bishopsblackboard.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/frog-life-cycle-shared-writing.html

Gibson, S.A (n.d). Shared Writing. Retrieved from http://www.readwritethink.org/professional-development/strategy-guides/shared-writing-30686.html

NCLS Je Ju Reception (2015). Independent Writing. Retrieved from http://nlcsjejureceptionmrrobbins.tumblr.com/

Roth, K & Dabrowski, J (n.d). Extending Interactive Writing Into Grades 2–5. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/extending-interactive-writing-grades-2-5

Winch, G., Johnston, R. R., Holliday, M., Ljungdahl, L., & March, P. (2004). Literacy: reading, writing, and children's literature (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Rachelle La Pierre
In the average daily Reading Recovery session, students participate in a series of six guided core activities (NSW Department of Education & Communities, n.d) including firstly reading two or more familiar books in a “phrased and fluent manner” (para. 2). Secondly, student’s attempt to read a book unaided that was introduced to them in the previous lesson, while the teacher takes a running record. Then the teacher teaches students using the “most powerful teaching points from the book” (para. 3). Thirdly, after the running record is performed, children engage in letter recognition by making words and code breaking to gain a comprehension of how words work. Next, students write one or two sentences about a book or an experience they have had. During this time, the teacher offers support while using strategies that encourage independent writing. After students have completed their story the teacher writes it onto a strip of cardboard and cuts it up. The student then re-arranges their story to make it complete. Lastly, students are introduced to a new book as the teacher delivers information about the content, language structure and effective strategies that may help for successful reading. “Accelerated progress” (Department of Education & Early Childhood Development [DEECD], 2007) refers to the idea that the goal of Reading Recovery is to accelerate student learning; therefore, each individual student has the expectation put on them to make a progression through at an accelerated rate to catch up with their peers. Because of this, each child’s instruction in the program is based on their own individual needs and outcomes of running records. Instruction commences from student strengths eliminating wasting time teaching concepts students already understand.


Full transcript