Annotated Sources cited for research into rapport and assessment
Annotated Sources cited for research into rapport
and assessment
Johns, J.L. (2012). Basic reading
inventory (11th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Developed a scoring guide,
word lists and passages for assessing student reading levels. Response to
Intervention strategies provided help students move beyond their assessed
level. Johns instructs the educator
through every step of assessment. He
explains how to develop rapport specific to increasing student confidence
during assessment.
Lenski, S., Ehlers-Zavala,F.,
Daniel,M,C., & Xiaogin,S.(2006). Assessing English-Language
learners in
mainstream classrooms. Reading Teacher.
60(1), 24-34,
doi:10.1598/RT.60.1.3
The article provides several suggestions to assess the
reading ability and development of
English-language learners (ELL). Evaluating the literacy progress of ELL
students is
important in order to document opportunities for student
progress. The evaluation, be it
multidimensional approach with alternative assessment or
non-traditional and traditional
assessment, is critical to making informed instructional
placement. Anecdotal reporting
as assessment reveals literacy
backgrounds and experiences of the learners, pinpointing
specific evolution and acquisition of English.
Lenski, S., Daniel,M., Ehlers-Zavala,F., &Alvavero, M.
(2004). Assessing Struggling English-
Language Learners. Illinois
Reading Council Journal, 32(4), 21-30.
Similar to Lenski’s collaborative research and report on
mainstream English-language
learners (ELL) this
identifies the need for alternative assessment in the U.S. and
provides: recommendations for teachers who have ELL students
struggling with reading
in their classrooms, use of assessment checklists, student
self evaluation and criteria used
to determine learning disabilities. Assessments made
through conversation are
invaluable.
Lenski,
S. (1998). Intertextual Intentions: Making Connections across Texts. Clearing House,
72(2),
74. Retrieved from Education Research Complete.
Describe the
role of intertexuality in reading comprehension. Method for promoting connections
across texts; Five ways teachers can organize texts to promote connections.
Lenski, S. D., Johns, J. L., & Wham, M. A.
(2011). Reading & learning
strategies: middle
grades through high school (4rth ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Each reading strategy is grounded in research and intended
for use across fields of knowledge and for all content area teachers. Cited examples
of use of anticipation guides, validate personal gains in similar guides I
developed over time.
Marzano,
R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
research-based strategies for increasing student
achievement. Alexandria, Va.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Specifically reference their validation of the
importance and power of allowing students to critique an assignment, to choose
what work to skip, to engage in the practice of deleting or removing text not
critical to their own determined knowledge.
McCoss-Yeargian,T.,& Krepps,L.(2010).
Do teacher attitudes impact literacy strategy
implementation
in content area classrooms? Journal of
Instructional Pedagogies, 41-18.
Retrieved from Education Research Complete.
The results of the study found that, in large numbers,
secondary teachers do harbor attitudes, in five broad categories, toward
content area reading instruction that are unfavorable and that implementation
of strategies in their classrooms, lesson plans and curricula are negatively
impacted by the paradigms held.
National
Reading Panel(NRP). (2000). The report
of the National Reading Panel: teaching
children to read, at a hearing before the U.S. Senate
Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education. Retrieved from www.nationalreadingpanel.org.
Results from
this panel shaped national and federal movement to support of a Common Core
approach to standardized testing and teaching. Several organizations, studies
and programs launched for continuing this development are linked to the panel
research.
Nourie,
B., &Lenski, S. (1998). The (in)effectiveness of content area literacy
instruction.
Clearing
House, 71(6), 372.
This study presents
information and investigation of the reading problem in American secondary
schools in relation to preservice teachers’ perceptions of literacy strategies.
While attitudes may be positive strategies and practice of implementation is
still lacking. Modelling of reading is important in student development.
The
National Institute For Literacy. (2008) Caliteracy.org. retrieved from the
internet, August,
31,
2012.
This reports reexamines
those with minimal literacy as functional illiterate adults,
meaning
those who can read some words but not enough to understand
simple forms or
instructions, adversely affecting job availability and income. The report blames current
educational practice as the determinant. It recommends the development of programs
with a focus upon prose, document & quantitative reading
and writing.
Ying, Z.,Klinger, D.A., Living,C., Fox,J., &
Doe,C.(2011). Test-Takers’ Background, Literacy
Activities and
Views of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 57(2). 115-136.
This study
examined the relationships among ESL/ L2
students' background, and their in-school and after-school literacy activities,
as well as the relationships between students' background and their views of a
standardized Literacy Test (OSSLT). Parents background and education had a
greater impact on student achievement and perception than did the parent’s
socio economic status. Home literacy
activities analyzed had various positive influences as well.
Comments