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,
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

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  
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) 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. 

No comments: