More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

Shanahan on Literacy Information for teachers and parents on teaching and assessing reading, writing, and literacy.

TIMOTHY SHANAHAN Showing posts with label scaffolding challenging text. Show all posts

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015

How Much Text Complexity Can Teachers Scaffold?

How much of a "gap" can be compensated through differentiation? If my readers are at a 400 Lexile level, is there an effective way to use a 820 level chapter book?

This is a great question. (Have you ever noticed that usually means the responder thinks he has an answer).

For years, teachers were told that students had to be taught with books that matched their ability, or learning would be reduced. As a teacher I bought into those notions. I tested every one of my students with informal reading inventories, one-on- one, and then tried to orchestrate multiple groups with multiple book levels. This was FOLLOW BY EMAIL prior to the availability of lots of short paperback books that had been computer scored for F & P levels or Lexiles, so I worked with various basal readers to make this work. Email address... Submit

However, a careful look at the research shows me that almost no studies have USING THIS BLOG found any benefits from such matching. In fact, if one sets aside those studies that focused on children who were reading no higher than a Grade 1 level, then the only *** To Subscribe put your email address into Follow by Email (top right hand side) results supporting specific student-text matches are those arguing for placing students and you will be informed of new posts. at what we would have traditionally called their frustration level. ***All past blogs are filed by topic and Given this research and that so many state standards now require teachers to many contain download links to Word or enable students to read more challenging texts in grades 2-12, teachers are going to Powerpoint files need to learn to guide student reading with higher level text than in the past. ***To comment--or to see the comments of others--just click on a blog title and go to Theoretically, there is no limit to how much of a gap can be scaffolded. Many the bottom of the page studies have shown that teachers can facilitate student success with texts that students can read with only 80% accuracy and 50% comprehension, and I have no ***Feel free to email me at shanahan at doubt, that with even more scaffolding, students could probably bridge even bigger uic.edu gaps.

I vividly remember reading a case study of Grace Fernald when I was in graduate school. She wrote about teaching a 13-year-old, a total non-reader, to read WHAT TIM WORKS ON with an encyclopedia volume. That sounds crazy, but with a motivated student, and a AEI Speakers Bureau highly skilled teacher, and a lot of one-on-one instructional time, without too many AMP Reading System interruptions… it can work. Altis Reach Amplify Atlas But what is theoretically sound or possible under particularly supportive Children of the Code circumstances does not necessarily work in most classrooms. Common Core Standards

I have no doubt teachers can scaffold a couple of grade levels without too Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy much difficulty. That is, the fifth-grade teacher working with a fifth-grade book can Improving Reading Comprehension, K-3 successfully bring along a student who reads at a third-grade level in most classroom International Literacy Association situations. But as you make the distance between student and book bigger than that, McGraw Hill StudySync then I have to know a lot more about the teacher’s ability and resources to estimate McGraw-Hill Wonder Works whether it will work this time. McGraw-Hill Wonders National Early Literacy Panel Nevertheless, by preteaching vocabulary, providing fluency practice, offfering National Reading Panel guidance in making sense of sentences and cohesion, requiring rereading, and so on, I National Title I Study have no doubt that teachers can successfully scaffold a student across a 300-400 Lexile gap--with solid learning. Queens University Centre for Effective Education Reach Out and Read But specifically, you ask about scaffolding a 400-Lexile reader to an 820-Lexile text. If you had asked about 500 to 920, I wouldn't hesitate: Yes, a teacher could Reading Hall of Fame successfully scaffold that gap. I’m more hesitant with the 400 level as the starting point. Reading Rockets My reason for this is because 400 is a first-grade reading level. This would be a Reading in Motion student who is still mastering basic decoding skills. Ready to Learn Programme Thomas Fordham Institute I do not believe that shifting to more challenging text under those UIC Center for Literacy circumstances is such a good idea. WestEd Raising the Bar

To address this student’s needs, I would ramp up my phonics instruction, What Works Clearinghouse including dictation (I want my students to encode the alphabetic system as well as youngballymun, Dublin, Ireland decode it). I might increase the amount of reading he or she is expected to do with texts that highlight rather than obscure how the spelling system works (e.g., decodable POPULAR POSTS text, linguistic text). I would increase work on high frequency words, and I would What is Close Reading? increase the amount of oral reading fluency work, too. I’d do all of these things. The common core standards are encouraging teachers to engage students But I would not shift him/her to a harder book because of what needs to be in close reading. Much of the focus of mastered at beginning reading levels. We’ll eventually need to do that, but not until the discussions of close reading... foundations of decoding were more firmly in place. Planning for Close Reading The common core standards have An important thing to remember: no state standards raises the text demands for promoted the idea of close reading; students in Kindergarten or Grade 1. They do not do this because they are giving essentially a more text-centered approach students the opportunity to firmly master their basic decoding skills. It isn't the distance to guiding students' readi... between 400 and 820 that concerns me--that kind of a distance can be bridged; but a Common Core or Guided Reading 400-Lexile represents a limited degree of decoding proficiency, and so I wouldn't want Recently, I've been fielding questions to shift attention from achieving proficiency in reading those basic words. about guided reading (à la Fountas and Pinnell) and the common core; mainly about the differen...

Why Discussions of Close Reading Sound Like Nails Scratching on a Chalkboard Here are some myths about close reading Labels: scaffolding challenging text, text complexity Links to this post and my responses. 1. Close reading +1 Recommend this on Google is a teaching technique. We have many of teac... 7 comments: Rejecting Instructional Level Theory A third bit of evidence in the complex text SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2015 issue has to do with the strength of evidence on the other side of the ledger. In More on the Teaching with Books at the Students' Reading Levels my two previo... Daily Five and Common Core? Please provide the research about how teaching students using Recently, I received a question about the instructional level texts does not yield results! I am a literacy coach with appropriateness of the Daily Five to the Common Core. Interesting question…. I five years of successful guided reading with below-level ELL's, working think the pu... with them at their instructional level for TWENTY MINUTES A DAY. The Informational Text: Or How Thin Can You rest of our two-hour block is spent with students immersed in either an Slice the Salami As most of you know, the common core independent book of their choice (also about 20-25 minutes) or in grade state standards (CCSS) make a big deal level text (1+ hours). I feel confident that I am teaching CCSS Standard 10 about informational text. Unlike typical state standards, CCS... because my students read complex text in whole group with my scaffolding. Ten Things Good Writers Do I understand you've probably posted it many times, but please post it again I was asked to write the following for a local high school that wanted to provide here so I can see the research about why these 20 minutes of my students' some writing guidelines for its students. day, where I see them growing by leaps and bounds, is actually preventing This might be of... them from achieving the Common Core standards! Common Core Standards versus Guided Reading, Part I The new common core standards are I’ve never written that no learning results from being taught from texts at challenging widely accepted instructional one’s instructional level. In fact, the majority U.S. kids are currently taught practices. Probably no ox has been more impressively gored by t... in that fashion—and most American kids are learning to read, albeit not as well as we want them to. I have no doubt that your students are learning How Can Reading Coaches Raise Reading Achievement? something from the instructional level teaching that you are offering them. Teachers question: I have just been hired as a reading coach in a school where I have been a third-grade teacher. My But the real issue has to do with what’s best for kids, rather than what principal wants m... works. The men and women who manned the “iron lungs” of the 1950s did much for polio victims. No doubt about it. But they didn’t do as much as SEARCH THIS BLOG

Sabin and Salk who took a different approach to the matter. Iron lungs Search worked. Polio vaccines worked better.

ABOUT ME Teaching kids at their instructional level works. But you can often do better Tim Shanahan if you give kids the opportunity to learn more by placing them in more Timothy Shanahan is challenging texts. Distinguished Professor Emeritus of urban education You don’t indicate which grade level you teach, so it’s important to stress at the University of Illinois at Chicago where he was Founding Director that instructional level appears to matter initially—that’s when kids are first of the Center for Literacy and chair of the learning to read—but it doesn’t seem to matter after that. Perhaps you are Department of Curriculum and Instruction. working with first-graders or kids who are reading at a first-grade level, in He is also visiting research professor at Queens University, Belfast, Northern which case, I think you're going the right direction. (Of course, if you’re Ireland. He is principal investigator of the talking about kids who can read at a second- grade level and up, then I’d National Title I Study of Implementation and Outcomes: Early Childhood Language question why you are teaching everyone as if they were first-graders.) Development. Professor Shanahan was director of reading for the Chicago Public Your instructional use of time seems peculiar to me. Two hours of reading Schools. His research emphasizes class with no explicit instruction in decoding, fluency, vocabulary, or reading-writing relationships, reading assessment, and improving reading comprehension? I know there are fans of the idea that we just learn to read achievement. He is past president of the by reading, and I’ve certainly been critical about the lack of reading within International Reading Association. In instruction, but the research records on explicit teaching of the skills noted 2006, he received a presidential appointment to serve on the Advisory above--including to English learners--are just too good to ignore. Teaching Board of the National Institute for Literacy. any of the skills listed above has several times the impact on kids’ reading He was inducted to the Reading Hall of Fame in 2007. He is a former first-grade growth than having them off reading on their own. (I do encourage kids to teacher. read independently when I don’t have a highly skilled teacher available to View my complete profile work with them, but having them off reading separately from instruction when I do have such a teacher available seems wasteful.) TIM'S BLOG TOPICS ability grouping (6) Unlike what has been traditionally proposed by guided reading advocates, I academic vocabulary (4) have supported the idea of teaching kids with texts at multiple levels. That ACT (1) is, not all of the required reading should be at a student’s instructional level. Adolescent Literacy (14) Learning and consolidation come from taking on different levels of African American literature (1) challenge—varying the workload from easy to strenuous. I like that you are alphabet (2) intentionally having students read texts at multiple levels of demand. amount of instruction (5) amount of reading (2) Nevertheless, I’m puzzled as to why you work so closely with children amount of reading within instruction (1) when you believe they will have little or no difficulty with a text (you annotations (1) indicate that you work in small groups with kids in books at their argument/opinion (1) instructional level—in other words, texts—that if left to their own devices Assessment (22) Atlantic (1) —they could read with 75% comprehension). But when students are auding (1) required to read texts more likely to be at a frustration level, then you only Balanced Literacy (3) provide scaffolding on a whole class basis (oh, how I wish you would have Barack Obama (6) described that explicitly). Beginning Reading (16) Bobby Jindal (1) My approach to this is different: when children need a lot of help to carry Book placement (2) out a task (such as when asked to read a text that they can’t manage on their Books for Africa (2) own), I think it’s best to provide a lot of close support. And, when they can Books for Teachers (2) do reasonably well without me, I try to step back a bit and give them their Boys (1) head. You apparently believe the opposite—you are close by with few Brain research (1) distractions to interfere when they don’t need you, and you are more distant CAFE (2) and removed when real and immediate support would be beneficial. I find CCSS in the primary grades (2) that puzzling. Challenges of common core (8) challenging text (15)

Charities (4) Ultimately, the only thing that matters in this is how well your students can Chicago Reading Framework (4) read. If they can successfully read the text levels set by your standards—on Children's Books (1) their own—then what you are doing sounds great to me. But if many of Children's Literacy Initiative (1) them can only do such reading successfully—with adequate word Children's Television (1) recognition and comprehension—when you’re scaffolding for them, then classroom observations (2) you might want to rethink some of your approaches. Your kids might be Classroom organization (8) growing by “leaps and bounds” (I’d be happy to examine the evidence), but Close reading (28) if they aren’t growing sufficiently to reach the standards, then I’d encourage Cloze tests (1) you to be less dedicated to particular instructional approaches and more Coaching (2) dedicated to helping your kids reach particular goals. college admissions exams (1) Commercial reading programs (2) Finally, you requested some research sources. There are many bodies of Common Core (2) common core state standards (74) research that nibble at the edges of this topic, including studies that have complex text (12) challenged the accuracy and reliability of the ways that we identify complex vs. hard text (2) children’s instructional levels, examined correlationally the relationship comprehension strategies (3) between how well students are matched to books and student learning, Content area reading (7) relationships among text levels and student interest, and the effectiveness of copying (1) the kind of group instruction that you describe including its impact on Core programs (4) various demographic groups like high poverty populations or African Corrective Reading (1) American children. Those bodies of research aren’t particularly kind to the Cover-Copy-Compare (1) instructional level theory, but here I’ll only provide citations of studies that Critical reading (1) have directly compared the effectiveness of teaching students (second CTOPP; DIBELS (1) culturally responsive teaching (1) graders and up) with instructional level texts and with frustration level curriculum (2) texts. I’d gladly include similar studies that have found instructional level curriculum materials (3) teaching to be more effective; unfortunately, no such studies exist at this cursive writing (1) tim in the scientific literature. Daily 5 (2) Daily Five (3) Kuhn, M.R., Schwanenflugel, P.J., Morris, R.D., Morrow, L.M., Woo, D.G., Daniel Willingham (1) Meisinger, E.B., Savrik, R.A., Bradley, B.A., & Stahl, S.A. (2006). David Brooks (1) Teaching children to become fluent and automatic readers. Journal of decoding (1) Literacy Research, 38, 357-387. DIBELS (4) dictionary skills (1) Morgan, A., Wilcox, B. R., & Eldredge, J. L. (2000). Effect of difficulty differentiated instruction (8) levels on second-grade delayed readers using dyad reading. Journal of Direct Instruction (1) Educational Research, 94, 113–119. Disciplinary Literacy (28) discussion (1) Dolch words (1) O’Connor, R. E., Swanson, H. L., & Geraghty, C. (2010). Improvement in dyslexia (5) reading rate under independent and difficult text levels: Influences on E. D. Hirsch (1) word and comprehension skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, early interventions (2) 102, 1–19. earmarks (1) Earobics (1) ebooks (1) economics of literacy (1) Economy (1) Labels: Guided reading, instructional level, scaffolding challenging text Links to this post Education Week (1) Recommend this on Google Educational policy (17) 22 comments: Educational reform (7) effective teachers (2)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2013 ELLs (1) Encouraging Reading (15) Differentiating for Text Difficulty under Common Core English Language Learners (16) Even Start (1) Explicit teaching (2) Question: I have taught elementary and currently teach middle school language arts. expository/explanatory text (1) One thing that has been bothersome since I began teaching middle school is a lack of differentiating instruction to students’ needs. I am trying to research best practices and Facebook (1) lead an action plan for my school as I work towards my masters. I understand that Fast ForWord (1) students are now expected to read at a more difficult and complex text level with finger-point-reading (1) CCSS. I can’t imagine handing out a text of the same difficulty level to 30 students and Finland (2) expecting the same results. There still needs to be varying levels of text in a First Book (2) classroom. How would you suggest meeting the varying levels of students in your formative assessment (3) classroom? How should the lesson delivery look? I have been concluding that small foundational skills (2) group explicit instruction, with more complex text would be somewhere to start with free reading (2) students who are my least capable readers. It would be a goal to confer with these struggling readers daily if possible. Other research I have conducted states that one-to- French (1) one or homogeneous small group instruction garners the best results for teaching. I full-day kindergarten (1) would provide more freedom with my more accomplished readers knowing they genre (1) already have the skills and understanding of how to dissect a more complex text. Do Governor Mike Pence (2) you believe whole class direct instruction is a best practice for teaching our readers? I grades (1) have been arguing that our classroom teachers need to homogeneously group Grading (2) students and target specific reading skills that they are lacking. There has been a lot of Grammar (1) discussion about guided reading and CCSS, I believe what I have discussed adapts graphic novels (1) elements of guided reading to meet some of CCSS. Thank you for your response. group instruction (1) What a thoughtful set of questions. Guided reading (6) handwriting (1) I would say that while you can’t imagine handing out text of the same difficulty level to high expectations (1) 30 students, you might want to give it a try. Ask yourself: If everyone has to learn to high school (2) read this text, what supports are different students likely to need to read it? In other Hillary Clinton (1) words, I think in reading we’re all in a bit of a rut when it comes to differentiation. You Implementation (1) can vary more than the text itself. (If we were having kids practice for the 50 yard dash, we wouldn’t have some of them work on the 25 yard dash, but we might give them Improving Reading Achievement (9) different supports and encouragements). improving test performance (1) independent reading (1) For example, let’s say that I have some lower students who are going to struggle to independent reading level (1) read this like text; that is they are going to struggle with word recognition and fluency. Indiana (2) Perhaps you could have those students working on their fluency with that text, prior to informational text (9) the group lesson. Paired reading/partner reading, repeated reading, reading while Instruction (1) listening, etc. could be a real help to them. It may also be helpful for you to parse the text for them, showing them where the pause boundaries are. That way when these instructional level (10) students start to work on this text for comprehension sake, they will read it at a much integrated curriculum (1) higher (and closer to the others) level. international comparisons (3) Interventions (5) Then, when you do bring the group or class together to take on that text meaning, you IRA webinar (1) will have to have various supports and scaffolds ready. How are you going to divide the Ireland (3) text up to work through it? With an especially varied group, shorter segments are best. Jan Hasbrouck (1) Which vocabulary are you going to preteach? Which sentences do you think the Jeb Bush (1) grammar will trip the kids up? Which cohesive links are hard to follow? Anything about the structure that you will need to draw to the students’ attention? Is the tone John McCain (2) important? Subtle? What help could you provide with it—without telling kids what it Jumpstart (2) means or how it works? Some students will, indeed, need more of these supports than Kindergarten (6) others, but that is the kind of guidance that will be necessary. Language development (2) Leadership (2) Is it best to teach whole class or small group? They serve different purposes. Large Lesson Plans (4) group/class lessons allow me to cover a lot of information with everybody in an efficient Letters (2) manner, but it is difficult (though not impossible) to monitor success or to drill down and help individuals (again, there are important exceptions). Lexiles (4) Lincoln pennies (1) Small group is best for lots of interaction and response, you can maximize individual listening comprehension (1) participation and really hold participants more accountable. No question about it; I literary text (2) would rather work with a small group of students who are struggling with a hard text, literature (1) than a large group of students, some of whom are struggling and some are not. At manuscript printing; reading-writing least when my goal is to maximize the support. relationships (1) Marilyn Adams (1) I don’t think there is a best way to teach when it comes to small group/large group. Maze tests (1) They serve a different purpose and we need to move between them with some Middle school (5) frequency. I would say the same thing about dealing with challenging text: you don’t Mitt Romney (1) want all the text to be really hard or really easy; you want kids to have a range of reading experiences even within each day. Push them through something really difficult Motivation (5) and challenging, and then ease off the pressure by having them read something multiple texts (5) relatively easy. music (1) Labels: common core state standards, differentiated instruction, scaffolding challenging text, Myths (2) within class grouping Links to this post NAEP (1)

+1 Recommend this on Google National Early Literacy Panel (10) National Institute for Literacy (1) 8 comments: National Literacy Panel for Language Minority Children and Youth (2) FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2013 National Reading Panel (5) NCLB (1) How Can I Teach with Books that are Two Years above Student Reading NELP (4) Levels? New Literacies (1) No Child Left Behind (2) I teach 4th grade general education. I have read several of your articles the last few nonsense words (1) days because I have a growing frustration regarding guided reading. I believe a lot of oral reading (3) your ideas about what does not work are correct, but I don't understand what you Oral Reading Fluency (25) believe we SHOULD be doing. I am confused about how to give students difficult text Orton-Gillingham (1) books to read without reading it to them. I thought I was doing what I was supposed to PARCC (5) be doing. I do not know how to scaffold science or social studies text for students that Parents (10) are 2 years behind without reading it to them. I also feel pressure in these subjects to Phonics (9) read it to them because I thought it was more important for them to understand the Phonics and Phonological Awareness (13) information thoroughly by reading the text aloud, having thoughtful discussions, and phonological awareness (3) follow up activities. Every time I think I know what I should be doing, I read another Plain Talk 2016 (1) article and realize that I am doing that wrong too. So, please give me guidance on how post-structuralist reading (1) to best teach nonfiction and fiction text to my class whole group. What strategies and poverty (3) types of activities are the best? power standards (1)

I feel your pain. What would it look like to scaffold a fourth-grade lesson from a social Powerpoints (55) studies book with children reading at what formerly we would have referred to as a pre-reading (4) second-grade level? I think there are a number of possibilities. predicting later success (1) Preschool (11) First, I would “level” (pun intended) with the kids. That is, I would not try to hide from Preschool; National Early Literacy Panel; them that I was going to ask them to read a book that we would in the past have said NELP (2) was too hard for them. The point here is motivation. People like a challenge and kids Preschool; National Early Literacy Panel; are people. When you ask them to take on something really hard, let them in on the NELP; (1) secret so they know to be proud of themselves when they meet the challenge. Principals (3) prior knowledge (2) Second, and here I have to be a bit experimental, trying some choices that might turn Professional Development (4) out not to work—or, more likely, that turn out to be not as efficient as some of the other Progress monitoring (1) choices. My first attempt would be to read the chapter we were going to work with, pull out instruction (1) trying to identify anything that might trip the kids up: specific ideas that I thought were especially complicated or subtle or abstract, key background information that they purpose setting (1) might not know yet, essential vocabulary, sentences that might confuse, cohesive links Pyramid (1) among the words that could be hard to track, organizational structure that might require Questioning (2) highlighting, and so on. Basically, what makes this text hard to comprehend? With that Race (2) information, I would now make a decision: is the difficulty something to be prevented or railroad cat (1) monitored? Reach Out and Read (3) Readability (4) Sometimes, I will think that a problem is so big that I must get out in front of it. If there Reading comprehension (47) is something that you are certain the kids can’t figure out that might discourage them or that wouldn’t be worth the time, then by all means intervene early. If I think the key to reading disability (9) understanding this page is a particular vocabulary word, I very well might explain that Reading Excellence and Discovery Foundation (1) word before having the kids attempt the page. But often, I would rather have the students give it a try; there is nothing wrong with trying something and failing the first Reading First (12) time. I can monitor their success with questions aimed at revealing whether they got Reading Is Fundamental (1) that point or not, and I can follow up with assistance. So, if the students don't connect a reading lessons (1) particular concept and process appropriately because of a confusing cohesive link (like Reading levels (1) not recognizing that “it” referred to the planentary ring and not gravity), I will get the reading practice (1) kids involved in trying to connect the various references throughout the text. reading recovery (1) Reading Research (2) Third, the scaffolding described above will likely require some rereading—either of the Reading to Children (4) whole chapter (fourth grade science and social studies chapters are surprisingly short, so rereading the entire chapter is usually not that big a deal). Thus, they try to read it; I reading to students (1) question them and help them work through the problems; and then they reread it repeated reading (1) (perhaps more than once), to see if they can figure it out the second or third time. repetition (1) report cards (1) Fourth, let’s say I have tried that and the process has been really slow and labored or Reprints of articles (1) the kids are being tripped up, not by the ideas, but by their struggle to recognize and Research (7) read the words. If this is the case, before I even get to the reading and scaffolding and Response to Instruction (3) rereading described above, I would have the students do fluency work. For example, I would have the students mumble read the text (or a part of the text) at their desks. Or, I Response to Intervention (3) would partner them up and have them engage in paired reading, taking turns reading Retention (3) one page aloud to their partner, and then listening and helping as the partner tries the Rhyming (1) next page. That kind of oral reading practice with repetition can be a big help in raising Richard Rothstein (1) the students’ ability to work with that text. Once they have read it like that once or Room to Read (2) twice, you’d be surprised at how much better they can read it for comprehension. Thus, round robin (1) they would then be ready for step two above. As I said, you have to be experimental— RtI (6) trying out different combinations and orders of fluency work, reading, scaffolding, and rereading. SAT (1) SBAC (2) This can be painstaking. But, in the end, the students will have read the material that scaffolding challenging text (5) formerly you would have protected them from. They will have both the science or social School Choice (1) studies knowledge, but it will have come about because of their own interactions with school improvement (2) the text, rather than because you read it to them or told them what it said. By engaging in such efforts (and this is a real effort—it involves a lot of teacher planning, modeling, school librarians (2) explaining, etc.), the students become better able to handle harder text than they could school libraries (2) at the start. Over time they build the strength to handle more challenging language with Science Literacy (1) less teacher guidance. sentence complexity (1) Sequence of instruction (4)

shared reading (3) Labels: challenging text, common core state standards, Reading comprehension, scaffolding Sight vocabulary (3) challenging text Links to this post silent reading (2) Recommend this on Google small group instruction (1) 3 comments: Special Education (3) spelling (3) standards (3) TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2012 Starting the School Year (1) New Presentation on Scaffolding Challenging Text Story maps (1) Strategies and skills (7) Here is the link to my presentation on scaffolding challenging text. Hope it is useful. Subscribe to Blog (1) Summer reading (2) https://sites.google.com/site/tscommoncore/text-complexity summer slide (1) Labels: challenging text, Powerpoints, scaffolding challenging text, text complexity Sustained Silent Reading (1) Links to this post Recommend this on Google syntax (1) No comments: Syracuse (1) Teach Your Baby to Read (2) Teacher education (3) Home Older Posts teacher evaluation (1)

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) Teaching (5) teaching reading at home (2) teaching research (2) technology (1) Testing (5) Testing Accommodations (2) text complexity (15) text difficulty (7) text interpretation (1) text structure (1) Textbooks (11) thematic units (1) think-pair-share (1) Thomas Fordham Institute (1) Thomas Sticht (1) time (7) tracking (1) Turnaround schools (1) United through Reading (2) Videos (3) visual literacy; illustrations; (1) Vocabulary (18) Voice of Literacy (1) webinar (1) Websites (1) What Works Clearinghouse (2) whole class instruction (2) Wilson Reading (1) within class grouping (3) word knowledge (3) word study (3) Writing (12) writing about text (2) Writing. Reading-Writing relationships (5) Youth Culture (2)

TIM'S COMPREHENSION RESOURCES Center for Improvement of Early Reading Achievement IES Practice Guide on Reading Comprehension K-3 Literacy Learning Exchange RAND Report

COMMON CORE SITES Common Core Standards PARCC Assessment Smarter Balanced Assessment Understanding Language Common Core Watch Achieve the Core Achieve.org New York State Education Department Education Week

TIM'S LINKS FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS Center for Applied Linguistics Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence Center on Instruction Colorin Colorado Practice Guide What Works Clearinghouse TESOL

Picture Window template. Powered by Blogger.