Week 5.1: Reflection of SIOP Videos

Pre-Reading:
1.) The teacher explained the goal for the day's reading. She also read and pointed to each of the objectives listed on the board. This way, ELL students were able to see the visual and also hear the objectives.

2.) The teacher activated prior knowledge by asking students what reading strategies they have been working on in class.

3.) The teacher previewed key vocabulary. Each of the key vocabulary words was written on chart paper. She passed around pictures of the vocabulary words to students. She also provided the analogy flowers for the vocabulary word bouquet. She connected student experience to the words prick and resent. While explaining what resent meant, a student was able to come up with the word jealous which the teacher acknowledged had a similar meaning.

During Reading:
1.) The teacher told students to turn to a page number and also had the page number written on the board.

2.) The teacher had students follow along with the reading while she read. The words were also projected onto the projector.

3.) The teacher came to the words Las Manintas (the Birthday Song) and asked students if they knew the song. Students happily sang the parts of the song that they knew.

4.) The teacher used slower speech and was careful to pronounce each word.

5.) The teacher asked questions during the story and reminded students to make inferences while reading.

6.) The students had  the opportunity to practice speaking the language. One student made a text-to-text connection which she happily shared with the class.

7.) The teacher reinforced key vocabulary words, such as prick.

8.) Students had time to interact with the text and the teacher provided 3-5 seconds of wait time.

Post Reading:
1.) The teacher asked students to use post-its to write 3 notes for the diary board.

Reflection:
Wow! This was an excellent example of how the SIOP method can be effective with English Language Learners, as well as ALL students. The teacher did a fantastic job of making input comprehensible for ELL students. She also did a good job making connections between students cultural backgrounds and the text read. There were many visuals used to help with teaching vocabulary. Students really seemed to be engaged with the text. They used prior knowledge and made connections with the text. They showed respect for their fellow classmates by taking turns raising their hands and providing input on the text being read. The teacher acknowledged when students provided input and normally expanded on it.

Week 4.1: Running Records and Miscue Analysis for ELL Students

The first ELL student I administered a running record to was a first grader named Dianna. Her primary home language is Spanish. Dianna is a very bright student who loves school and especially loves to read! She read Ants by Mickey Darnonco and Lori Presti, Level 18 book with a 95% accuracy rate. Her miscues are shown below in the chart. I found it interesting that 88% of her miscues were graphically similar in the beginning of the word and 50% were graphically similar in the beginning and middle of the word. Only one of the miscues was self corrected which I believed has aided in her comprehension being so strong. She gave a very accurate retelling of the story. I feel she would have had a more difficult time with comprehension if she was consistently self correcting herself.

		Graphically similar?			Syntactically similar?	Semantically similar?	Self-corrected?
Text Says	Child Says	B	M	E
outside	inside		Ö	Ö	Y	N	Y
colony	call-	Ö			N	N	N
worker	workers	Ö	Ö		N	N	N
soldier	sold-	Ö	Ö		N	N	N
they	that	Ö			N	N	N
worker	working	Ö	Ö		Y	Y	N
antennae	ant-	Ö			N	N	N
shows	show	Ö	Ö		Y	Y	N

The second ELL student I administered a running record to was a first grader named Marko. Marko's parents are originally from Ukraine and have taught Marko how to speak Ukrainan. Marko also enjoys school and likes reading. He read Watch a Butterfly Grow by Shaundra Wenger, Level 13 book with a 94% accuracy rate. His miscues are shown below in the chart. Marko's miscue's were 67% graphically similar in the beginning of the word and 67% in the end of the word. Like Dianna, he only self corrected once. Even though his miscues were only 22% semantically similar, he still gave an excellent retell of the story. In fact, he provided many key details of the story including each of the four stages of a butterfly.

		Graphically similar?			Syntactically similar?	Semantically similar?	Self-corrected?
Text Says	Child Says	B	M	E
pupa	pipa	Ö		Ö	N	N	N
cabbage	cab-beige	Ö		Ö	Y	N	N
swallow-tail	swallow-till	Ö	Ö		Y	N	N
then	when		Ö	Ö	Y	Y	N
sticky	sticks	Ö	Ö		N	N	N
sheds	needs		Ö	Ö	Y	N	Y
the	then	Ö	Ö		N	N	N
swallow-tail	Snow-tail			Ö	Y	Y	N
types	tips	Ö		Ö	Y	N	N

Reflection:
Overall, I found it interesting that both ELL students miscues were graphically similar; incidentally in the beginning of the word and often times in the middle of the word also. These two students may automatically be looking at the beginning and middle of the word, and saying the first English word that is graphically similar. For example, the text read the and Marko said then. This would normally affect comprehension, but not for these two students. "Studies of reader miscues, in fact, show that struggling readers often rely too much on letters and sounds, while more proficient readers make greater use of syntactic and semantic clues as they read (Freeman & Freeman, p.137).

 Another thing I noticed is the pronunciation was sometimes very different. For example, the text read cabbage and Marko said cab-beige. I think he still may have understood what cabbage meant in the story but just pronounced it differently. However, if the pronunciation was making comprehension difficult, I would plan goals for the student that focus on pronunciation. (Freeman & Freeman, p.127).

One recurring pattern I found with Dianna is that three of her miscues involved the incorrect use of suffixes. For example, the text read worker and she said working. If I viewed Dianna's writings, I would guess that she is using incorrect suffixes. I would provide some extra practice for Dianna on using suffixes. Writing rhyming pages would help Dianna to become more aware of different spellings for a given sound. (Freeman & Freeman, p.139).  However, I would refrain from correcting her reading as long as it's not affecting her comprehension.

Miscues that are universal to all learners are the ones that are difficult for the student to sound out using phonics. For example, the text read types and Marko read tips. Marko tried sounding out the word and when that didn't work, he said a word that was most closely related. The is another word that phonics doesn't work on which is why its essential to teach and practice sight words with students."The key, then, is for children to build up a large number of known words" (Freeman & Freeman, p.142).

References

Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2004). Second and Written Language Acquisition. In Essential linguistics: What you need to know to teach reading, ESL, spelling, phonics, and grammar (2nd ed., pp. 52-83). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.