|
| Morningside Academy: What's New? |
| Sunday, May 24, 2009 |
| 9:00 AM–10:20 AM |
| North 122 A |
| Area: EDC; Domain: Service Delivery |
| Chair: Joanne K. Robbins (Morningside Academy) |
| CE Instructor: Mary E. McDonald, Ph.D.. |
| Abstract: This symposium is one in an ongoing, annual series that provides updated information and data on the Morningside Model of Generative Instruction, and its application in our Morningside Academy laboratory school. In our lab school, we investigate promising curricula or instructional procedures, measure their effectiveness, and revise our curriculum and instruction protocols as the data suggests. All presentations describe teacher designed and implemented procedures. Presentation #1 by Reilly and Stretz investigates interventions designed to strengthen student learning skills to increase performance outcomes. Presentation #2 by Isbell, Ganzeveld, Vu, Wolfson & Johnson describes a blending of two decoding programs to maximize their effectiveness and generativity. Presentation #3 by Landau, Lybarger, Wolfson & Robbins describes improvements to our thinking and problem solving program, TAPS. Presentation #4 by Delgado describes improvements in our reading comprehension program. |
| |
| Providing Explicit Feedback on Daily Report Cards and Classroom Wall Charts to Promote Self-Recording of Active Learning Behaviors |
| JENNIFER REILLY (Morningside Academy), Adam G. Stretz (Morningside Academy) |
| Abstract: Typical methods at Morningside for motivating students to improve their academic performance include the teacher giving immediate specific feedback for target behaviors on a daily report card and publicly displaying academic performance of each student in the classroom. This proves to be a successful system for many of our learners, but for some, explicit teaching of target skills on the report card seem necessary. A self-recording tracking sheet that identifies specific active learning behaviors has been developed for at-risk students to recognize specific behaviors necessary for learning to occur. These behaviors have been grouped by levels on a continuum that increases the level of responsibility for the student to interact with instruction. Data have been collected over the past two years suggesting a correlation of numbers of years gained on national Reading Comprehension measures and the Level of Active Behavior demonstrated by students. Using performance data from wall charts, students are identified as at-risk for not making academic gains. For these students specific active learning behaviors are targeted, explicitly taught and monitored by both students on their tracking sheet and teachers on the daily report card. This inquiry attempts to examine the effectiveness of the self-recording tracking sheet of active behaviors in improving academic performance for at-risk learners. |
| |
| How to Blend Instructional Programs: Integrating Two Multisyllabic Decoding Programs to Maximize Application and Generativity |
| SHILOH ISBELL (Morningside Academy), Sarah E Ganzeveld (Morningside Academy), Michael P. Wolfson (Morningside Academy), Kent Johnson (Morningside Academy) |
| Abstract: The program, “Reading Excellence: Word Attack & Rate Development Strategies (REWARDS),” by Anita Archer, is a widely used decoding program at Morningside Academy. It has been very efficacious in teaching struggling readers the basics of sounding out words by knowing word parts and vowel combinations. However, it does not include explicit instruction on how to blend sounds and word parts together and accent particular word parts to form conventional-sounding words. “Word Workout,” a program developed by Nancy K. Lewkowicz, does instruct learners on how to pronounce multisyllabic words with the correctly stressed syllables, but it assumes students have already acquired knowledge of word parts and vowel combinations. This presentation will (a) describe the two strategies, (b) how they are blended at Morningside to make bigger gains than either program alone would accomplish, (c) data on the effectiveness of incorporating Lewkowicz’ procedures with Archer’s, and (d) data showing generativity of the mastered skills in new reading contexts. |
| |
| Talk Aloud Problem Solving (TAPS): Defining Problems and Aims |
| HALEY LANDAU (Morningside Academy), Erica Lybarger (Morningside Academy), Michael P. Wolfson (Morningside Academy), Joanne K. Robbins (Morningside Academy) |
| Abstract: Previously the focus of instruction in our Talk Aloud Problem Solving classes centered on the reasoning or problem solving component of the talk aloud process. This year, we provided a sequence of instruction that began by requiring students to identify the problem-to-solve. By looking at both abstract logic problems and everyday situations in life, we required students to examine situations, ask questions, and define the problem prior to practicing the repertoires required of the successful talk aloud reasoning process. The same language used by teachers to analyze conceptual learning, such as "attribute," "example", and "nonexample" were taught to the students during logic games such as those using attribute blocks; Mastermind; Bagels, Pico, Fermi; followed by the 20 Questions game and then Suchman Inquiry scenarios to build the yes/no question-generating repertoires. We grouped and regrouped students based upon their rates of acquiring these skills. This year, we introduced problem types in a track sequence rather than by unit. We will share data on rates of problem solving for problem types (analogy, Venn diagram, deductive reasoning) as a first step in identifying mastery rates or Aims for TAPS. A live demonstration of TAPS will be provided. |
| |
| Combining the Power of Fluency, The Standard Celeration Chart, Reading Comprehension Strategies, Delayed Prompting, and Essay Writing |
| MARIANNE DELGADO (Morningside Academy) |
| Abstract: This paper explores the combination of frequency measures and delayed prompting notation in the scoring of essay questions on reading comprehension tests. Problems occur when trying to gather data and measure growth on rubric scored essays alone, most important of which is distinguishing between students fluent in a skill and those needing much time, prompts and practice to reach a criterion answer. Acquiring sub-skills for discussing reading comprehension and practicing to fluency will be charted and explained. I will outline a new system of using the celeration chart to measure fluency, words per minute with a variable floor; independent learning skills, with a documentation of how often a teacher needs to prompt for criterion answer; and tracking growth on specific reading strategies, with essay questions geared towards target strategies taught in class. Several case studies and celeration charts of individual students’ progress throughout a school year will document the effectiveness of the system. |
|
| |