Annotated References - Lesson Study Cycle 2

Ruby Beltran
EDU575
High Tech High Graduate School of Education

Ladson-Billings, G., (1995). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy, ​Theory Into Practice​, 34:3, 159-165, pgs. 159- 163.
DOI: 10.1080/00405849509543675

This journal explores the impact of culturally relevant pedagogy on students of color.
Ladson-Billings shares, “She believed that by using particular skills in context (e.g.,
multiplication and division in the context of solving equations), the students would
become more proficient at those skills while acquiring new learning” (Ladson-
Billings,163). When thinking about students who may be behind in learning skills, the
teacher that was being interviewed shared that it was important for her to be able to
support her students in order to be able to practice at-grade level skills by providing
additional support. This was a kind reminder to myself that teachers across disciplines
have goals that they need to reach and when students may be lacking foundation skills
there are purposeful changes that teachers do to their teaching style in order for the
student to be able to access the learning. It is interesting to see how other teachers
approach supporting students that have a diverse learning style by
making adaptations in their classroom independently.

Glass, L., (2019). Reading chess rumble: engaging disengaged readers through culturally
relevant literature discussions. ​Journal of Children’s Literature​, 45(2), pp. 56–68.

Laporsha’s retells her experience of a small group literature discussion as if the reader
was experiencing her thinking as she was planning and executing her reading activity. It
was intriguing to get Laporsha’s pre-thinking process and then have her explanation as to
why she chose about 4-6 students in order to keep it small enough for students to have the
opportunity to share their thinking, as they shared they did not self-identify as strong
readers. She stated, “Literature discussion groups provide a social space for readers to
absorb shared knowledge and make connections to their lives from the text” (pg. 68).
Laporsha gave the reader a mini re-cap of each student and a description of what the
shared during the literature discussion. I was able to get a sense of how the students
developed with their comprehension of the reading by being able to read their exact
words with their peers. As well as, an account of how the students liked the reading that
 was chosen because they had a lot of connections with the language and made
connections to characters in the stories.

Lemons, C. J., Allor, J. H., Al Otaiba, S., & LeJeune, L. M. (2016). 10 Research-based tips for
enhancing literacy instruction for students with intellectual disability. Teaching
exceptional children, 49(1), 18–30. ​https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916662202

My group read an article about students who identify with (ID), Intellectual Disability. A
quote that resonated with me is, “In other words, although it may take multiple years of
instruction for a student to be able to read at a third-grade or even first-grade level, a
student who obtains even this level of basic skill can access many more texts than a
nonreader” (pg. 22). This quote validated my perspective to small group reading as
important and focusing on reading skills is a meaningful task to accomplish. I feel like
with the whimsy of the day, I am often faced with the decision to support student work
for completion vs. understanding. I feel like my job as an Education Specialist is to focus
on content and skills with students, but often it gets muddled by the fast pace of the
school day expectations. This reading helped me to remember that at times it can be
highly beneficial for a student to revisit reading skills in order to become more
independent with reading throughout their school career.

Daniel, S. M., Martin-Beltrán, M., Peercy, M. M., & Silverman, R. (2016). Moving beyond
“Yes” or “No”: shifting from over-scaffolding to contingent scaffolding in literacy
instruction with emergent bilingual students. TESOL Journal, 7(2), 393–420. Retrieved
From
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1101146&site=eho
st-live

My group and I found articles on literacy practices that support students who identify as
English Language Learners and/or students with learning disabilities with reading
structures and peer group learning. I began my research by reading the article, ​Moving
beyond “Yes” or “No”: Shifting from Over-Scaffolding to Contingent Scaffolding in
Literacy Instruction with Emergent Bilingual Students.​ An observation in this week’s
readings that I felt a connection with states, “Our findings show that the visual interfered
with more productive discursive interaction between Andres and James because it
over-scaffolded and prevented students from engaging in practices of good readers, such
as textual decision making, explanations of their interpretations of text” (David, pg. 13).
The researchers noticed that in observation of their students in a cross-age peer group,
that the older students in 4th grade were so focused on answering the provided graphic
 organizer questions that it stumped the conversation and questions provided by the
Kindergartener. The Kindergartener in this observation was the focal point of how
students may support struggling readers to better understand a certain reading activity.
When the researchers adapted their reading scaffolds to have more open-ended questions,
provided with more visuals and less of an expectation to answer a large amount of
questions they noticed a drastic change in the older students response to their
Kindergarten buddy. For example, a notice of another peer group shared that, “Selena
supported Carolina by offering the linguistic support of paraphrasing an open-ended
question, listening to and re-voicing Carolina’s ideas, and encouraging her to elaborate”
(David, pg. 14). The 4th-grade peers were seen as more focused to their Kinder buddies
questions when asking about their shared reading by listening to them and re-starting
their ideas. This was a noticeable change and both peers benefited from the experience by
being able to share more questions and bond in a more natural experience than with the
highly scaffolded reading activity.

Cummins, J. (2011). Literacy Engagement: Fueling Academic Growth for English Learners.
Reading Teacher, 65(2), 142–146. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ961009&site=ehost
-live

This reading gave me more insight to California state law in regards to presumptions with
English Language Instruction. I was shocked to learn that, “...Proposition 227, passed in
California in 1998, was premised on the assumption that one year of intensive English
instruction would be sufficient to enable EL students to integrate into mainstream
classrooms with minimal additional support. In fact, research on the effects of
Proposition 227 found that after three years of instruction, only 12% of EL students in
California had acquired sufficient academic English to be redesignated as
English-proficient” (Cummins et al., 2011). Just reading this gives me heightened
feelings of unrealistic goal setting in the education setting. Another interesting point from
the reading is the breakdown that the article provides in regards to the construct of
literacy engagement. These are the components mentioned, “Guthrie (2004), for example,
pointed out that the construct of literacy engagement incorporates notions of time on task
(reading and writing extensively), affect (enthusiasm and enjoyment of literacy), depth of
cognitive processing (strategies to deepen comprehension), and active pursuit of literacy
activities (amount and diversity of literacy practices in and out of school)” (Cummins et
al., 2011). In the article, the components mentioned are framed in a graphic organizer
which really helped me to see the parts where I can focus with when thinking about
potential reading interventions I can use to support the focus student.
O’Shea, D. J., McQuiston, K., & McCollin, M. (2009). Improving Fluency Skills of
Secondary-Level Students from Diverse Backgrounds. Preventing School Failure, 54(1),
77–80. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ845962&site=ehost
-live

This article presents reading strategies that I have heard of prior or are currently being
used within the classroom setting. To improve fluency for students from diverse
backgrounds are, “Some of these strategies include echo reading, choral reading,
antiphonal reading, partner reading, reader’s theater, and shared reading experiences
across the curriculum” (O’Shea et. al., 2009). I also found it helpful to be reminded that
teacher modeling could also be a guide to help students with reading. The article put
emphasis that students learn by, “Instructional strategies, such as teachers’ modeling and
guiding students to use spelling patterns called chunks and analogies to decode unfamiliar
words, can support a wide range of content-specific exercises tailored for different types
of literacy enjoyment” (O’Shea et. al., 2009). This was helpful as teacher modeling as a
productive reading strategy. For students to be able to understand the expectations of the
lesson is helpful.