1 / 18

Presented by: Alex Lin Dr. Joshua Lawrence Dr. Raul Lejano

Presented by: Alex Lin Dr. Joshua Lawrence Dr. Raul Lejano. Initial Motivation for Word Generation . Conversations with teachers in many middle schools revealed that : Teachers report good word reading, but poor comprehension All-purpose academic vocabulary was rarely taught

mindy
Download Presentation

Presented by: Alex Lin Dr. Joshua Lawrence Dr. Raul Lejano

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presented by: Alex Lin Dr. Joshua Lawrence Dr. Raul Lejano

  2. Initial Motivation for Word Generation Conversations with teachers in many middle schools revealed that: • Teachers report good word reading, but poor comprehension • All-purpose academic vocabulary was rarely taught • Context area texts were often difficult and rarely interesting • Many students were disengaged • Teachers frequently lectured, rather than guiding students through reading

  3. Word Generation Goals Program Features • Build middle school students’ vocabulary through repeated exposure to high frequency academic words in various contexts • Support teachers in regular use of effective instructional strategies for vocabulary across all content areas • Passages written to engage adolescents in high-level discussions on nationally-relevant topics • Should there be federal funding for stem cell research? • Should athletes be paid multi-million dollar salaries?

  4. Past Studies on WG Previously published studies document Word Generation’s positive effects on students’ reading comprehension, teacher practice and language development for limited English-proficiency students (Lawrence, Capotosto, Branum-Martin, White, & Snow, 2011; Snow, Lawrence, White, 2009).

  5. Research Design • In 2010, 13 inner-city middle schools in San Francisco (6,800 students) participated in an experimental study of the Word Generation program. • Program impact on vocabulary and reading comprehension was measured by pre and post assessments • Also including scientific literacy and engagement items

  6. Curriculum Material Word Generation Material

  7. Science Thought experiments to promote discussion and scientific reasoning

  8. Social Studies Developing positions on the issue set out In the passage, to help the class frame the debate

  9. Writing / Taking a Stand English / Language Arts Give evidence to support your position

  10. Math

  11. Sample of Student Notebooks Student A Sample of Student NotebooksStudent 1

  12. Student B

  13. Funding Opportunities

  14. Theory of Action Theory of Action

  15. In 213 observations, teachers in Word Generation (WG) schools reported more discussion in comparison to control schools (CO).

  16. Learn More.. • http://www.serpinstitute.org • http://wordgeneration.org • Professor Joshua Lawrence (jflawren@uci.edu) • Professor Raul Lejano(lejano@uci.edu) • Doctoral Student Alex Lin (alin13@uci.edu) Contact:

  17. Works Cited • Clark, F. & Illman, D.L. (2001). Dimensions of civic science: Introductory essay. Science Communications, 23 (1), 5-27. • Kim, C. & Fortner, R.W. (2006). Issue-specific barriers to addressing environmental issues in the classroom: An exploratory study. The Journal of Environmental Education, 37 (3), 15-22. • Lawrence, J.F., Capotosto, L., Branum-Martin, L., White, C. & Snow, C.E. (in press). Language proficiency, home-language status, and English vocabulary development. A longitudinal follow-up of the Word Generation program. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (1), 1-15. • National Science Board (2000). Communicating science and technology in the public interest (NSB-00-99). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation [online]. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2000/nsb0099/nsb009.htm • National Assessment of Educational Progress (2009). The nation’s report card: Science 2009 national assessment ofeducational progress at grades 4, 8 and 12. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. • Sadler, T.D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, (41) 5, 513-536. • Sadler, T.D., Chambers, F.W., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). Student conceptualization of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, (26) 4, 387-409. • Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on EducationalEffectiveness, 2 (4), 325–344. • Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (39) 1, 35-62.

More Related