665

ModifiedGuidedReadingELLs.pdf

G uided reading is a component of a balanced literacy program providing differentiated, small-group reading instruction to four to six

students with similar strengths and instructional needs (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996) or to heterogeneously grouped students (Cunningham, Hall, & Sigmon, 2000). It is recommended that these groups meet at least three to five times per week for 20 to 30 minutes each session in order for students to make consistent reading gains (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). This ap- proach to reading instruction provides teachers the opportunity to explicitly teach children the skills and comprehension strategies students need, thus facili- tating the acquisition of reading proficiency. Multiple copies of graded leveled books are carefully selected and used by the teacher based on the children’s in- structional needs and interests. According to Reutzel and Cooter (2005), graded leveled books are typically categorized to include four levels of children’s reading development: early emergent, emergent, early fluency, and fluency. The language of these leveled texts devel- opmentally matches the syntax and organization of most young children’s speech. It is important that texts chosen for the guided-reading groups provide children with a reasonable challenge but also present an oppor- tunity for potential success. In implementing guided

Modified Guided Reading: Gateway to English as a Second Language and Literacy Learning Mary A. Avalos, Alina Plasencia, Celina Chavez, Josefa Rascón

Modified guided reading provides students with the understanding that reading is about creating and gaining meaning from text.

reading, teachers act as a guide to build upon the knowledge, skills, and strategies the children already possess.

All students benefit when teachers use the guided- reading instructional model. These benefits include in- dividualized instruction, the use of books at students’ reading levels, the opportunity to create and sustain meaning, the exposure to language that is context em- bedded, the structured format of the lesson, and the systematic evaluation of students’ progress (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; Knox & Amador-Watson, 2002). Active student involvement is key as the children talk about the story, ask questions, and build their expectations of the text. This active involvement includes everyone in the group as students simultaneously read and re- ceive support from the teacher and peers. In addition, reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills are im- plemented in a social environment by engaging in conversations before and after reading.

English-language learners (ELLs) also benefit from these aspects of guided reading; however, when a mod- ified approach is used, they gain additional language- learning opportunities that native speakers typically acquire implicitly. The modifications described here enhance and enrich language- and literacy-learning opportunities to include detailed vocabulary instruc- tion, variables concerning second-language text struc- ture (e.g., semantics, syntax, morphology), and cultural relevance. Modified guided reading (MGR) addresses these variables, enabling language and lit- eracy instruction to be emphasized in small-group set- tings (Figure 1). First we describe why modifications are necessary for ELLs and provide a theoretical frame- work for this approach. Then we describe the compo- nents of MGR and walk through a lesson by means of a

318

planning guide, ending the manuscript by sharing a small pilot study using this approach.

Why Modify for ELLs? Some researchers have determined that ELLs are not generally ready for English reading instruction until they are at the intermediate stage of English-language acquisition ( Knox & Amador-Watson, 2002), while others advocate that reading and a second language are best acquired simultaneously (Anderson & Roit, 1998; Barrera, 1983). Collier and Thomas (1999) found that ELLs who receive support in their native language can take 4 to 7 years to achieve 50th normal curve

equivalents in English reading and 7–10 years if sup- port in the first language (L1) is not provided. More recently, Slavin and Cheung (2005) reviewed experi- mental studies comparing bilingual and English-only reading programs for ELLs. Although only 17 studies met the criteria to be included in their review, the ma- jority favored bilingual approaches to reading instruc- tion for ELLs; however, paired bilingual strategies teaching reading in both the L1 and L2 simultaneous- ly were especially successful. Slavin and Cheung con- cluded that more longitudinal studies with randomized designs are needed to determine how reading instruction for ELLs should be approached. In working with ELLs at all grade levels, we have found

Modified Guided Reading 319

Figure 1 Benefits of the Guided Reading and MGR Instructional Approaches

Benefits of MGR for English-language learners

Benefits of guided reading for all students

that the key to determining readiness appears to be the student’s reading level in the first language, indi- cating the importance of L1 literacy assessment to guide L2 instruction.

Generally, if the student is a proficient reader in the L1, the act of reading is a known process (Heath, 1983; Jiménez, García, & Pearson, 1996; Krashen, 1985). With proper support from the teacher, students in the early L2 acquisition stages can be successful L2 readers (Anderson & Roit, 1998; Avalos, 1999; Barrera, 1983; Goodman, Goodman, & Flores, 1979). Our expe- riences working with L2 readers mirror these findings in that students with a higher proficiency in the L1 most often have a smoother transition to L2 oral and reading proficiencies. It should be noted, however, that students who were not proficient readers in the L1 have also made gains using the MGR approach.

While basic interpersonal conversation skills (BICS) are acquired using guided reading or other in- teractive approaches, students’ cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) will develop more quick- ly when instructional needs pertaining to language are considered as well. CALP is academic language, or the

language of texts. According to Cummins (1981), BICS takes two to three years to acquire and CALP, the tier of language necessary for academic success, five to seven years. When using texts as the instructional vehicles, CALP will be enhanced as teachers focus on students’ combined literacy and language instructional needs. In addition, small, flexible groups lend themselves to ac- celerated learning; however, teacher planning for stu- dents’ needs is the key to learning gains (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000; Wiggins, 1994).

Guided reading provides teachers with a system- atic, yet open-ended framework for evaluating stu- dents’ needs while building upon the strengths students have already demonstrated (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). MGR adds to this supportive framework by stretching the lesson from one or two 20- to 30- minute sessions to three or more per text, adding a shared reading of the guided-reading text and incor- porating word work with objectives pertaining to mor- phological and phonemic awareness, as well as phonics and explicit instruction of semantics and syn- tax (Table 1). Reading, writing, listening, and speak-

320 The Reading Teacher Vol. 61, No. 4 December 2007/January 2008

Table 1 Comparing and Contrasting Guided Reading and Modified Guided Reading

Guided reading Modified guided reading

■ Instructional cycle varies (one to two days, 20- minute sessions)

■ Teacher presents the text through a guided discussion connecting the content and language structure to students’ personal lives (e.g., picture walk, predicting)

■ Emergent and early fluent readers vocalize softly as they read the text; fluent readers read silently

■ Teacher coaches the students by reinforcing correct strategies and prompting to problem solve during miscues

■ Word work focuses on phonological and orthographical awareness

■ Instructional cycle of three or more days (20- to 30-minute sessions)

■ Teacher presents the culturally relevant text through a guided discussion connecting the content and language structure to students’ personal lives (e.g., picture walk, predicting)

■ Teacher reads guided-reading text aloud to model fluency and generate discussions regarding comprehension and vocabulary guided by teacher and students

■ ELLs with higher L2 oral proficiency vocalize softly as they read the text

■ Teacher observes and coaches students by reinforcing correct strategies and using word- recognition prompts to problem solve

■ Word work focuses on morphological awareness, phonemic awareness, or phonics connected to guided-reading text

■ Vocabulary journals and writing assignments connect to guided-reading texts

ing are integrated and grounded within the selected texts, offering relevant, meaningful instruction that val- idates and builds on what ELLs already know.

Theory to Practice The theory guiding the development of MGR is the in- teractive reading model (Rumelhart, 1977). The inter- active reading model divides the reading process into two components: the reader’s experiences or back- ground knowledge (top down) and the reader’s cog- nitive processing strategies (bottom up). Birch (2002) explained that both components work together in or- der for the reader to gain access to the text and cre- ate meaning. She further explained how the reader’s world knowledge base and “cognitive processing strategies must be working together so accurately and efficiently that they work at an unconscious level. All the knowledge of English graphemes, morphemes, and words must be readily accessible in long-term memory” (Birch, 2002, p. 148).

Using the MGR approach during literacy instruc- tion aims to increase automaticity and improve com- prehension of texts through an interactive understanding of the reading process. MGR builds stronger “understandings and appreciation for the low-level knowledge and processing strategies” in- volved in L2 literacy learning (Birch, 2002, p. 146).

Planning and Teaching a Guided- Reading Lesson for ELLs Authors specializing in guided reading suggest differ- ent procedures for a guided-reading lesson; however, they all have similar teaching emphases and out- comes (see Cunningham et al., 2000; Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; Knox & Amador-Watson, 2002). We syn- thesized guided-reading approaches with Birch’s (2002) focus on bottom-up processing to meet the needs of ELLs simultaneously learning to read and speak in a L2. A sample MGR framework for lesson planning (Figure 2) presents a model for the reader to use when planning an MGR lesson. Because of space limitations, this article does not discuss how to group students, determine the purpose of the lesson, or select a text for guided-reading lessons (see afore- mentioned guided-reading authors). Instead, we be- gin here with “analyzing the text” where MGR is substantially different than a typical guided-reading lesson.

Analyzing the Text. Once selected, the teacher ana- lyzes the text to prepare for the introduction, shared and student readings, word work, and writing re- sponse for the lesson cycle. This is done to proactively identify possible problem areas for ELLs within the text as well as to embed the teaching objectives with- in a guided-reading context. The teacher begins by reading the entire text (or portion of the text if stu- dents are reading at a higher level) and notes poten- tial points of confusion with the semantics (meaning) of the text. Two to three receptive and five to nine pro- ductive vocabulary words are identified for lesson em- phasis. Receptive vocabulary words are those that are low frequency and not necessarily used in everyday speech (CALP), and productive vocabulary words may be new or confusing to ELLs even though they are commonly used.

Figurative language or phrases without literal translations are other probable areas of confusion for ELLs. Native speakers would read the word nevermind and typically not have a problem with comprehen- sion; but there is rarely a literal translation for it in oth- er languages, making it confusing for ELLs. Similes and metaphors are other examples of figurative lan- guage that would be difficult for ELLs to understand (e.g., “The moon looked like a big, round cheese”), al- though not all texts contain figurative language.

The teacher also needs to note homophones and homographs within the text. Fry, Kress, and Fountoukidis (2000) defined homophones as words that sound the same but have different meanings and at times different spellings (e.g., bear cub and bare bones). Homographs are defined as words that are spelled the same but have different meanings and dif- ferent origins. For example, a bat can be (a) used to hit a baseball, (b) a flying animal, or (c) a wink. Some homographs are also heteronyms, meaning they have different pronunciations (e.g., bass as in a low male voice and bass as in the freshwater fish). These types of words potentially change the meaning of the text for ELLs who are not familiar with their multiple defini- tions. (See Fry et al., 2000, for comprehensive lists of common homographs and homonyms.)

Complex grammar or syntax (word order) is some- thing else the teacher looks for when scanning the text. For example, when working with emergent read- ers, the text may lend itself to instruction about com- ma placement when writing a list. Embedding skills within a context provides meaningful instruction for

Modified Guided Reading 321

322 The Reading Teacher Vol. 61, No. 4 December 2007/January 2008

Figure 2 MGR Lesson-Planning Framework

School: Date of lesson:

Planning the lesson(s)

1. Determine objectives of lesson(s) based upon instructional needs (English-language learning and literacy learning).

a. Determine the main idea or essential message from text and supporting information.

b. Read for information to use in performing a task and learning a new task.

c. Identify words and construct meaning from the text.

2. Group students by name/oral L2 level–instructional reading level (e.g., Student 1/1-first grade, Student 2/1-first grade).

3. Select guided-reading books based upon objectives and students’ instructional reading levels.

4. Analyze the text and identify literacy challenges based upon your knowledge of the students.

a. Semantics:

i. Vocabulary:

1. Focus on common English morphemes (e.g., affixes) or orthographic patterns

2. Identify two to three words for receptive vocabulary and five to nine words for productive vocabulary

3. Understand the meaning of the story whenever possible

ii. Figurative language:

iii. Homophones (words that sound the same, different meanings):

1. Homographs (words that are spelled the same but have different meanings and origins):

b. Grammar (complex syntax, punctuation):

c. Text structure (narrative, expository):

d. Content or concept (cultural relevance):

e. Strategy instruction (if needed, identify good places to insert strategy instruction during shared reading [e.g., think-alouds, elicitation of predictions, word solving])

Extending the lesson(s)

Word work:

Writing:

Possible minilessons:

Note. As ELLs become more proficient (orally and literary), they will need less support. This framework should be adjusted to reflect more student responsibility as the teacher facilitates learning and guides when necessary.

ELLs and enables them to learn from authentic uses of the skill rather than isolated, workbook exercises. Knowing curricular goals and objectives facilitates identification of grammatical and syntactical teaching points in order to match them with the group’s instruc- tional needs.

Teachers should also be aware of how many nar- rative and expository texts are used during reading instruction so that ELLS receive an instructional bal- ance of text types. Expository texts use language differ- ently with a greater number of low-frequency words (Latin and Greek origin) and complex sentence struc- tures that assist CALP development. Narrative texts generally have more figurative language and varying story structures or genres that not only facilitate lan- guage development but also provide a means for de- velopment of cultural knowledge. Table 2 outlines the differences between expository and narrative text types (Derewianka, 1998), demonstrating how they each contribute to language development for ELLs.

Strategy instruction, word work, and writing are other components of an MGR lesson that need to be addressed before teaching the MGR lesson. Writing should be connected to the guided-reading text and considered a means of response. Story innovations, in- formational reports, poems, and journal entries are ex- amples of assignments that can be connected to guided-reading texts. When this analysis of the text and examination of students’ needs have been com- pleted and matched, it is a win-win situation for teach-

ers and ELLs. Although the text analysis may seem to be a lengthy process, with time it becomes automat- ic. As texts are analyzed and recorded, teachers just need to refer to their notes when using the same texts to make any necessary modifications for different groups of students. Finally, reviewing the concept or content of the text is important to ensure that your stu- dents have the background knowledge necessary to successfully comprehend the text. Visuals or other supplemental materials can be used to build the back- ground knowledge during the introduction of the text if necessary. For example, when planning a MGR les- son for a group of fourth-grade ELLs, one of the au- thors realized that the story was about jackals, and the text did not have any type of picture support. The students in the group were all from Cuba or Nicaragua and would more than likely not know what a jackal was. Pictures of jackals were found on the Internet with basic information on how they survive in the wild. This information was discussed with students during the introduction of the text, and they were bet- ter prepared to comprehend the story. (For a com- plete discussion on supporting ELLs with content learning see Echevarria, Vogt, and Short, 2000.)

Setting the Scene or Introducing the Text. The introduction sets a successful reading experience by mediating access to the text. Most introductions are brief; however, it may differ for second-language learners due to the language structures, the students’ background knowledge, or the content and character-

Modified Guided Reading 323

Table 2 Text Types and Language Features

Expository text language features Narrative text language features

Note. Adapted from Derewianka (1998).

Some action verbs (e.g., climb, quake, eat)

Generally in the “timeless” present tense

Many linking verbs relating one part of a clause to another

Language focuses on defining, clarifying, and contrasting

Descriptive language that is factual and precise

Writing is usually in a formal and objective style that is likely to contain technical vocabulary; first-person pronouns generally unacceptable

Mainly action verbs

Generally past tense

Many linking verbs to do with time

Dialogue typically included with tense changes from past to present to future

Descriptive language enhances and develops the story by creating images in the reader’s mind

Can be written in the first person (I, we) or third person (he, she, they)

istics of the book. If a concept is unfamiliar to the students, the introduction should be as long as neces- sary to scaffold the text. When a great deal of back- ground knowledge building is required, it should be done during other components of the balanced liter- acy program (e.g., shared reading, read-aloud) or oth- er subject-area instruction (Batzle, 1994). Manipulatives or realia may be used to facilitate con- versation and scaffold the meaning of the text. Unfamiliar vocabulary can be presented at this time; however, it is important to note that vocabulary is gen- erally taught within the context of the story either be- fore or during the shared reading with productive and receptive vocabulary words identified by the teacher during the planning phase of an MGR lesson.

The teacher may also have the students sample part of the text by reading a sentence to call attention to semantic or syntactic structures that may be unfa- miliar to them. An example of this type of minilesson would be explaining the use of called in the sentence, “‘Gala! Kiss!’ she called.” (Scholastic, 1996, p. 254). The owner of two dogs named Gala and Kiss was call- ing them to come to her in this story. In a study inves- tigating ELLs’ L2 text comprehension, Avalos (1999, 2003) found that Spanish-speaking ELLs, from begin- ning to advanced English proficiency, interpreted this sentence using the meaning of called as the Spanish llamarse, which means to call oneself or to be named. Participants in the study therefore interpreted the sen- tence as “the woman was named Gala Kiss” when completing written recalls to check story comprehen- sion. This interpretation completely changes the au- thor’s intended meaning and demonstrates the importance of the need for teachers to be sensitive, aware, and knowledgeable of their students’ L1 syntax and semantic structures. The introduction should pro- vide enough support for the students to read the text fluently while using known strategies, yet it should al- low opportunities for problem solving and discussion to facilitate literacy and language learning, specifical- ly with regard to vocabulary, phonics, and compre- hension.

Shared Reading. Shared reading is an excellent way to engage learners with texts, particularly learners from diverse backgrounds (Allen, 2002; Koskinen et al., 1999; Meier, 2003). Knox and Amador-Watson (2002) recommend a shared-to-guided reading for- mat. Shared reading of the guided-reading text sup- ports L2 readers by providing teachers the opportunity

to model fluent reading, discuss the story and vocab- ulary as the text is read aloud, make connections and scaffold the content or concepts that may be differ- ent for the students, and focus on strategy demonstra- tions (e.g., think-alouds, chunking words to decode) before the students read with guidance as needed from the teacher. Using MGR enables ELLs to see read- ing as a meaning-making process while vocabulary and strategy instruction are introduced within the con- text of texts.

Students discussing their understanding of the text could reveal a misinterpretation due to a literal trans- lation from L1 to L2, a different experience base than the author’s, or a need for vocabulary instruction. It is recommended that teachers of L2 readers assess com- prehension in a manner that is open-ended and con- ducive to discovering language-learning needs (Avalos, 1999). Bernhardt (1991) expressed this well by explaining that L2 readers “approach a text from their first language framework” (p. 16). Thus, there is the possibility of a divergent understanding before any reading ever takes place. These diverse understand- ings are a result of various causes ranging from mi- crolevel text features (e.g., orthography) to grammatical structures (e.g., How does word order differ in the L1 versus L2?) to the issue of literacy ac- cess in the primary culture (e.g., What is a supermar- ket tabloid or fairy tale?). Examples of open-ended comprehension assessments include retelling (i.e., written or oral in the L1 or L2), asking open-ended questions without “known answers” (Heath, 1983), or inviting the student to infer and explain a character’s action (e.g., “Why do you think the grandmother al- ways sat in the chair by the window?”).

Reading the Text. After the teacher has set the scene, introduced the text, and conducted the shared reading, the students read the book to themselves. Emergent readers will vocalize softly as they read, pro- gressively moving toward silent and independent reading. The softly vocalized reading may initially dis- tract some students, but soon they become accus- tomed to the routine and the soft vocalization is no longer an issue.

The teacher’s role is to maintain anecdotal records as he or she listens and observes the students imple- ment strategies, stepping in to guide by reinforcing and providing appropriate prompting as teachable moments present themselves. The teacher also rein- forces positive reading behaviors by calling attention

324 The Reading Teacher Vol. 61, No. 4 December 2007/January 2008

to the strategies being used by a student or by using this time to model effective reading strategies. Fundamental to the success of this approach is the teacher’s ability to create a learning environment that facilitates a high level of comfort. Students must feel that their remarks and conversation are important. How teachers react to students’ comments determines how and if they will continue to share their thoughts about texts, take risks in using the L2, and inquire about language use (Krashen, 1982).

When a child does not use a cueing system cor- rectly he or she is making a miscue. For many strug- gling readers, particularly ELLs, it is common for students to make miscues because the form (language graphophonics, syntax, or semantics) is new and the content could also be unfamiliar; therefore, both are competing forces while performing or reading aloud.

Syntactic (language structure) cues may be one of the most difficult for ELLs to understand because they may not always know if a sentence sounds right due to their developing English-language proficiency. Knox and Amador-Watson (2002) stated that

Typical lists of coaching prompts used during guided reading lessons are often incomprehensible for English language learners. For example, “Does it make sense?” or “Does it sound right?” require the student to call on a native speaker’s intuitive grasp of English, which the sec- ond language learner naturally does not have. Many prompts include abstract language that describe unseen processes inside the reader’s head and are inaccessible to ELLs who need concrete support for language to be comprehensible. (Unit 7, p. 95)

Instead of prompting, it is recommended that ELLs be coached with explicit demonstrations integrating the cueing systems using a three-step process. First, the teacher models the strategy, describing the process by thinking aloud. Then the student applies and demon- strates the strategy modeled by the teacher. Finally, the student is asked to verbalize the strategy by think- ing aloud in order to internalize the process.

Returning to the Text. When the students have completed their independent reading of the text, the teacher engages the students in a conversation similar to the introduction. Students share their thoughts about the text, including questions and connections they may have had during the reading. The teacher asks open-ended questions to enhance comprehen- sion and generate dialogue. Accepting students’ an- swers without criticism is key. Repeating the student’s

response to a question and then asking why they think that provides teachers with clues as to how the text was interpreted in such a way. This in turn provides teachable moments and a guide for future instruction. Upon subsequent teacher analyses of retellings, when consistent language patterns or miscues are noted, assessment will drive instruction as language- and literacy-learning needs are identified and met.

Responding to the Text. Many books lend them- selves to the extension of learning activities through art, writing, or drama in response to the reading, thus expanding the meaning of the text. Although it does not always seem feasible to plan such activities for every book because of time constraints, these exten- sions can be beneficial for ELLs to further develop their understanding of concepts and reading or lan- guage skills. Whenever possible, the teacher should plan to have students respond to the texts using dif- ferent activities that are tied in with identified objec- tives. It is highly recommended that reading, writing, listening, and speaking be integrated as much as pos- sible throughout the curriculum for ELLs (Au, 1993).

Word Work. ELLs learn more when new concepts are context embedded (Cummins, 2003). Guided- reading lessons provide optimal opportunities for stu- dents to apply and learn word-solving skills throughout the lesson. Word work can be taught ex- plicitly after the text has been read in order to mini- mize interruptions of the reading process. This explicit instruction is particularly important for ELLs because of their developing language proficiency. The word- work lessons should incorporate systematic phonics as well as morphological instruction. ELLs are in the process of acquiring the sounds and structure of the L2 and typically encounter difficulties with pronunci- ation of sounds that are not found in their L1 (e.g., the English /th/ sound for Spanish speakers). The Words Their Way (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2004) approach to word study allows us to assess spelling and integrate word work within our MGR les- sons at appropriate levels according to the ELLs’ knowledge of the English sound system.

MGR in Classrooms We have used MGR with elementary, middle, and high school ELLs in a large, urban school district. Each time we have implemented MGR in these various

Modified Guided Reading 325

classroom settings, reading gains have been made. Because of space limitations, only the results of a small study with middle school students will be report- ed here (Table 3).

After nine months of working in Ms. Lopez’s class- room (all names are pseudonyms), her group of 13 students gained an average of 1.8 grade levels in L2 reading. Ms. Mays’s 10 students made an average gain of 1.3 grade levels within four months of implement- ing MGR. Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate the growth recorded for each participant. Students 9 and 10 from Ms. Mays’s groups (Figure 4) appeared to make no progress; however, they were reading at the preprimer level with frustration for the pretest and at an instruc- tional level for the posttest. Students 6, 7, and 8 made 1–2 grade level gains, reading at the preprimer (in- structional level) for the pretest.

Student perceptions of the MGR approach, as measured by a survey following the intervention peri- ods, were overwhelmingly positive. All participants enjoyed participating in the intervention and felt they

learned more about reading, writing, and speaking English during the MGR sessions. Specifically, they learned more about English sounds and how those sounds related to the letters. Participants also felt that the small-group instruction format helped them to comprehend what was being read because they could ask questions and clarify anything they didn’t under- stand. In addition, they all agreed that they enjoyed lis- tening to books being read aloud by the teacher and would like to continue using the MGR approach for reading instruction.

Creating and Gaining Meaning From Text From our work with MGR in elementary and secondary classrooms, ELLs have enjoyed this approach to read- ing and English-language instruction. Student engage- ment was high when working in small groups; thus, literacy and language learning needs were met using

326 The Reading Teacher Vol. 61, No. 4 December 2007/January 2008

Table 3 Context of Pilot Study

Ms. Mays Ms. Lopez

School population (% ELL) 2,100 (22%) 1,363 (10%)

Environmental context of school Inner-city urban Urban

School population qualifying 96% 65% for free or reduced-cost lunch program

Assessment instrument used Ekwall/Shanker informal Burns/Roe informal reading inventory reading inventory

Number of students receiving MGR 10 13

Mean age of students 13 13

Months in USA (Average/range) 25/3–48 months 36/24–48 months

Range of Spanish (L1) instructional Preprimer to fourth grade At or above fourth grade reading levels prior to MGR

Range of English (L2) instructional Preprimer to second grade First to fourth grade reading levels prior to MGR

Time receiving MGR 24 30-minute sessions 36 30-minute sessions

Average reading level gains in 1.3 grade levels 1.8 grade levels L2 after receiving MGR

Modified Guided Reading 327

Figure 3 Reading Gains of Students in Ms. Lopez’s Classroom (as Measured by the Burns/Roe Informal Reading Inventory)

Figure 4 Reading Gains of Students in Ms. Mays’s Classroom (as Measured by the Ekwall/Shanker Informal Reading Inventory)

texts as vehicles to provide meaningful instruction. MGR also allowed us to get to know the students bet- ter as we had many conversations that enabled them to make connections between the texts and their lives.

MGR provides students with the understanding that reading is about creating and gaining meaning from text. Teachers work with students as they devel- op the strategies, allowing the students to be success- ful when they encounter syntax, contexts, or vocabulary that is unfamiliar to them. More research needs to be conducted in order to assess the extent of MGR’s effectiveness when instructing ELLs. The goal of guided reading is for children to progress and read more challenging texts independently and suc- cessfully. Using this modified instructional model, teachers are able to monitor ELLs’ progress, meet their needs in order to facilitate literacy and language learn- ing, and enable students to self-extend their reading and language proficiencies by building on what is known in their L1.

Avalos teaches at the University of Miami, Florida, USA; e-mail [email protected]. Plasencia and Chavez teach in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools in Florida. Rascón teaches in the Boulder Valley School District in Boulder, Colorado, USA.

References Allen, J. (2002). On the same page: Shared reading beyond the pri-

mary grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1998). Reading as a gateway to language

proficiency for language-minority students in the elementary grades. In R.M. Gersten & R.T. Jiménez (Eds.), Promoting learn- ing for culturally and linguistically diverse students: Classroom applications from contemporary research (pp. 42–54). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Au, K.H. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

Avalos, M.A. (1999). Elementary students’ second language litera- cy development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Riverside.

Avalos, M.A. (2003). Effective second language reading transition: From learner specific to generic instructional models. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 171–205.

Barrera, R. (1983). Bilingual reading in the primary grades: Some questions about questionable views and practices. In T.H. Escobedo (Ed.), Early childhood bilingual education: A Hispanic perspective (pp. 164–183). New York: Teachers College Press.

Batzle, J. (1994). Guided reading in the child-centered classroom. Crystal Lake, IL: Rigby.

Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2004). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Bernhardt, E.B. (1991). Reading development in a second lan- guage: Theoretical, empirical, and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Birch, B.M. (2002). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collier, V.P., & Thomas, W.P. (1999). Making U.S. schools effec- tive for English language learners, part 2. TESOL Matters, 9(5), 1, 6.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center, California State University.

Cummins, J. (2003). Reading and the bilingual student: Fact and friction. In G.G. Garcia (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy (pp. 2–33). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Cunningham, P.M., Hall, D.P., & Sigmon, C.M. (2000). The teacher’s guide to the four blocks: A multimethod, multilevel framework for grades 1–3. Greensboro, NC: Carson-Dellosa.

Derewianka, B. (1998). Exploring how texts work. Newtown, NSW, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2004). Making content compre- hensible for English learners: The SIOP model (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.

Fry, E.B., Kress, J.E., & Fountoukidis, D.L. (2000). The reading teacher’s book of lists (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodman, K., Goodman, Y., & Flores, B. (1979). Reading in the bilingual classroom: Literacy and biliteracy. Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words Language, life, and work in the communities and classrooms. London: Cambridge University Press.

Jiménez, R.T., García, G.E., & Pearson, P.D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 90–112.

Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 458–492.

Knox, C., & Amador-Watson, C. (2002). Responsive instruction for success in English (RISE): Building literacy and content knowl- edge with English language learners. Participant’s resource note- book and reading booklet. Barrington, IL: Rigby Professional Development.

Koskinen, P.S., Blum, I.H., Bisson, S.A., Phillips, S.M., Creamer, T.S., & Baker, T.K. (1999). Shared reading, books, and audiotapes: Supporting diverse students in school and at home. The Reading Teacher, 52, 430–444.

Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language ac- quisition. New York: Pergamon.

Krashen, S.D. (1985). Inquiries and insights: Second language teaching. Haywood, CA: Alemany.

Meier, T. (2003). “Why can’t she remember that?”: The importance of storybook reading in multilingual, multicultural classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 57, 242–252.

Reutzel, D.R., & Cooter, R.B. (2005). The essentials of teaching chil- dren to read: What every teacher needs to know. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

328 The Reading Teacher Vol. 61, No. 4 December 2007/January 2008

Rumelhart, D.E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on attention and performance Stockholm, Sweden, July 28–August 1, 1975 (pp. 573–603). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Scholastic. (1996). Literacy place. New York: Author.

Slavin, R.E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on lan- guage of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75, 247–284.

Wiggins, R.A. (1994). Large group lesson/small group follow-up: Flexible grouping in a basal reading program. The Reading Teacher, 47, 450–460.

Modified Guided Reading 329