1. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 1 Overview of the Let’s Know! and ¡Vamos a Aprender! Curriculum Supplements Shelley Gray & Laida Restrepo Arizona State University National Symposium on Reading for Understanding, May 18, 2016 Portions of this presentation were also presented at the 2015 Pacific Coast Research Conference

2. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 2 Language and Reading Research Consortium 2 T he research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305F100002 to Ohio State University as part of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. Investigators: Laura Justice (PI) Shelley Gray (Co-PI) Hugh Catts (Co-PI) Tiffany Hogan (Co-PI) Kate Cain (Co-PI) Ron Nelson Diane Nielsen Laida Restrepo Stephen Petrill Jim Bovaird Richard Lomax Shayne Piasta Ann O’Connell Mindy Bridges Jill Pentimonti LARRC:

3. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 3 What Problem Did We Want to Solve?  Very little language-focused instruction occurs in prekindergarten (Justice, Mashburn, Hamre, & Pianta, 2008) or elementary school classrooms in the U.S. (Connor, Morrison, & Petrella, 2004; Connor, Morrison, & Slominski, 2006)  Yet there is a positive relationship between the amount of language-focused instruction that children experience and their language growth in preschool (Connor et al., 2006) and their reading comprehension in primary grades (Connor et al., 2004)

4. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 4 What Problem Did We Want to Solve? 4  Reading comprehension is influenced by language comprehension (Kintsch & Van Dijk, 1978; Perfetti, 2007)  Vocabulary and higher-level language processes (e.g. verbal reasoning, inferencing, comprehension monitoring, text structure analysis) enable readers to create an accurate mental model of what they read (Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004; Perfetti, 2007, Kintsch & Van Dijk, 1978)  Therefore instruction in grammar, vocabulary and higher-level language processes has the potential to improve listening comprehension and subsequent reading comprehension

5. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 5 What Problem Did We Want to Solve? 5  Increase the quality of language instruction in classrooms…  As a means of increasing children’s lower- level (vocabulary, grammar) and higher-level oral language skills (inferencing, comprehension monitoring), and listening comprehension…  As a means of increasing reading comprehension

6. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 6 Theory of Change 6 Broad Instantiation of the Curriculum Quality of Language Instruction Deep Instantiation of the Curriculum Language Skills Lower-level Higher-level Listening Comprehension Language Skills Lower-level Higher-level Listening Comprehension Intervention implementation Teacher effects Proximal child effects Reading Comprehension Distal child effects

7. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 7 Iterative Design 7 Year 1 Prototype Development and Teaching Trials Years 2 & 3 Feasibility and Pilot Studies Years 4 & 5 Randomized Controlled Trial

8. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 8 Unifying Principles Guiding Design 8 Language-based Text-based Concept-based Adaptable Motivating Systematically organized

9. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 9 Let’s Know! Curriculum Supplement 9  Designed to increase the quantity and quality of language-focused comprehension instruction  26 week scope and sequence of instruction  Four thematic units (2 narrative, 2 expository) each emphasizing a different type of text structure  Compare/contrast  Sequences or Cycles  Description  Cause and Effect  Embedded into the language arts curriculum  Two versions (broad vs. deep)

10. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 10 larrc.ehe.osu.edu ¡Vamos a Aprender! Curriculum Supplement  Same conceptual framework as Let’s Know!  Preschool only  Delivered bilingually  50% of the lessons in Spanish and 50% in English  New concepts were introduced in Spanish lessons  Each lesson was delivered in only one language  All books but one were bilingual Spanish- English 10

11. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 11 larrc.ehe.osu.edu Let’s Know! Curriculum Supplement 11  24 30-minute lessons per theme (4 lessons per week) except that theme 4 was shorter with 16 lessons

12. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 12 larrc.ehe.osu.edu Let’s Know! Curriculum Supplement 12 Version 1 (Broad – more skills)Version 2 (Deep – more practice) Hook Read to Me (2 books per unit)Read to Me Integration Read to KnowRead to Know Integration Practice Words to Know (8 words per unit)Words to Know Text MappingText Mapping Words to Know Practice Show Me What You Know (CBMs) Stretch and Review Close Introduction to the Unit Teacher dialogic reading Inferencing Retelling Inferencing Retelling Student selected reading with a purpose Vocabulary Semantic relations Vocabulary Semantic relations Change text structures Teacher- created lessons Culminating Project Prior to Stretch & Review Word Review and Practice (WRAP): Picture, word definition, plus word used in sentences.

13. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 13 larrc.ehe.osu.edu ¡Vamos a Aprender! Curriculum Supplement 13

14. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 14 larrc.ehe.osu.edu Let’s Know! Lesson Structure 14  Set – teacher introduces the purpose of lesson  I do – teacher models the target skill(s)  We do – children and teacher practice the skill(s) together  You do – children practice skill(s) independently  Close - teacher (or children) summarize and review what they learned

15. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 15 Show Me What You Know CBMs Comprehension monitoring Narrative text structure (questions, story grammar) Let’s Know! vocabulary SMWYK Unit 1 Comprehension monitoring Expository text structure Let’s Know! vocabulary SMWYK Unit 2 Comprehension monitoring Expository text structure Let’s Know! vocabulary SMWYK Unit 3 Comprehension monitoring Narrative text structure (questions, story grammar) Let’s Know! vocabulary SMWYK Unit 4  Administered by teachers

16. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 16 Comprehension Monitoring Unit range 0-4; sum range 0-16

17. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 17 Narrative Text Structure: Story Grammar Unit range (0-28 PK, 0-36 K-G1, 0-56 G2-G3); sum range (0-56 PK, 0-72 K-G1, 0-112 G2-G3)  Two stories from Test of Narrative Retell (TNR; Petersen & Spencer, 2012)  Recorded retell and coded with TNR rubric (character, problem, outcome attempt, goal, emotion, plan)

18. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 18 Narrative Text Structure: Comprehension Questions Unit range (0-6); sum range (0-12)  Two TNR stories  Questions developed following Trabasso, van den Broek, & Liu (1988)

19. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 19 Expository Text Structure: Comprehension Questions Unit range (0-4); sum range (0-8)  Two passages

20. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 20 Let’s Know! Vocabulary Unit range (0-16); sum range (0-64)  Eight vocabulary words

21. larrc.ehe.osu.edu 21 Thank You  The curriculum materials will be available for your review at the next round table session.