…use of reading groups creates a problem; when the teacher is working with one reading group, the other students in the class must be occupied with activities they can complete with minimal teacher direction. Research on these follow-up activities, or unsupervised seatwork, indicates that they are often of poor quality, are rarely taken seriously by teachers or students, and are poorly integrated with other reading activities (e.g., Beck, McKeown, McCaslin, & Burkes, 1979; Osborn, 1984), and that student time on-task during follow-up periods is typically low (e.g., Anderson, Brubaker, Alleman-Brooks, & Duffy, 1985). Yet in a class with three reading groups, as much as two thirds of the reading period is spent on follow-up activities.
Stevens, R.J., Madden, N.A, Slavin, R.E, & Farnish, A.M. (1987). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two Field Experiments. Reading Research Quarterly. 22 (4) p. 433-454.
« Interventions: small groups, 15-30 minutes-a-day is optimal | Main | Phonemic awareness exists in Spanish ELL readers »
June 10, 2008
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345596d469e200e55349e8ae8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Differentiated Instruction: Fine, but what to do with the rest of the class?:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Recent Posts
- Comprehension may not be as simple as the 'Simple View' suggests
- Explicit spelling instruction transfers to authentic contexts
- Students have a 15% chance of learning new words from context alone
- Teacher-led small-group beats peer tutoring
- First graders use multiple, overlapping strategies to spell
- Why automaticity (aka 'fluency') is important in learning to read (opinion)
- On teaching inference as a comprehension strategy
- Compare student data to state (not local) norms
- Non-word reading fluency predicts reading difficulty for ELL students and native English speakers equally well
- Phonemic awareness exists in Spanish ELL readers
Is there any research more recent than 25-30 years ago? I wonder if teachers and students today are different than those studied then. Has current teacher training helped teachers to "get it" and to take such unsupervised work seriously?
Posted by: Mark Bohland | June 11, 2008 at 09:59 AM
Great question. I'm not aware of any such research.
Posted by: Laurence Holt | June 27, 2008 at 09:57 PM
I'd appreciate a post on follow-up activities that are not of "poor quality."
Posted by: Mathew | October 01, 2008 at 11:33 PM