jessicapostple.files.wordpress.com … · Web viewStakeholders for this project include: developers, instructional facilitators, the school board, school administrators, superintendent,

RUNNING HEAD: GUIDED READING 1

Centers and Management: Guided Reading

Jessica Palmer

EDU 627

Dr. Kathy Milhauser

GUIDED READING 2

Centers and Management: Guided Reading

Introduction

An e-learning module is needed to support elementary school instructors in the use of

literacy centers during Guided Reading. Guided Reading “makes it possible for students to

effectively process an appropriate text every day, expanding their reading powers through

supportive teaching that enables them to gradually increase the difficulty level at which they can

read proficiently” (Fountas & Pinnell, 2010). The East Haddam School District recognizes that

Guided Reading relies on students working independently at centers while the instructor delivers

critical small group instruction. Instructors must develop and manage centers effectively in order

to deliver small group instruction without interruption. The e-learning module developed in this

project will ensure that elementary school teachers in the East Haddam Public Schools have the

knowledge and skills to implement effective literacy centers during Guided Reading.

Stakeholders

Stakeholders for this project include: developers, instructional facilitators, the school

board, school administrators, superintendent, parents, students, the community (taxpayers), grade

level teachers, and special education staff. A training has already been developed for the East

Haddam School District on planning for Guided Reading. Supporting these stakeholders by

developing a training on implementation and classroom management is a logical next step in the

training process.

Technology

Education must integrate the emerging technology trends and adapt their offerings to

GUIDED READING 3

support teachers with resources to meet new challenges (Paraschivescu, 2013). Delivering this

training via e-learning ensures that all stakeholders have convenient access to the training. As

this training will be available in an e-learning format, it could be given in cycles to new teachers

and revisited as needed.

Objective Statement

To train K-3 educators in the development and implementation of centers for guided reading

time by the end of the 2017-2018 school year at a cost of 160 hours and $24,000.

Scope

Fundations is used as a solid, research based phonics program adopted by the East

Haddam School district to address one area of reading instruction. However, the district has not

adopted any one reading program for teaching the other areas of reading instruction in grades K-

2. As a result, teachers have developed a wide range of approaches to reading instruction

including The Daily 5 and Lucy Caulkins Reader’s Workshop Model. This district has decided to

set Guided Reading as the standard, but not all teachers are currently using this model.

To get this new initiative off the ground, one e-learning session has already been

developed on Guided Reading implementation. As a result, this project will not include: a basic

introduction to Guided Reading, information about forming groups based on data, expectations

for teacher-led small group work, or a rationale for selecting the Guided Reading method. These

topics have already been addressed clearly in prior e-learning. Additionally, processes for

collecting and analyzing student data are not included in the scope of this project because a needs

GUIDED READING 4

analysis has determined that teachers are already actively participating in successful data

collection and data team meetings.

This second e-learning module will support instructors with the development and

implementation of Guided Reading centers, furthering the work done in the first training module.

This e-learning module will provide training for locating resources, developing high-quality

centers, managing materials, and effectively managing Guided Reading centers.

Requirements

Four Elementary School Instructional Facilitators, as a part of their existing stipend

positions, will dedicate two hours per week to the development of this e-learning module during

both the 2016 and 2017-2018 school years. This work will require access to existing laptops and

a meeting space with wifi and SmartBoard technology. IT support will be requested in advance

for setting up the meeting space to ensure that equipment runs properly.

Additionally, once per month the Instructional Facilitators will meet with administrators

and the Superintendent to review progress and receive stakeholder feedback. These meetings will

require a scheduled meeting room with SmartBoard access, laptops, and wifi capabilities. Again,

IT support will be requested in advance for setting up the meeting space to ensure that equipment

runs properly.

Existing district-issued laptops will be used for all work and must be compatible with the

training module program (e.g. SmartBuilder, SmartNotebook, or Powerpoint). The current “tech

ticket” system will alert the IT department of any technology issues in the development and

implementation of this training.

GUIDED READING 5

Milestones

o Anticipated Project Start Date: o November 1, 2016

o Administrative Review: o The first Thursday of each month

o Initial Stakeholder Presentation and Feedback: o June 2017 Board of Education meeting

(Instructional Facilitators present a status update.)

o Final Stakeholder Presentation and Feedback: o October 2017 Board of Education meeting

(Instructional Facilitators present completed project.)

o Budget checks:o Informal:

Monthly Administrative Review meetingso Formal

June, 2017 Board of Education meeting (Review any additions to the budget needed for implementation.)

June, 2018 Board of Education meeting (Review and revise implementation plan pending budget approval.)

o Project Completion: June 1, 2018

o Implementation: September, 2018 (Full Day Professional Development- date to be determined)

Budget

The cost of this project is $24,000 which represents the stipends paid to four Instructional

Facilitators over the course of two school years. There is a budget of 160 work hours dedicated

to the project’s development and implementation. E-learning, delivered via existing equipment

and resources will be used to prevent further implementation costs.

GUIDED READING 6

Work Breakdown Structure

Guided Reading TrainingLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3

1.0: Develop A Rationale for Using Guided Reading Centers

1.1: Review the foundations of reading instruction

1.1.1: Identify the 5 areas of reading

1.1.2: Match Common Core expectations to each of the 5 areas of reading

1.2: Understand how high-quality centers can address these areas during Guided Reading

1.2.1: Explain the need for independence while small group instruction occurs

1.2.2: Identify differentiation as a key factor in student independence

2.0: Locate Resources 2.1: Explore a variety of resources and options for easily differentiated centers that foster independence

2.1.1: Select resources appropriate for the target grade level.

2.1.2: Discriminate between high- quality and low-quality resources.

3.0: Develop a High-Quality Center for Each of the 5 Areas of Reading

3.1: Develop a Phonemic Awareness Center

3.1.1: Identify the key components of a high-quality Phonemic Awareness Center.

3.1.2: Develop routines and expectations for a Phonemic Awareness Center.

3.2: Develop a Phonics Center 3.2.1: Identify the key components of a high-quality Phonics Center.

3.2.2: Develop routines and expectations for a Phonics Center.

GUIDED READING 7

3.3: Develop a Comprehension Center

3.3.1: Identify the key components of a high-quality Comprehension Center.

3.3.2: Develop routines and expectations for a Comprehension Center.

3.4: Develop a Vocabulary Center

3.4.1: Identify the key components of a high-quality Vocabulary Center.

3.4.2: Develop routines and expectations for a Vocabulary Center.

3.5: Develop a Fluency Center 3.5.1: Identify the key components of a high-quality Fluency Center.

3.5.2: Develop routines and expectations for a Fluency Center.

3.6: Explore options for student accountability during centers

3.6.1: Create a system of accountability for each center with student-friendly rubrics for deliverables.

4.0: Develop a Plan for Managing Centers Materials

4.1: Explore a variety of resources and options for storing centers

4.1.1: Develop a strategic plan for the storage of center materials.

4.2: Explore ways to help students locate materials at centers time

4.2.1: Create student-friendly storage labels with visuals and simple text.

5.0: Execute Guided Reading Centers

5.1: Develop a Schedule 5.1.1: Determine the total amount of time available for Guided Reading

5.1.2: Break the Guided Reading block into 15-20 minute chunks for centers

5.1.3: Create a rotation schedule on which students will cycle through the centers

GUIDED READING 8

5.1.4: Place student groupings (formed during prior training) into a daily rotation schedule.

5.2: Communicate Classroom Management Plan to Students

5.2.1.: Create a visual for students which clearly communicates the rotation schedule.5.2.2.: Create student instructions for each center including visual cues and rubrics.

GUIDED READING 9

Stakeholder Analysis

A stakeholder analysis was completed to examine the human resources involved in the

project. This analysis supports a comprehensive schedule and communication plan.

GUIDED READING 10

StakeholderTheir interest or

requirement from the project

What the project needs from them

Perceived attitudes and/or risks Actions to take

Board of Education

Moderate interest approval, feedback, review, budget advocacy, resource allocation

Project aligns with current district goals and initiatives, approval anticipated.

Manage closely and keep satisfied, schedule meetings to communicate progress milestones and budget needs

Superintendent High interest approval, feedback, review, budget advocacy, resource allocation


Manage closely, schedule regular meetings, high communication needs

Principal High interest approval, feedback, review, budget advocacy, resource allocation



Vice Principal High interest approval, feedback, review, budget advocacy, resource allocation



Elementary School Instructional Facilitator Team

High interest Instructional design and development, budget advocacy, communication, resource management

Project falls within the parameters of the stipend position which they applied for and were chosen to hold. Support anticipated.


Teachers Moderate interest in process,High interest in end product

Support, implementation, feedback

Highly impacted by end product,Moderate communication needs,Will appreciate opportunities for feedback and review

Keep informed,Provide opportunities for communication, feedback, and review

GUIDED READING 11

Support Staff Moderate interest in process,High interest in end product

Support, implementation, feedback

Moderately impacted by end product,Moderate communication needs,Will appreciate opportunities for feedback and review

Keep informed,Provide opportunities for communication, feedback, and review

Parents Moderate-Low interest in process,Moderate-High interest in budget impact

Support, budget advocacy

Somewhat impacted by end product,Moderate communication needed

Keep informed at milestones,Provide opportunities for communication at budget time

Community Members

Low interest in process,Moderate interest in budget impact

Support, budget approval Low interest in process,High-risk of negative perceptions during budget process,Monitor and consider communication plan

Keep informed at milestones,Provide opportunities for communication at budget time

Students Low interest in project

n/a Low interest,Low-risk,Highly impacted by end product

None

GUIDED READING 12

Schedule

A schedule was completed to manage the scope and timeline of the project. This schedule

takes into consideration the stakeholder analysis and provides a sequenced structure that supports

the communication plan.

School Year Stakeholders Task Time

Anticipated Project Start Date: November 1, 2016

2016-2017

4 elementary school Instructional Facilitators (as a part of their existing stipend positions)

development of e-learning module

2 hours per week (44 hours)

Internal feedback and review

1 hour per month (8 hours)

Administrative Review: First Thursday of Each MonthInstructional Facilitators, school administrators and Superintendent

Presentation of progress, feedback and review, budget check-in


Initial Stakeholder Presentation and Feedback: June 2017 Board of Education meeting

4 elementary school Instructional Facilitators, school administrators, Superintendent, Board of Education, and taxpayers

Instructional Facilitators presentation of work completed and additional budget requests for 2017-2018

1 Board of Education meeting

2017-2018

4 elementary school Instructional Facilitators (as a part of their existing stipend positions)

development of e-learning module

2 hours per week (44 hours)

feedback and review 1 hour per month (8 hours)

Administrative Review: First Thursday of Each MonthInstructional Facilitators, school administrators and

Presentation of progress, feedback and review, budget check-in


GUIDED READING 13

SuperintendentProject Completion: June 1, 2018

Instructional Facilitators, School Administrators, Board of Education representative, Superintendent

Initial run through of the completed module and feedback

One professional development day (7 hours)

Implementation: September, 2018 (Full Day Professional Development- date to be determined)

instructional facilitators, school administrators, grade level teachers, and special education staff

Implementation of the module and feedback


Communication Plan

A communication plan was developed to outline the communication necessary to make

the project successful. The communication plan draws upon the established knowledge of

stakeholder needs and works within the schedule.

Figure 1. One out of five projects is unsuccessful due to ineffective communications (Foong, 2013).

GUIDED READING 14

Stakeholder Communication Needs Frequency Medium

Board of Education Meetings to communicate progress milestones and budget needs


Instructional Facilitators presentation of work completed and additional budget requests for 2017-2018

1 meeting with a board representative

Presentation of final product

Superintendent Progress reports, budget needs, feedback and revision, approval


In-person meeting (may evolve into email updates)

1 professional development day (7 hours)


Principal Progress reports, budget needs, feedback and revision, approval





Vice Principal Progress reports, budget needs, feedback and revision, approval





Elementary School Instructional Facilitator Team

Collaborate with the IF team to present progress reports, solicit internal feedback and revisions, schedule meetings, plan for communication, and collaboratively solve problems

1 hour per month (8 hours per school year)

In-person meeting

Present progress reports to the administrative team, solicit internal feedback and revisions, and communicate problems

1 hour per month (8 hours per school year)

Meet in-person with administrators and Superintendent (may evolve into email updates)

Presentation of work completed and additional budget requests for 2017-2018


In-person meeting

GUIDED READING 15

Initial run through of the completed module and feedback


In-person training

Implementation of the module and feedback


In-person training

Teachers Progress reports, feedback and revision, implementation support

1 time per month Email updates and sample items. Feedback requests solicited.

Support Staff Progress reports, feedback and revision, implementation support

1 time per month Email updates and sample items. Feedback requests solicited.

Parents Communication at budget time and prior to the project’s implementation

Twice per year Newsletter communication, PTO meeting attendance to report on progress

Community Members Communication at budget time

One Board of Education meeting

In-person meeting

Students None None None

GUIDED READING 16

Website

https://jessicapostple.wordpress.com/edu627-final-project/

https://jessicapostple.wordpress.com/edu627-final-project/

GUIDED READING 17

References:

Cekada, T. L. (2011). Need training? Mind Tools (n.d.) Professional Safety, 56(12), 28-34.

Cox, D. M. (2009). Project management skills for instructional designers: Workbook.

Bloomington, IN: IUniverse.

CREC. (2014). Strategic school profile. Retrieved from: https://imageserv11.team-

logic.com/mediaLibrary/190/easthaddam_1.pdf

CSDE: Connecticut State Department of Education. (2016). Scientifically research based

intervention. SRBI Training ppt. http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?

a=2618&q=322020

Foong, Mei Yuen. (2013). Effective Communication – A Challenge to Project Managers.

Retrieved From: https://www.projecttimes.com/articles/effective-communication-a-

challenge-to-project-managers.html.

Fountas, Pinnell. (2010). Research base for Guided Reading as an instructional approach.

Retrieved From: http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/guidedreading/pdf/2.0_InYour

Classroom/GR_Resea

Paraschivescu, A. O., Botez, N., & Fuioaga, A. (2013). Quality based education and the

stakeholders' expectations. Economy Transdisciplinarity Cognition, 16(1), 72-78.

Sequencing and Structuring Learning Activities in Instructional Design. (n.d.). Retrieved

September 12, 2016, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/sequence.html

Van Beek, Michael. (2012). Virtual learning can improve outcomes and save money. Retrieved

from: https://www.mackinac.org/16402

https://www.mackinac.org/16402

Documents

jessicapostple.files.wordpress.com … · Web viewStakeholders for this project include: developers, instructional facilitators, the school board, school administrators, superintendent,