Description
Literacy Intervention Program Review |
Reading/Literacy specialists need to be familiar with the most current curricular programs used by schools and districts to teach literacy. Knowledge of these programs enables reading/literacy specialists to support evidence-based practices around data collection, instruction, and assessment, as well as related interventions.
Create a graphic organizer to outline three evidence-based literacy intervention programs designed to support struggling readers in a more intensive learning environment (e.g., Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) Fountas and Pinnell, Reading Recovery, Read 180, Accelerated Reader, Success for All, Wilson Fundations) for your school administration, including at least one that utilizes technology.
In 500-750 words, include the following in your graphic organizer for each program:
- Name of program and appropriate grade levels.
- What the program is intended to teach or remediate.
- How the program is implemented.
- Assessments that are part of the program or ways to measure student progress.
- Current research supporting the effectiveness of the program.
You are encouraged to select literacy programs relevant to your field experience classroom or the school/district in which you are immersed.
Select one of the programs from the graphic organizer that you would recommend. Then, in 250-500 words, discuss how this program could be used by reading/literacy specialists and teachers to support literacy learning and meet the needs of all students. How will the chosen program be disseminated to staff, implemented, and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive literacy environment?
Support your work with a minimum of three scholarly resources.
While APA format is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric before beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for a successful completion
Explore the “Struggling Readers: Top-Rated Programs” page located on the Best Evidence Encyclopedia website.
http://www.bestevidence.org/reading/strug/top.htm
Read “Literacy Programs Evaluation Guide,” by Kelly, located on the Reading Rockets website.
https://www.readingrockets.org/article/literacy-programs-evaluation-guide#comment-1738
Read “Considerations When Selecting a Reading Program,” located on the Reading Rockets website.
https://www.readingrockets.org/article/considerations-when-selecting-reading-program
Read “Effective Reading Programs for Middle and High Schools: A Best Evidence Synthesis,” by Slavin and Cheung, located on the LD Online website (2019).
URL:http://www.ldonline.org/article/28285/
Read Chapter 3.
Sample PResentations
Course Code
REA-560
Class Code
REA-560-O500
Criteria
Criteria
Percentage
100.0%
Program, Grade Levels, Focus
15.0%
Implementation
15.0%
Assessments
10.0%
Research Supporting Effectiveness
15.0%
Recommendation of Program and How it Can Be
Used by Reading/Literacy Specialists and
Teachers
15.0%
Positive Literacy Environment
15.0%
Overall Presentation
5.0%
Format and Documentation of Sources (layout,
citations, footnotes, references, bibliography,
etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5.0%
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar, and language use)
5.0%
Total Weightage
100%
Assignment Title
Literacy Intervention Program Review
No Submission (0.00%)
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Total Points
70.0
Insufficient (69.00%)
The name and grade levels for each program are incorrect.
What each program is intended to teach/remediate is
unrealistic.
The implementation process for each program is unfitting or
incompletely explained.
Explanation of how each program measures student progress
is unconvincing or methods are inadequate.
Research supporting the effectiveness of each program is
irrelevant.
Discussion on the recommended program and how
reading/literacy specialists and teachers can use the program
to support literacy learning and meet the needs of all
students is inappropriate.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment is incomprehensible.
The work is not neat or organized. Work would not be
presentable to school colleagues.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as
appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous
formatting errors.
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice
and/or sentence construction are used.
Approaching (74.00%)
The name and grade levels for each program are included.
What each program is intended to teach/remediate is vaguely
outlined.
The implementation process for each program is
underdeveloped or unclearly explained.
Explanation of how each program measures student progress
is lacking detail or methods are somewhat inaccurate.
Research supporting the effectiveness of each program is
weak.
A recommendation is made and how reading/literacy
specialists and teachers can use the program to support
literacy learning and meet the needs of all students is
minimal.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment does not demonstrate best practices.
The work is not neat and includes several minor
organizational flaws. Work would barely be presentable to
school colleagues.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, although some key formatting and citation errors are
present.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the
reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or
word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but
not varied.
Acceptable (87.00%)
The name and appropriate grade levels are included for each
program. What each program is intended to teach/remediate
is accurately outlined.
The implementation process for each program is reasonable
and competently explained.
How each program measures student progress is clear and
explained in detailed.
Relevant research supporting the effectiveness of each
program is correctly included.
Recommendation is clear and how reading/literacy specialists
and teachers can use the program to support literacy learning
and meet the needs of all students is competent.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment is given detailed consideration.
The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor
organizational flaws. Work would be presentable to school
colleagues.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, and format is mostly correct.
Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not
hinder comprehension. A variety of effective sentence
structures are used, as well as some practice and contentrelated language.
Target (100.00%)
The name and appropriate grade levels are specified for each
program. What each program is intended to teach/remediate
is skillfully outlined.
The implementation process for each program is realistic and
expertly explained.
How each program measures student progress is ideal and
proficiently explained.
Current research supporting the effectiveness of each
program is insightfully included.
A quality program is recommended and how reading/literacy
specialists and teachers can us it to support literacy learning
and meet the needs of all students is convincing.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment is thoughtfully discussed.
Comments
The work is well presented. The overall appearance is neat
and professional. Work would be highly presentable to school
colleagues.
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as
appropriate to assignment and style. Format is free of error.
Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice
reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related
language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging.
Points Earned
Course Code
REA-560
Class Code
REA-560-O500
Criteria
Criteria
Percentage
100.0%
Program, Grade Levels, Focus
15.0%
Implementation
15.0%
Assessments
10.0%
Research Supporting Effectiveness
15.0%
Recommendation of Program and How it Can Be
Used by Reading/Literacy Specialists and
Teachers
15.0%
Positive Literacy Environment
15.0%
Overall Presentation
5.0%
Format and Documentation of Sources (layout,
citations, footnotes, references, bibliography,
etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5.0%
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar, and language use)
5.0%
Total Weightage
100%
Assignment Title
Literacy Intervention Program Review
No Submission (0.00%)
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Total Points
70.0
Insufficient (69.00%)
The name and grade levels for each program are incorrect.
What each program is intended to teach/remediate is
unrealistic.
The implementation process for each program is unfitting or
incompletely explained.
Explanation of how each program measures student progress
is unconvincing or methods are inadequate.
Research supporting the effectiveness of each program is
irrelevant.
Discussion on the recommended program and how
reading/literacy specialists and teachers can use the program
to support literacy learning and meet the needs of all
students is inappropriate.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment is incomprehensible.
The work is not neat or organized. Work would not be
presentable to school colleagues.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as
appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous
formatting errors.
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice
and/or sentence construction are used.
Approaching (74.00%)
The name and grade levels for each program are included.
What each program is intended to teach/remediate is vaguely
outlined.
The implementation process for each program is
underdeveloped or unclearly explained.
Explanation of how each program measures student progress
is lacking detail or methods are somewhat inaccurate.
Research supporting the effectiveness of each program is
weak.
A recommendation is made and how reading/literacy
specialists and teachers can use the program to support
literacy learning and meet the needs of all students is
minimal.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment does not demonstrate best practices.
The work is not neat and includes several minor
organizational flaws. Work would barely be presentable to
school colleagues.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, although some key formatting and citation errors are
present.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the
reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or
word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but
not varied.
Acceptable (87.00%)
The name and appropriate grade levels are included for each
program. What each program is intended to teach/remediate
is accurately outlined.
The implementation process for each program is reasonable
and competently explained.
How each program measures student progress is clear and
explained in detailed.
Relevant research supporting the effectiveness of each
program is correctly included.
Recommendation is clear and how reading/literacy specialists
and teachers can use the program to support literacy learning
and meet the needs of all students is competent.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment is given detailed consideration.
The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor
organizational flaws. Work would be presentable to school
colleagues.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, and format is mostly correct.
Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not
hinder comprehension. A variety of effective sentence
structures are used, as well as some practice and contentrelated language.
Target (100.00%)
The name and appropriate grade levels are specified for each
program. What each program is intended to teach/remediate
is skillfully outlined.
The implementation process for each program is realistic and
expertly explained.
How each program measures student progress is ideal and
proficiently explained.
Current research supporting the effectiveness of each
program is insightfully included.
A quality program is recommended and how reading/literacy
specialists and teachers can us it to support literacy learning
and meet the needs of all students is convincing.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment is thoughtfully discussed.
Comments
The work is well presented. The overall appearance is neat
and professional. Work would be highly presentable to school
colleagues.
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as
appropriate to assignment and style. Format is free of error.
Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice
reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related
language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging.
Points Earned
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
REA-560
Class Code
REA-560-O500
Criteria
Criteria
Percentage
100.0%
Program, Grade Levels, Focus
15.0%
Implementation
15.0%
Assessments
10.0%
Research Supporting Effectiveness
15.0%
Recommendation of Program and How it Can Be
Used by Reading/Literacy Specialists and
Teachers
15.0%
Positive Literacy Environment
15.0%
Overall Presentation
5.0%
Format and Documentation of Sources (layout,
citations, footnotes, references, bibliography,
etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5.0%
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar, and language use)
5.0%
Total Weightage
100%
Assignment Title
Literacy Intervention Program Review
No Submission (0.00%)
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Total Points
70.0
Insufficient (69.00%)
The name and grade levels for each program are incorrect.
What each program is intended to teach/remediate is
unrealistic.
The implementation process for each program is unfitting or
incompletely explained.
Explanation of how each program measures student progress
is unconvincing or methods are inadequate.
Research supporting the effectiveness of each program is
irrelevant.
Discussion on the recommended program and how
reading/literacy specialists and teachers can use the program
to support literacy learning and meet the needs of all
students is inappropriate.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment is incomprehensible.
The work is not neat or organized. Work would not be
presentable to school colleagues.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as
appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous
formatting errors.
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice
and/or sentence construction are used.
Approaching (74.00%)
The name and grade levels for each program are included.
What each program is intended to teach/remediate is vaguely
outlined.
The implementation process for each program is
underdeveloped or unclearly explained.
Explanation of how each program measures student progress
is lacking detail or methods are somewhat inaccurate.
Research supporting the effectiveness of each program is
weak.
A recommendation is made and how reading/literacy
specialists and teachers can use the program to support
literacy learning and meet the needs of all students is
minimal.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment does not demonstrate best practices.
The work is not neat and includes several minor
organizational flaws. Work would barely be presentable to
school colleagues.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, although some key formatting and citation errors are
present.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the
reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or
word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but
not varied.
Acceptable (87.00%)
The name and appropriate grade levels are included for each
program. What each program is intended to teach/remediate
is accurately outlined.
The implementation process for each program is reasonable
and competently explained.
How each program measures student progress is clear and
explained in detailed.
Relevant research supporting the effectiveness of each
program is correctly included.
Recommendation is clear and how reading/literacy specialists
and teachers can use the program to support literacy learning
and meet the needs of all students is competent.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment is given detailed consideration.
The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor
organizational flaws. Work would be presentable to school
colleagues.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, and format is mostly correct.
Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not
hinder comprehension. A variety of effective sentence
structures are used, as well as some practice and contentrelated language.
Target (100.00%)
The name and appropriate grade levels are specified for each
program. What each program is intended to teach/remediate
is skillfully outlined.
The implementation process for each program is realistic and
expertly explained.
How each program measures student progress is ideal and
proficiently explained.
Current research supporting the effectiveness of each
program is insightfully included.
A quality program is recommended and how reading/literacy
specialists and teachers can us it to support literacy learning
and meet the needs of all students is convincing.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment is thoughtfully discussed.
Comments
The work is well presented. The overall appearance is neat
and professional. Work would be highly presentable to school
colleagues.
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as
appropriate to assignment and style. Format is free of error.
Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice
reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related
language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging.
Points Earned
Course Code
REA-560
Class Code
REA-560-O500
Criteria
Criteria
Percentage
100.0%
Program, Grade Levels, Focus
15.0%
Implementation
15.0%
Assessments
10.0%
Research Supporting Effectiveness
15.0%
Recommendation of Program and How it Can Be
Used by Reading/Literacy Specialists and
Teachers
15.0%
Positive Literacy Environment
15.0%
Overall Presentation
5.0%
Format and Documentation of Sources (layout,
citations, footnotes, references, bibliography,
etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5.0%
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar, and language use)
5.0%
Total Weightage
100%
Assignment Title
Literacy Intervention Program Review
No Submission (0.00%)
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Total Points
70.0
Insufficient (69.00%)
The name and grade levels for each program are incorrect.
What each program is intended to teach/remediate is
unrealistic.
The implementation process for each program is unfitting or
incompletely explained.
Explanation of how each program measures student progress
is unconvincing or methods are inadequate.
Research supporting the effectiveness of each program is
irrelevant.
Discussion on the recommended program and how
reading/literacy specialists and teachers can use the program
to support literacy learning and meet the needs of all
students is inappropriate.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment is incomprehensible.
The work is not neat or organized. Work would not be
presentable to school colleagues.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as
appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous
formatting errors.
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice
and/or sentence construction are used.
Approaching (74.00%)
The name and grade levels for each program are included.
What each program is intended to teach/remediate is vaguely
outlined.
The implementation process for each program is
underdeveloped or unclearly explained.
Explanation of how each program measures student progress
is lacking detail or methods are somewhat inaccurate.
Research supporting the effectiveness of each program is
weak.
A recommendation is made and how reading/literacy
specialists and teachers can use the program to support
literacy learning and meet the needs of all students is
minimal.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment does not demonstrate best practices.
The work is not neat and includes several minor
organizational flaws. Work would barely be presentable to
school colleagues.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, although some key formatting and citation errors are
present.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the
reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or
word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but
not varied.
Acceptable (87.00%)
The name and appropriate grade levels are included for each
program. What each program is intended to teach/remediate
is accurately outlined.
The implementation process for each program is reasonable
and competently explained.
How each program measures student progress is clear and
explained in detailed.
Relevant research supporting the effectiveness of each
program is correctly included.
Recommendation is clear and how reading/literacy specialists
and teachers can use the program to support literacy learning
and meet the needs of all students is competent.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment is given detailed consideration.
The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor
organizational flaws. Work would be presentable to school
colleagues.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, and format is mostly correct.
Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not
hinder comprehension. A variety of effective sentence
structures are used, as well as some practice and contentrelated language.
Target (100.00%)
The name and appropriate grade levels are specified for each
program. What each program is intended to teach/remediate
is skillfully outlined.
The implementation process for each program is realistic and
expertly explained.
How each program measures student progress is ideal and
proficiently explained.
Current research supporting the effectiveness of each
program is insightfully included.
A quality program is recommended and how reading/literacy
specialists and teachers can us it to support literacy learning
and meet the needs of all students is convincing.
How the program will be disseminated to staff, implemented,
and continuously evaluated in a way that fosters a positive
literacy environment is thoughtfully discussed.
Comments
The work is well presented. The overall appearance is neat
and professional. Work would be highly presentable to school
colleagues.
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as
appropriate to assignment and style. Format is free of error.
Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice
reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related
language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging.
Points Earned
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Categories: