Looking for the ideal resource to help your English-language learners (ELLs) learn to read? Look no further! Our CCVC Words reading videos are designed specifically with ELL students in mind. Each video allows learners to listen to the words being read, repeat the words and practice reading them independently. Not only does this approach help students with pronunciation, but it also allows them to broaden their vocabulary and improve their reading comprehension skills. Below is an overview of the progression our fun and engaging learning videos follow along with samples for you to try with your ELL students today!
Short ‘A’, ‘E’, ‘I’, ‘O’ & ‘U’ & Mixes
CCVC Words Random Mixes
CCVC Words Themed Mixes
The CCVC Words videos are now available in both online and offline formats for your convenience and are suitable for both classroom and at-home use. Explore our purchasing options to learn more and stay tuned for upcoming sets of videos that will accompany our Emergent and Transitional Readers eBooks.
At Education by Shala Books, we are always looking for ways to enhance our existing resources, so when Timmy Riday, an English teacher, and Qingdao LEKU Education & Culture Entertainment Co. Ltd., proposed the creation of learning videos to accompany our existing Emergent and Transitional Readers eBooks, it was an idea we immediately jumped as we could see their value for learners. Do you have an idea that you feel would be of benefit? If so, feel free to contact us to discuss selling opportunities on our website!
The other day I overheard a teacher say something along the lines that teachers shouldn’t worry about not covering all the objectives set out in the curriculum as she had been told by a superior that there were simply too many to cover in a year and not to worry about it; they would get touched upon another year. This completely blew my mind. My first instinct was to empathize with the teacher; I get the relief of being told not to worry if you run out of time, you did your best, all will work itself out in the end. But then I started playing this out in my head – if every single educator was doing the same thing, cutting parts of the curriculum out and crossing their fingers that it would get covered another year … well, things could go very wrong.
Firstly, if we are going to give teachers a free pass, there should be some sort of assurance that the missing objectives will be covered another year. At my daughter’s school district, I am almost certain this isn’t the case, so it could very well be that as she moves through her learning journey, there will be concepts that are missed simply because there doesn’t appear to be much accountability. At this point in time, there really isn’t any way to ensure that concepts missed one year are taught the next because there isn’t a formal handover where one teacher lets the next year’s teacher know what they weren’t able to cover, and there’s no tracking system in place.
The second issue is that there is no way to ensure that two classes of the same grade are covering the same concepts. And so, if one class moves faster and is able to cover more objectives and/or the two teachers choose different areas of the curriculum to skip over, then when the students are regrouped the following year, you end up with a mix of students in the next grade level classes with differing gaps. This makes it difficult for the new teachers to figure out a game plan to make sure that not only do they hit their grade level objectives, but also account for and fill in learning gaps that may exist.
If we follow this train of thought and imagine year upon year of missed objectives, not knowing what hasn’t been covered when, and assuming that teachers are choosing different areas of the curriculum to omit, (when that might not be the case and the same areas are being chosen) then what does this mean for students? It means that while the majority of the curriculum content will be covered, gaps will exist that may not necessarily be filled and their impact will be difficult to gauge.
The solution? I believe there are two choices: if the curriculum is in fact overloaded and deemed impossible to complete in a year, perhaps the B.C. government should consider paring it down to the essentials to make sure students are on an even footing, and the second choice would be to improve teacher accountability. If the government does feel that what it has set out is reasonable, then there needs to be some form of tracking in place to make sure it all gets covered at some point during each student’s learning journey.
As a teacher, what are your thoughts on the topic? What gaps, if any, have you witnessed due to the curriculums not being fully covered in a year? We’d love to hear your thoughts!
When it comes to working and evaluating English Language Learner (ELL) students’ progress, I believe that language can be broken down into two areas of focus – “input” language and “output” language, input being language that is heard and read, and output being language that is spoken and written. In my experience, it appears that an increased emphasis is usually placed on “output” language rather than “input” language. Not only do the student’s spoken and written work provide tangible proof of what the English-language learner can produce, they are also easier to teach as ample resources exist to support ELLs in developing their conversational and writing skills. That said, I have recently wondered if this may be a backwards approach and if perhaps “input” language skills may need to be given more weight and taught first, for the following reasons.
Firstly, when focusing on “output” language, one tends to ignore how the information is going in, meaning a failure to slow down’s one’s speech or pre-teach academic vocabulary so that the student can understand what is being said and a failure to provide differentiated reading materials and scaffolded learning activities. When this happens, an ELL student is being surrounded by language above their academic abilities and thus are not really grasping curriculum content. This in turn affects their spoken and written assignments, and for good reason, as they are unable to demonstrate a solid understanding of concepts being taught in the classroom because they missed vital pieces of information.
Secondly, when placing “output” above “input,” the tendency is to focus on teaching conversational English vocabulary, which ELL students do need, but it doesn’t help them in communicating the academic English that is required to participate in group work or to deliver oral presentations on topics studied in the classroom. When it comes to writing, the focus tends to be on improving grammar, sentence structure, etc., which again are all necessary skills, don’t get me wrong, but this ignores the content they are meant to be writing about. So, when it comes time to grading ELL students’ knowledge in subject areas, they often score low because they are lacking in two “input” areas – an understanding of the questions being asked, whether orally or in written form, and in comprehension of what was taught because they didn’t fully understand the information, whether it was delivered orally or written form.
As a result of focusing on “output” language, what we tend to see in English-language learners is that they appear conversationally capable and can write sentences/paragraphs that are grammatically correct, yet are still lost in the classroom because they simply don’t have the reading and listening skills to interpret all of the incoming information. I imagine that if we could shift the focus to “input” language and help ELL students in developing strategies to decipher and understand what is being taught in the classroom, and then give them the tools to properly communicate their learnings, it would go a long way in helping them find success in the classroom.
Have any thoughts or opinions on the matter? We’d love to hear them!