Author: Jennifer S. Ray, PhD, C-SLT

Teaching literacy became a passion of mine while raising my children. The knowledge that I learned through my experiences in teaching literacy at home and in the classroom over the past 28 years fueled my drive to earn a PhD in Education with a focus in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment. My graduate work centered on the curriculum, instruction, and assessment of literacy acquisition. I have a particular interest in dyslexia and discovering those students who may benefit from early intervention through a response to intervention program. I also enjoy reading, visiting state and national parks, and shopping.

Teaching Phonics Gives Students a Navigational Tool of Written Words

Would you allow a child to jump into the deep end of a pool without having instruction in how to swim? Some children might be able to surface and survive, most would need assistance to navigate the deep waters. Why put any child through the anxiety or possible drowning? Students should be taught how to swim systematically to avoid a possible drowning. This should be the same for students navigating or learning how to read written words.

Instruction should begin at the basics or foundation to give students the tools to rescue themselves as they navigate the deepening waters of written verbiage. Instruction should be systematic moving students from basic to complex. Students use their knowledge of phonemic awareness to learn how to encode and decode written words. Phonemic awareness is the knowledge of how to manipulate sounds to develop words and sentences. Students examine the sounds of oral language and how the arrangement of letters within words represent unique sounds to convey meaning. Oral language knowledge provides the initial layer of the foundation for reading written language.

Phonics instruction relies on student oral communication skills in particularly their ability to synthesize, comprehend, and mimic spoken sounds. Oral language usually develops naturally through an individual’s environment. They learn to mimic sounds of spoken language within their environment. Toddlers usually babble or play with individual sounds before they produce words and practice voicing a few words at time before moving to a full sentence. Written language is not a natural occurrence gained through their environment; it is a learned experience. The skill is best learned through an explicit, systematic format.

Phonics is the study of words, in particular the individual sounds that make a particular word and the symbols that represent those sounds of that word. The order of the letters dictates the individual sounds of a word. English Language has approximately 44 sounds that are used to develop written words. These sounds of are comprised of only 26 letters. Phonics instruction usually begins during the pre-school years of formal education. Not all students will gain the skills taught on the same timeline. Skipping this instruction is similar to throwing students into the deep end of the pool.

Written words composed into sentences have set doctrine that allows for comprehension. Words are read in a set pattern, from left to right. How the letters are arranged in a word dictate the pronunciation and meaning of the word. Explicit instruction teaches students this doctrine without confusion. Typically, students who are learning to read think concretely (black and white). Abstract thinking usually doesn’t begin to make an appearance until around age 7, when most students are already reading full sentences. Students who are learning how to read also benefit from visual or pictures of a new concept. Systematic instruction of written words helps students to learn new skills from basic to complex, such as learning about individual vowel sounds before learning about vowel digraphs.

Phonics instruction shouldn’t end in Grade 1, but continue until student(s) are able to automatically decode and encode words.

Why Reflection?

Reflection is part of professional development. The learning is imbedded and personalized to the educator’s current instructional situation. This is a natural opportunity for teachers to learn from their instructional experiences. This a way for educators to naturally improve their craft, specialty, or expertise. Educators might focus on one piece of an instructional lesson that may be included in several or one instructional lesson to reflect on. Educators should be continually learning how to improve their development and delivery of an instructional lesson.

Each educator may have a different way of reflecting on an instructional lesson. Many individuals complete this task naturally in relation to their personal activities. Some need a routine to ensure that reflection takes place. Some need to write notes about their analysis. Some might use a positive, negative t-chart about a lesson. Some educators may have a journal dedicated to write their analysis—reflection of instructional lessons and possible options for future lessons. These notes may also be used as anecdotal data. Some will analyze and jot notes as we move through the lesson. Some will wait until the end of the lesson. Others need to wait for a quiet uninterrupted moment to analyze aspects of a lesson. The actual reflection may take place during a quiet walk or it might take place in quiet moment during the instructional day. There are no set rules to follow, only that you take a few minutes to ponder about an event that has taken place.

During reflection teachers might ask the following questions. Did the lesson bring the intended outcome? What did I notice about students throughout the lesson? How may I increase student agency during this type of lesson? Why did this student struggle? What were the hiccups or bumps during the lesson? How might I improve the lesson next time?

Through questioning your conclusion might reveal:

a new instructional method that went surprisingly smooth
a small or large piece that may need to be addressed, like altering how long students should read-to-self
this group of students struggles to work in small groups
this group of students needs more background knowledge or practice

Each group of students is unique and may have different needs to soak in the information being presented.

Each carefully planned instructional lesson will have some positive and negative outcomes. At times the positive outcomes may show through and at other times the negative aspects will shine brighter. The goal would be to create a lesson that will produce more positive vibes. Students tend to embrace and participate in an activity that they enjoy (intrinsic motivation). For example, an instructional lesson about how to properly use commas is often dry, laborious, boring. Maybe the lesson would be better embraced if students wrote the sentences that need commas? What if this lesson was taught within an interesting science lesson? What if students were allowed to develop those sentences in small groups? What if the students were allowed to present their findings? What if they were able to work in pairs?

Reflection is a vital component in the process of developing instructional lessons. Reflection is a “mini” analysis of a past event. Reflection helps teachers evaluate what took place during an instructional lesson. Reflection also helps educators to wonder about which direction they might take next in developing an instructional lesson. Reflection also assists educators to organize and bring clarity to their thoughts or evaluation of instruction. This is especially true when they choose to write about the reflection. The process of writing usually deepens their analysis of the topic.

Gathering and Using Student and Instructional Data

Giving assessments, tests, exams, quizzes, etc of any kind is a WASTE OF TIME if educators do not analyze and use the outcome or data to improve student instruction and learning. Students usually have no want to take tests of any kind, as taking assessments usually leads to unnecessary anxiety and stress. There should be a valid reason for gathering the data—not so that it looks nice on paper or sits in a drawer. Each educator may rely on particular type of assessment more than others. Some types of assessment are mandated by law at state or federal levels. Some types of assessments are established by the district, others by an individual school, and others by the classroom teacher. Each piece of data helps to develop a “picture” of a student learning and achievement abilities and of teaching instructional practices. Multiple forms of data should be gathered over 5-to-6-week period to develop a solid picture of student ability. Time should be spent to ponder the outcomes and how this data may improve student mastery of information.

There are different types of data that may be gathered to assist educators in developing and delivering worthy lessons.

Observation data is usually gathered and recorded as anecdotal notes. Teachers might use charts to ensure information is gathered about a certain topic or action. Some teachers may also use a notebook to record on-going notes. These observations may be used to increase the validity of assessment data, to make changes to instruction, or to make a diagnostic diagnosis.
Curriculum-based measurements (CBM) are assessments that are derived from adopted or classroom curriculum. CBMs are written in different formats to gather different types of data related to the topic studied. CBMs often have a variety of questions, such as multiply choice, true/false, essay, or matching questions. CBMs might be written by non-educators, classroom teachers, or educators.
Summative assessments measure the amount of information that a student has retained in relation to the information taught in a lesson or group of lessons about a particular subject. Summative assessments are often used at the end of a unit.
A portfolio assessment is a group of specified assignments, usually related to a certain topic, study or skill focus. This type of assessment has the ability to show different types of skills that may not be visible on other types of assessments that may need to be measured for student success.
Formative assessments provide on-going feedback to instructors about how they might improve their instruction of information. This type of assessment also informs teachers of student learning abilities and achievement. Formative assessments are also used to show students weaknesses and strengths in relation to topic assessed.
Diagnostic assessments are used to evaluate individual student abilities in order to identify strengths and deficits of a particular academic domain (Ray, 2017, p.13). These types of assessments are used more to determine student deficits that may lead to a learning diagnosis, like processing of information issues.
Progress monitoring verifies how much a student has grown in relation to a particular topic or skill. The monitoring also gives instructors knowledge about the effectiveness of this particular instruction and possible directions for future instructional lessons of this nature. Progress monitoring typically takes place every two weeks. Progress monitoring is used primarily for students receiving intervention instruction.
Standardized assessments or measurements assess student academic level in relation to other students of the same age or grade level. Often these measurements are developed using a “bank” of questions that are randomly chosen for a particular test. There are different types of standardized assessments that are used for different purposes, such as diagnostic and teacher or district accountability. These measurements are norm or criterion-referenced.

Each type of assessment provides clues about student academic success and teacher instruction. The assessment outcomes should be analyzed through the lens of the intended outcome or purpose of assessment.

References

Ray, J. (2017). Tiered 2 interventions for students in grades 1-3 identified as at risk in reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

Gillingham and Stillman’s (1956) Theory of Teaching Reading-Phonics

During the 1950s, there was much debate over which reading instructional methods were the most effective for teaching students how to read. The debate remains the same today, phonics or whole word. Gillingham and Stillman’s theory (1956) of teaching students how to read suggests that all students should be taught literacy using her phonics instructional method. They state that students should receive this type of instruction as preventive measure in Grades 1 and 2. Teaching students how to read was not emphasized until Grade 1 in the 1950s. Today educators begin teaching students how to read in pre-kindergarten/kindergarten. They also stated that this method should be used for remedial instruction beginning in Grade 3. In the 1950s most students were not identified as behind until Grade 3. Today we can begin to identify students as young as pre-kindergarten. If all students were taught to read beginning in pre-kindergarten/kindergarten using a phonological instructional method less students would need to be remediated.

Gillingham began her work in the field of dyslexia or with students struggling to learn how to read under the direction of Dr. Orton a pathologist who studied individuals with brain issues. Students who struggled at learning how to read were referred to Dr. Orton for evaluation. These students were often of higher IQ, with normal sight, and functioned “normally” other than not being able to learn how to read. Most of Gillingham’s work centered on how to effectively teach this type of student how to read. Stillman was a classroom teacher that worked with Gillingham to formulate how to teach students struggling to learn how to read. She also discovered that all students benefited from being taught using her phonics instructional method.

Gillingham and Stillman (1956) believed that remedial students did not learn reading skills through the normal route of instruction. Gillingham and Stillman found that students who were placed in remedial classes often had normal or higher levels of intelligence but were struggling with the acquisition of reading skills. Gillingham and Stillman noted that remedial students often have “normal sensory acuity, both visual and auditory” (p. 20). They argued that remedial students need to be taught by a trained remediation teacher who can present alternative methods in learning how to read. When the same students are taught using the phonics method, for example, the results are vastly different. Gillingham and Stillman noted that students who are provided with remediation for four or five years have a greater chance in improving their reading skills. Students who are remediated early in their school career will often not have memories of failing to learn to read. Students who are remediated early will usually be more confident in their reading abilities and in learning other subjects.

Gillingham and Stillman’s Phonic Instructional Theory

Gillingham and Stillman (1956) stated that students should first be taught the grapheme-phoneme or letter-sound correspondences, followed by the encoding of phonemes to form words. She stated that whole word instruction cannot take the place of “word-building” or phonics instruction. One student stated that “Until I had these Phonic Drill Cards, I never knew that the letters in a word had anything to do with pronouncing it” (Gillingham & Stillman, 1956, p. 39). Gillingham and Stillman’s method involves the close association of components that form a language triangle. These components are visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. These components work together to record information in the brain.

The first step or linkage is letter-sound correspondence instruction (Gillingham & Stillman, 1956). Students are taught the name of the written symbol (visual), then the sound (auditory) of the written symbol while looking (visual) at the written letter. Students are also taught to feel (kinesthetic) their vocal cords to understand how their body is producing the associated sound. Gillingham and Stillman stated that there is not a set order that letters must be taught. It is suggested that letters should be introduced beginning “with unequivocal sounds and non-reversible forms” (Gillingham & Stillman, 1956, p. 44). She also suggested that teachers should have a plan to follow for the introduction of new symbols.

The teacher first models each process, then completes the tasks with the student, before the student is ask to complete the task independently. Emphasis is placed on learning the correct pronunciation of each letter phoneme, which is modeled by the teacher. Gillingham and Stillman (1956) discussed that teachers should study the correct pronunciation of each letter sound, using pictures that show the correct pronunciation-mouth, tongue, and teeth position. They suggested that each grapheme should be introduced with a “key word” that models the correct pronunciation of the symbol in the initial letter position, like /b/ bear. Students practice correspondences until they become fluid in each letter-sound correspondence. Today we know that phonological awareness plays a major role in students learning the correct pronunciation of each letter sound.

The second step or linkage is learning how to write (kinesthetic) the symbols (visual) of the learned sounds (auditory). The teacher models how to write the symbol; how to hold a writing utensil, where to begin, where to end, etc. Students then trace over the teacher’s model of how to write the symbol. When students become fluid in how to correctly form the symbol through tracing, then they begin copying the symbol on their own.

There are six more steps in Gillingham and Stillman’s (1956) phonic instructional theory, which will be addressed in future blogs.

References

Gillingham, A, & Stillman, B. (1956). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Cambridge: Education Publication Service, Inc.

Gillingham, A. (1955). The prevention of scholastic failure due to specific language disability, part I. Bronxville: N.Y. Academy of Medicine.

Gillingham’s Theory of Phonics Remediation

Gillingham (1956) labored countless hours in the pursuit of an instructional process for students who have language deficits. Gillingham worked closely with Dr. Orton, a neurologist, in his research lab, investigating the struggles in reading acquisition of children referred to Dr. Orton. Gillingham used Dr. Orton’s theory (1955, 1956) regarding language function to find solutions to students’ reading problems. Many of the students who were referred to Dr. Orton had emotional issues and reading acquisition deficits, and students were three to four years behind students of their age.

Most of the students referred to Dr. Orton’s practice had similar characteristics in relation to their learning abilities. Students were often assessed in the higher intelligence range (Gillingham, 1956). However, students often shut down when reading was mentioned. Most students had proficient memories. Most students also wrote their letters in a mirrored image. All students gave great effort in learning to read, but most of them were often labeled as lazy or uncooperative. Many of the referred students were thought to have emotional issues that were believed to be the central issue in learning to read. Many of the students were tested by an oculist or optometrist for vision issues, but usually, no vision issues were found. Parents were flustered about why their children could not learn to read, but their siblings could learn to read. Gillingham noted that most of the students had a family history of reading acquisition deficits. Gillingham found that many of the students responded positively to other forms of reading curriculum and instruction given by a remedial teacher, and then most of the emotional issues dissipated.

Gillingham (1955) also came to the conclusion that students who struggled with reading acquisition skills could be assessed and taught using a different curriculum than the dominant reading curriculum. This different curriculum and instruction would teach these students how to read and allow them to keep up with their peers academically. Gillingham believed that this new type of instruction would prevent students from experiencing “the heartache and frustration and their parents from the anxiety and expense that is now met when the child is a reading case” (p. 28).

Gillingham (1956) wrote a manual based on her findings about how to teach students to read. The predominant form of reading instruction was whole word. Gillingham used the “reading and spelling with phonetic words” curriculum and instruction for students who were identified as having possible or known deficits in learning to reading (p. 39). The major support systems for students struggling with reading acquisition skills are noted in Gillingham’s 1956 manual, which is titled Remedial Training for Children with Specific Disability in Reading, Spelling, and Penmanship. Gillingham describes the teacher’s role in teaching students with reading deficits. Gillingham also describes current research theories in teaching struggling learners how to read. The roles of school administrators and of parents are also described. In addition, Gillingham included descriptions of technology, curriculum, and student motivation in learning how to read. Community support systems for remedial students are also noted. My next blog will describe Gillingham’s theory about phonics remediation in further detail.

References

Gillingham, A, & Stillman, B. (1956). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Cambridge: Education Publication Service, Inc.

Gillingham, A. (1955). The prevention of scholastic failure due to specific language disability, part I. Bronxville: N.Y. Academy of Medicine.

Has reading instruction really changed in the last 200 years?

Has reading instruction really changed in the last 200 years? Webster’s main push was to unify an American literacy curriculum that was different from the literacy curriculum used in the mother country of England; the current push is to unify reading curriculum through national standards in reading. Webster utilized phonics within his reading curriculum; phonics is still a major portion of reading instruction today. Educators have been pushed and pulled in different directions regarding reading instruction, with the goal that every child will be blessed with the gift of reading. This national effort is a laborious undertaking, because each child is unique and reaches the school door with a different learning style, different learning challenges, and a different home environment. Over the last 200 years, there have been changes to accommodate the needs of a growing society in learning to read, despite a dependence on old ideals.

Webster (1843) saw language as a way of conveying one’s thoughts and feelings from one person to the other. Webster thought that America needed ownership of their own language, a simpler language to read and write apart from the language of the “mother country” of England (preface, 1790, p. x,). Webster noted, “America must be as independent in literature as in politics, as famous for its arts as for arms; and it is not impossible but a person of my youth may have some influence in exciting a spirit of literary industry” (as cited in Blinderman, 1976, p. 32). Utilizing British grammar as a model, Webster wrote an America version of language and spelling instruction called A Grammatical Institute of the English Language in 1783. Webster would continue to improve his methods of teaching language and spelling until his death.

Webster (1790) saw that the strength of the United States was dependent on the education of its youth; his patriotism led him to remold the education of young people, noting that no person, regardless of their social economic status, cultural heritage, or sex, should be excluded from educational opportunities. He saw language arts as the center piece of educating youth, adding moral issues, science, history, government, and the arts to the curriculum. As Webster’s curricula progressed, he introduced other subjects into standard teaching lessons, and this curriculum was the beginning of an instructional approach to teaching subjects separately and purposefully.

Webster (1843) also saw a need to improve the separate entities of language, spoken and written. He simplified and regulated the spelling of words, utilizing didactical marks for punctuation; this method improved student ability to spell and to pronounce words. Webster also noted that spoken language involved the correct articulation of words, utilizing an intricate team of the throat, tongue, palate, teeth, and lips. Teachers were looked upon to model correct articulation and to correct students on the spot in order to ensure correct articulation of words spoken or read. A student’s body language was seen as a part of how words were articulated correctly. Written language was the part committed to paper, written to communicate a variety of thoughts, and to be utilized in a global sense that could be transported from place to place.

Webster (1843) believed that grammar made logical sense of words and provided the rules for both spoken and written language. Webster also saw grammar as the science of organizing words together, utilizing firm rules that were seen as a model of organized language in order to communicate effectively. Webster saw four major parts to grammar: orthography, etymology, syntax, and prosody.

“Orthography treats of the letters, their powers and combinations in syllables; or, it teaches the true manner of writing words, called spelling. Etymology treats of derivation of words from their radicals or primitives, and of their various inflections and modifications to express person, number, case, sex, time and mode. Syntax explains the true mode of constructing sentences. Prosody treats of the quantity or accent of syllables and the laws of versification (p.7).”

Each portion of the language puzzle was taught in a “systematic, sequential, letter-based, and learned by rote—would not be challenged until 1820’s” (Monaghan, E. J., 2010, p. 4, para. 4).

Webster (1790) felt so strongly about the need to improve education in the United States that he shifted from his role as a lawyer to an educator in order to devote his energy to the transformation of the reading curriculum in America. To protect his own writings, Webster helped to develop the copyright laws, holding the first copyright of a book; these laws ensured that the money from the sales of publishing through his efforts to develop, improve, print, advertise, and distribute would be protected and placed in his hands. He standardized orthography, spelling, articulation, and other portions of grammar in America, leaving heavy footprints within the reading curriculum and instruction of today.

References

Blinderman, A. (1976). Three early champions of education: benjamin franklin, benjamin rush, and noah webster. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa Ed. Foundation.

Monaghan, E. J., Ed. (2010). Noah webster (1758-1843) – webster’s innovations, perfecting the spelling book for reading instruction, other works. http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2544/Webster-1758-1843.html.

Webster, N. (1800). A grammatical institute of the English language; comprising an easy, concise, and systematic method of education. Boston: Thomas & Andrews.

Webster, N. (1814). An American selection of lessons in reading and speaking: calculate to improve the minds and refine the taste of youth. Philadelphia: Hogan.

Webster, N. (1843). An improved grammar of the English language. New York: Webster & Clark.

Webster, N. (1790). Collection of essays and fugitive writings on moral, historical, political and literary subjects. Boston: Fauet’s Statue.

Relieve Student Stress—Teach Spelling

The stress and anxiety that students often feel when they are trying to spell words without the proper tools usually diminishes when students learn how the letters work together to form words of meaning. Students begin learning the sounds of letters and words as they begin mimicking the conversations of their environment. Students begin learning the rules of how letters are encoded into words through their daily interactions with people and their environment. Some letter phonemes are consistent, some phonemes or chunks of words are influenced by other letters within the word. Parents and educators often model how to orally sound out words to provide students the opportunity to mimic words and learn a new tool. This tool usually assists students to more accurately pronounce words. This is called phonological awareness, which is defined as “a reading skill that involves a range of understandings related to the sounds of words and word parts, including identifying and manipulating larger parts of spoken language such as words, syllables, and onset and rime. (Ray, 2017, pp. 13-14).

Students build on the foundation of phonological awareness when they begin to attach graphemes to the spoken sounds. This is when students begin learning letter-sound correspondences. Letter-sound correspondences is the second pillar of structure literacy (Ray, 2020, p. 38). Some graphemes are constant, some have variances that are dependent on how the letters are placed within a word. The rules of how letters influence other letters within a word is identified as phonics. Ray (2017) defines phonics as:

A form of instruction that cultivates the understanding and use of the alphabet, which emphasizes the predictable relationship between phonemes (the sounds in spoken language) and graphemes (the letters that represent those sounds in written language) and shows how this information can be used to read or decode words.” (p. 13)

There are many ways to teach how the letters are encoded to develop words. One type of instruction that may strengthen student sound-letter correspondences and how letters may change individual letter phonemes during the primary grades is to write the symbol(s) that represent the individual sounds of a word. Students begin to understand how letters change their individual sounds based on where they are placed in a word. There are many benefits of teaching students the letter-sound correspondences, such as improved spelling and comprehension. This practice should be taught throughout a student’s formal education, beginning when they start encoding or writing down the graphemes to build words. The complexity of how the letters create different sounds and words increases with each grade-level.

The following is an example of how I often model/instruct later primary students to examine the relationships of phonemes and graphemes. These students usually can read the words that they are examining.

Sound out the word gym.

What letter sounds do you hear? /___/ /___/ /___/

What letters or letter diagraphs are used to

represent those sounds? ____ ____ ____

Sound out the word gym.

What letter sounds do you hear? / j / / i / / m /

What letters or letter diagraphs are used to

represent those sounds? g y m

another example:

Sound out the word tardy.

What letter sounds do you hear? / t / / ä / / r / / d / / e /

What letters or letter diagraphs are used to

represent those sounds? t a r d y

I usually use spelling words that students are expected to know how to spell at their particular grade level.

Educators might use a different format for teaching students at different grade-levels or complexities of words. When systematic, direct, explicit instruction is used students usually learn the “rules” of how letter placement affects the sounds of words and the spelling of words that are new or hard become natural. When teaching spelling you are essentially teaching all of the pillars of structured literacy (phonemic awareness→letter-sound correspondences→syllables→ morphology→ syntax→semantics).

References

Ray, J. S. (2020). Structured Literacy Supports All Learners: Students At-Risk of Literacy Acquisition – Dyslexia and English Learners. Texas Association for Literacy Education Yearbook, Vol. 7, pp. 37-43.

Ray, J. S. (2017). Tier 2 intervention for students in grades 1-3 identified as at-risk in reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

Scaffolding of Writing

Learning how to write is often hard, cumbersome. Individuals do not come preprogrammed to write. Writing words onto paper begins with learning how to speak. Toddlers learn to string words into sentences through the layers of their environment. The immediate layer (home) is usually the most influential. Toddlers’ sentences may also be influenced through books read to them. Children may also be influenced by exposure of different media sources and people’s conversation in the production of spoken sentences. Many students struggle in how to put their spoken words onto paper.

Writing is a higher cognitive processing order and is often very laborious for students. Students usually learn how to write through (explicit, modeled) instruction and many hours of practice. Using writing topics that spark students’ intrinsic motivation usually eases the process. There are many different types or styles of writing that may also spark students’ motivation to write. Using tangible scaffolds may also assist students’ motivation to participate in the writing process.

Scaffolding instruction means, providing “a supportive instructional structure that teachers use to provide the appropriate mechanisms for a student to complete a task that is beyond their unassisted abilities” (Ray, 2017, p.14). van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen (2010) suggests that there are three levels of scaffolding instruction-contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility. The type of mechanism to use for scaffolding instruction or completion of an assignment will depend on the task and the student. During the contingency stage of instruction teachers will usually adjust and model completion of task to meet the learning needs of the current student(s). During the fading stage of instruction students are beginning to complete assignments on their own with some assistance from students or teachers of higher cognitive abilities. Students do not own the ability to complete the task effectively without some assistance at this stage. At times the assistance may come in the way of a scaffolding mechanism that may not be a human, such as a graphic organizer or chart. Often how to use the mechanism is taught during the contingency phase of the scaffolding process. Some mechanisms that might be used during writing instruction include:

assistance in developing a descriptive word list to use for writing a passage
graphs
suggesting types of sentences to write in this section
sentence stems
writing different parts of a writing piece as separate tasks
discussions related to the topic
examples of appropriate sentences to include in their writing. I like to use appropriate sentences provided by other students as examples. Student may use these sentences or develop their own.

The final stage of the scaffolding process, transfer of responsibility implies that a student is able to complete the task without assistance, such as produce an organized, cohesive paragraph about a suggested topic or write a sentence using the correct punctuation.

Scaffolds usually increase student motivation and decrease stress and anxiety. Scaffolds often allow students to focus on smaller pieces of the task. Scaffolds are meant to be temporary and should be removed as student gains more ownership in the ability to accomplish the goal. Students often move back and forth between the different stages of the scaffolding process until they reach full ownership of a task. Each student will have different patterns of movement through the scaffolding stages, often dependent on the initial instruction given, background knowledge of student, and student abilities.

References

Ray, J. S. (2017). Tier 2 intervention for students in grades 1-3 identified as at-risk in reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Education Psychology Review, 22, 271-296. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.

The Essential Components and Teacher Education of RTI

A valid response to intervention (RTI) program provides the necessary support and instruction to students who are struggling to maintain appropriate grade-level expectations for reading and math. The program provides different layers of more intense, focus instruction based on individual student’s learning needs. The program was first mandated in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2002 by United States Congress. RTI was also mandated in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 2004. The mandate remained a part of the policy when NCLB was updated and renewed under the name of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2017. This act was put into place to provide students who lag behind their fellow classmates support earlier in their formal educational career, with the hope of alleviating special education services. It was also determined that the earlier students were supported the less emotional trauma students would endure and the less financial burden individuals would be to the educational process and society.

Essential Components of RTI

The major components of a valid response to intervention (RTI) program are rather simple. How the components are developed or formed and maintained to accommodate the students present increases the complexity of the program. Each program should include three major components: (a) systematic assessment measures-screenings, diagnostic, and progress-monitoring, (b) research-based instruction taught sequentially and at times taught explicitly to meet the educational needs of all present students-instruction in the regular classroom, supplemental and more intensive instruction, and (c) use of current student data to form student instructional lessons. Each program should also have a mode of communication within its infrastructure. Communication that flows between all entities of the RTI program. Each program will seem similar, but different.

Essential Teacher Knowledge

Teachers of a successful RTI program should have the following knowledge and skills: (a) literacy development and instruction, (b) how to use data to inform instruction, (c) how to differentiate instruction, (d) how to collaborate, (e) be a lifelong learner, (f) how to use interpersonal and communication skills, and (g) how to use necessary technology (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012). Teachers should also be knowledgeable about how to use various types of assessments, such as progress monitoring, curriculum-based, and universal screens.

The leadership team of an RTI program is responsible for the oversight and direction of professional develop opportunities related to RTI. The campus coordinator usually heads the leadership team and is often a reading specialist. This person is often the liaison between the district and school. The leadership team should be knowledgeable about teachers current instructional abilities and education. The leadership team should also know what types of on-going teacher professional develop that should take place in order to maintain an effective RTI program. Research suggests that on-going professional develop of a successful RTI program should include the following: (a) systemic curriculum, (b) effective instruction, (c) direct instruction, (d) specified instructional materials, (e) key instructional components, (f) CBM assessments, (g) videos and/or observations of classroom instruction, (h) data graphed against goals, (i) student progress monitored monthly, and (j) decisions regarding curriculum and instruction based on data (Kashima et al., 2009). Professional learning can take place in a variety of different venues, such as one-on-one with district personnel or in a seminar format (White et al., 2012). The leadership team of an RTI program should also be knowledgeable about current research and resources related to effective intervention curriculum and instruction. RTI is a living breathing model that must remain flexible to meet the learning needs of their current students.

References

Bean, R. & Lillenstein, J. (2012). Response to intervention and the changing roles of schoolwide personnel. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 491-501. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01073

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of RTI: A closer look at leadership, parent involvement, and cultural responsivity. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 1-11.

White, R., Polly, D. & Audette, R. (2012). A case analysis of an elementary school’s implementation of response to intervention. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26, 73-90. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2011.632067

The Benefits of Determining and Addressing Students Literacy Needs – Early

Students of all economic and cultural backgrounds arrive at institutions of formal education assuming that educators will be able to teach them how to effectively read and write. Some will have the knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, some will have knowledge of how to hold a pencil and write. Some will know how to read. Some will have good oral language skills. Some will have good social emotional skills. Some will show up without any of the previous skills. They will be all put into the same classroom. The teacher is expected to meet the learning needs of all students throughout the day.

There are tools that teachers should have available to ease the “craziness” of having 20-25 students that are all at different levels of learning and social behavior. One tool is universal screening of early or foundational literacy knowledge and skills. Universal screenings are very short probes to determine which students may lack the necessary skills to be successful in their current grade. These screenings usually assist in determining which students may need additional small group or one-on-one instruction to learn foundational learning skills. These screenings also assist in determining students who might need further diagnostic assessment and different instruction for various learning disabilities, such as dyslexia. These short probes are usually used in partnership of teacher observation and completed assignments to increase the validity of the universal screening outcomes.

These probes should begin in kindergarten, and the findings a focus of instruction during Grades K-3. The earlier a student(s) learning needs or lack of knowledge and skills are address the less the student(s) will struggle. Students who receive earlier intervention instruction usually skip the deep emotional scars. Left unmeet these students usually spend their time clawing their way through their day, trying to avoid the shame of not be able to fully participate. Often students just need a few weeks of intense instruction in kindergarten. I have yet to meet a student who didn’t want to function at grade-level with their peers.

The types of probes are dependent on student age and ability. A student in kindergarten should be assessed in phonemic awareness and rapid automatic naming skills. A student in Grade 2 should be assessed in some of the previous probes along with word reading of both regular and pseudonym words. These are usually given three times a year within an instructional response to intervention (RTI) model* that focuses on academics-literacy and math. The probes and intervention instruction begin to separate students with true learning disabilities from those who didn’t gain or learn the foundational skills necessary before entering the formal educational setting. This also ensures that students with true disabilities receive more accurate instruction and assistance earlier than later for their disability.

Students who receive explicit, direct instruction in Grades K-2 for the lacking foundational literacy skills usually “catch-up” to grade level expectation and maintain their intervention gains. Some students will need assistance throughout their formal academic instruction. Students who receive the right academic intervention instruction will avoid many latter social emotional issues. The cost to society and formal education escalates, as students maturate and cannot effectively participate at their grade-level. The earlier students’ lack of foundational skills is addressed; the less funding is needed to bring up them up to grade-level. Students’ brains are more malleable during their younger years.

* Each RTI model should be different, but similar in nature to reflect the students’ academic learning needs and the resources available. All RTI models will have tiers or levels of instruction. Most RTI models in Grades K-4 focus on developing reading skills. Some RTI models may focus on behavior. Behavior focused RTI models may assist in determining the learning levels of students, as behavior often signals a lack of academic skills necessary to function at grade-level. Once the academic needs are meet the behavior issues usually melt away.

In my next blog, I will describe the necessary components and teacher education of a successful RTI program.

References

Moll, K., Georgii, B. J., Tunder, R., & Schulte-Kӧrne (2022). Economic evaluation of dyslexia intervention. Dyslexia, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1728

Ray, J. S. (2017). Tier 2 intervention for students in grades 1-3 identified as at-risk in reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)