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.

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

Developing the Reading Brain Connections is Hard Work!

The brain has elasticity or the ability to grow new connections and prune unused connections. This is an easier task for younger individuals, when their brain has a greater degree of elasticity. No matter the age growing new or different connections or routes of communication between the different parts of the brain for effective reading is usually very tiring. When a person has dyslexia, this impedes the process.

In his book The Teacher Who Couldn’t Read, John Corcoran (2008) describes living a life similar to a prisoner with no way to escape or get out for good behavior. In his 40s John stumbled upon or was talked into trying a program called, Lindamood Bell. He hesitated because no one else had been able to break through and help him learn the skills necessary to read.

Even though he read at about Grade 2, he had wholes or gaps in the necessary tools he needed to effectively read at Grade 2. He first began meeting with his instructional team at Lindamood Bell for four hours a day, after a week he moved his instruction time to six hours a day. He describes his plunge into intense therapy-training like a soldier readying himself for war. John states, “at times my shirt would be soaking wet as I strained to learn the new techniques. I never worked so hard at anything in my life, and I never felt so good” (Corcoran, 2008, p. 201).

John describes that his journey of learning how to read began with phonemic awareness (oral language), learning how to better manipulate sounds of words. He was lacking the phonemic awareness skills that many educators take for granted as this is usually acquired before students enter formal education. Once those skills were learned, he began learning the names of letters and their corresponding sounds. Instructors assisted John in learning how the movements of his face and mouth helped him to create the sounds of the individual letters, letter diagrams, and words.

He noted that part of his issue was a lack of correct sound linkage. Meaning his brain did not accurately connect the right oral sounds with their corresponding letter(s). He lacked sound discrimination skills that are necessary to distinguish between different sounds associated with each letter. He stated that nearly a third of individuals who possess normal hearing “do not have fully developed auditory conceptual ability” (Corcoran, 2008, p. 204). This skill is necessary for decoding words into the individual sounds and their corresponding letters. He noted that he had to use his senses of hearing, seeing, touching, and moving to accurately absorb the skills necessary to read.

After about three weeks, he began to feel the prison walls tumble as “the task went from being hard, physical labor to a fun learning activity” (Corcoran, 2008, p. 203). “I felt my own transition from being physically and mentally exhausted to being relaxed and confident” (p. 203). He began to unmask his deception of not knowing how to read, no longer feeling the need to manipulate his environment to protect himself.

After one month of instruction or 100 hours of treatment in the Lindamood-Bell Learning Process, John “gained 10 years in word-attack skill” (Corcoran, 2008, p. 206) moving from Grade 2 to Grade 12; “three years in word recognition” (p. 206) moving from Grade 5 to Grade 8; and “a year and a half in spelling” (p. 206). His therapy also increased his ability to follow oral directions and his reading comprehension skills.

The Lindamood Bell Program was developed in the late 1960’s to teach students with unreliable auditory perceptions known as Auditory Discrimination in Depth (ADD). The program teaches “students to perceive sounds in isolation and in context and how to produce them” (American Federation of Teachers, 1999). They have other programs such as Lindamood Phonemic Sequencing Program (LiPS), which focuses on reading and spelling. “Combining phonics with auditory discrimination in depth (LIPS) program is what I will call the Complete Intensive Systematic Phonics Learning System” (Corcoran, 2008, p. 209).

Each student is unique having different genetic and environmental factors that may affect students’ ability to learn how to read, making accurate diagnose of individual student learning needs a challenge.

Identifying dyslexic or literacy deficit students during grades Pre-Kinder – 2, when an individual’s brain in more flexible, decreases the dollars to educate and rehabilitate individuals during their teens and adulthood. Identifying them can be tricky! Many states have passed laws making dyslexia a learning disability and many districts have now adopted the necessary assessments to diagnose these students. The International Dyslexia Association (IDA) defines dyslexia as:

“a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge” (Adopted by the IDA Board of Directors, Nov. 12, 2002).

Classic dyslexia or developmental dyslexia is acquired through one’s genetics. These students are usually identified though their lack of phonological process skills. They rely on different parts of the brain to process written words. These students work twice as hard to process written words. This type of dyslexia was first discussed in research during the 1800s. Another type is dyscalculia, which affects an individual’s ability to effectively process math equations. Another type of dyslexia is dysgraphia—a student’s ability to learn how to process information into written language. There are programs outside of public education that can effectively diagnose and treat individuals of dyslexia. I encourage individuals to choose programs that are Orton-Gillingham based and endorsed by IDA.

“A good builder, like a good teacher, uses the best tools and material available, which includes a plan and blueprint” (Corcoran, 2008, p. 210).

References

Corcoran, J. (2008). The teacher who couldn’t read. Kaplan, Inc.American Federation of Teachers (1999). Lindamood-bell reading intervention program. Reading Rockets. https://www.readingrockets.org/article/ lindamood-bell-reading-intervention-program

Dyslexia and The Teacher Who Couldn’t Read

Individuals are not naturally designed to read. Individuals must develop and refine the “right” brain connections to efficiently process written language. Efficiently is defined as fluently reading written words and gleaning the writer’s intended message. A person’s brain adds, subtracts, and reorganizes read information to develop and refine the highways of connection to process written language. The reading brain connections for most individuals will develop without much fanfare or grit. These individuals are genetically programmed to develop brain connections that communicate with many regions of the brain to process written language.

Individuals who have developmental dyslexia do not develop the same communication routes to effectively process written language. Their brain works twice as hard to process and develop more efficient processing routes for written language. Many dyslexic students seem to be at grade-level or above, because of their good oral language skills. But oral language uses different brain routes than written language to comprehend what is said. Students that are diagnosed or show strong signs of dyslexia usually need direct, explicit, systematic instruction to learn how to read.

This means that for approximately 10-20% of individuals the task of learning how to read is very laborious, making the task at times uninteresting. These students often look for an escape-daydreaming, bathroom, drink, irritate their neighbor, etc. These students are also often labeled as an attention problem, lazy, undisciplined. Making the process of learning how to read engaging, a want to participate in the process usually eases the process of gaining reading skills for dyslexic students.

Many states now have educational laws in place to better assist students with dyslexia and other students struggling to acquire literacy skills. These laws are dependent on those seeing that the laws are put into motion and sustained. The motion and sustainment are dependent on the educators present at each educational site. Many educational sites now have systems to better identify and accommodate students who might have dyslexia. The hope is that no student will have to face the “private prison” that Mr. Corcoran, author and literacy advocate, had to face.

John Corcoran describes, in his 2008 book The Teacher Who Couldn’t Read, his journey of how he learned to read in his late 40s. He invented his own survival methods to navigate a literate world. He managed to muddle, navigate his way through layers and years of education to become a social studies and English grammar teacher. Most individuals didn’t know he couldn’t read or write above Grade 2 or possible they ignored his lack of literacy skills. John states “I began a 40-year battle inside my own private prison” in Grade 2 (p. 20). He describes middle school as a battlefield (p. 47). John wrote, “I felt like I was in a maze at a carnival, only this wasn’t fun. I had six 45-minute classes, six teachers, and a list of classrooms I couldn’t find. I didn’t have any friends and I couldn’t read the schedule or figure out what door to open” (p. 48). By high school I felt “dumb, ignored or dismissed by teachers, evasive, polarized by literate and illiterate camps, angry, and confused” (p. 66). John became an expert at deception, as his parents didn’t seem to know that he couldn’t read either. His father was a teacher who “had degrees or college credits from six different institutions of higher learning and read books like kids eat popcorn” (p.79).

John began the agonizing work of developing more efficient brain connections to process written language at age 48. He is severely dyslexic. Dyslexia is known to jump around in the family trees, depending on the mix of genetics. Dyslexia can jump generations and show up in families of distant dyslexic relatives. Dyslexia doesn’t skip socioeconomic levels or race. More about how he developed the brain connection to become literate in my next blog.

References

Corcoran, J. (2008). The teacher who couldn’t read. Kaplan, Inc.

What is Partner Reading?

The instructional strategy partner reading looks different depending on the classroom and students. Partner reading provides opportunity for social and academic support. Partner reading also encourages motivation and provides opportunity for practice. This strategy at times becomes the teacher’s extended arms and mouth of instruction. Partner reading usually includes two students reading a book and at times discussing the contents of the book. The benefits are vast. See my post of June 2022.

The biggest challenge to “partner reading” is student collaborative skills. Students bring their individual intrapersonal and interpersonal skills, and knowledge to a group. These skills are combined with their partner’s skills to solve or work through the given task. Some students fall into these skills naturally through observation and participation of social interactions—beginning at birth. Some students will need explicit modeling of what and how these skills are practiced in a group setting. Most students will need to know the “ground rules” of what is excepted and not excepted during partner work in your classroom. The amount of repetition of ground rules will depend on the grade and prior experience of the students participating. Most students like to share and work with a partner.

Educators use different names and definitions for the instructional strategy of “partner reading”. Some of those names and definitions are noted below.

Partner Reading. I define partner reading “as two students orally reading a teacher chosen passage or book at their independent reading level, taking turns with their teacher chosen partner to read and listen to a book or passage. Students are intentionally paired higher-level readers with lower-level readers. Each student receives a teacher chosen book to read at their current independent instructional reading-level. While one student is reading the other student is listening or assisting their partner to read” (Ray, 2022).
Buddy reading is defined as two students reading a book of their choosing at their independent reading level. This instructional strategy is most often used to pair students of different grades levels, such as Grade 5 students and Kindergarteners reading their independent reading-level book to each other. This strategy may also be used in one classroom. Some buddy reading groups are encouraged to ask questions about the passage read. One student reads while the other student listens. Student are encouraged to sit side-by-side, so that the listener can see the reader’s page. Teachers usually sets a time for students to read—five or ten minutes, or the whole passage. This strategy usually promotes motivation for students to read. Students often scaffold the reading and comprehension process for each other.
Paired reading. Reading Rockets (2022) defines paired reading as a research-based fluency strategy for students who struggling with reading fluency. Students of the same reading level often reread the same passage to build fluency. Students are paired higher-level with lower-level reading ability. Students read books or passages of their choosing.
Cooperative learning is defined “as students working together, helping each other, sharing their ideas, and assisting their group in achieving mastery over the content material” (Ray, 2017, p. 45). Cooperative learning may exist of two or more students working together to accomplish a common goal or task. Cooperative learning usually increases student academic achievement and creative thinking skills. This strategy usually narrows or closes the reading performance gap.
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategy (PALS) is another name type of partner reading. This strategy is more scripted and is often used as an intervention strategy. Peer-assisted involves two students, one of higher-level and one of lower-level working together to accomplish a common task. This strategy calls for one passage or book that is accomplishable by both students (Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L., 2005). The higher-leveled student reads the passage or book first to model how to read the passage. The lower-leveled student then reads the same passage and retells the passage just read. The PALS instructional strategy also includes paragraph shrinking and prediction relay.

Educators will usually see more growth in students who work in more scripted groups. Scripted group means that students in the group have been given direction as to what they need to accomplish, like reading a passage, discussing the character(s) of a story, orally answer or write questions or come up with a summary.

References

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies: promoting word recognition, fluency, and reading comprehension in young children. The Journal of Special Education, 39, p 34-44.

Ray. J.S. (2022, June 9). The power of intentional partner reading. The Literacy Brain. https://theliteracybrain.com/2022/06/09/the-benefits-of-intentional-partner-reading/

Reading Rockets (2022). Paired (or partner) reading. https://www.readingrockets.org/strategies/paired_reading

Building a Habit of Deep Reading

Instilling the love of reading or the want to read at leisure may be different for each student. Learning how to read is hard, exhausting for most students. Finding a motivating reason to learn how to read usually eases the fatigue and stress. Some students might develop the intrinsic push to read for pleasure. Some students might develop the intrinsic push to read to research about a particular topic. Some students might develop the intrinsic push to read to be like their friends. Others push themselves to not be embarrassed. In addition, modeling the love for reading usually increases student intrinsic motivation to learn how to read effectively.

Reading is a complex endeavor that includes many components working simultaneously, together. Written words are breathed in, swirled around, and processed using current brain connections to examine, analyze and make conclusions. The process of making meaning out of the written words usually takes fluid, efficient seconds. In these seconds your brain is moving the written words through different parts of the brain to bring coherent meaning. The meaning of the words may have a different twist or meaning for each person—this is dependent on their background knowledge and efficiency of their brain’s written language processing networks. Not all brains are developed equally. Part of the analysis process is student’s lexicon or dictionary. This is their personal reference book or computer catalog for them to use while understanding oral or written language. Student lexicon is constantly changing. Teachers assist in developing brain connections for processing written words through instruction.

Networks for reading efficiently are developed through instruction and practice. One of the ways that teachers assist in the development of brain connections for processing written words with coherency is modeling how to read. Each step of the reading process should be modeled to students, beginning in the pre/primary grades. In some cases, the modeling may need to take place several times. While modeling for students in small groups, invite students to follow along with their book. These are steps that you might use.

Choose a book that may be of interest to most students in the group. You will need to model all different types of written words, such as non-fiction, fiction, poetry, etc.
Take the time to review the contents of the book. This may not look the same each time. This is often referred to as a prereading or a book-walk-through. Look at the structure of the book. Look at the pictures. Look at the front and back covers. Look at the how the words are written in the book. Look for a table of contents. Look for gems in the back of the book, like index or definitions. Ask questions (wonder) about things you have found. Make predictions about the story based on the title or pictures. Make connections between this book and other books. Make connections between the book and student life experiences.
Read the book taking time to breathe in the words. You might read a sentence and take a moment before reading the next to analyze what you have read. You might ask a question. You might think about what might happen next or how this is connected to the previous sentence or paragraph. You might go back and reread a previous sentence to better understand the one you just read. This may take several smaller lessons to emphasize and develop the natural connections for comprehension. Breathing words develops and strengthens brain connections to process for written words for meaning. Many students need modeling, remodeling, and many opportunities to practice.
After reading the book or passage, model how to analyze or make the connections to form further conclusion(s). The following are some ideas of how you might analyze the words read: a) think aloud about what you read- ask questions like, what color is a bumble bee? What kinds clothes should you wear outside on a cold day? Should the dog be driving a car? Why does the character stay on the path? Why is there a title on this page? Does this make sense? What do you think the car looks like? Or what does it look when it’s raining? b) discuss your conclusion with friends, c) analyze individual words of the passage, d) analyze sentences read, e) analyze sentences with other sentences of the same passage, f) make connections between self and the passage, or g) write a written summary.

More students have the ability to take in and process oral language to understand what is read aloud to them than when they read the words silently. Encouraging students (especially struggling comprehension readers) to whisper-read the passage aloud usually increases their comprehension of the passage and assists in the development of the necessary brain connections to fluidly comprehend the written passage.

Developing An Elementary Classroom Book Club

Most of us understand that a book club is a group of individuals that meet to discuss the passages of a common book. There are different types of book clubs depending on who began the book club, when and the book club meets, and why the book club began. How you develop your book club will depend on your current students and instructional program. Students will bring to the table different social and academic abilities that will need to be brought into the process of designing the structure and flow of your book club. Each year your book club may have a different configuration. Elementary students usually begin learning about book clubs beginning in Grades 2-5.

An effective classroom book club will have the following components: a) reading, b) written response, c) observation, d) planning, e) coaching, f) digital tools, and g) assessment (Cherry-Paul, Johansen, 2019). Students will need some assistance and scaffolding to get started and maintain effective function. You may need more patience to implement book clubs this school year, as most students will need more teacher modeling and coaching to function effectively in book clubs. Most students have not had the opportunity to develop the social interaction skills necessary for smooth function in a book club, as they were glued to electronic devices without much “natural” social interaction over last two plus years. This will be especially true for students in the primary grades, as these students haven’t had the “normal” opportunities to socialize in or out of the classroom.

I use the following steps and considerations to development a book club.

Form groups. This is usually accomplished by using student data, as students are usually group by reading ability. Student groups should consist of 4-6 students. There may be some students that need to participate in book-clubs differently, like in a smaller or more differentiated group with only the teacher to accommodate their ability level. You may need to get creative so that they do not feel left out. Another consideration should be student personalities. You may group students of higher-reading ability with students of lower-reading ability, if the book their reading is accomplishable by the lower-readers. I caution putting higher-readers in the mix that will not be engaged at the lower-readers ability. This will also depend on how nourishing the higher-level students may be.
Set-up a tentative schedule of when book clubs will meet. In the beginning you might plan to meet with each group, while the other students are engaged in a different activity. In time all book clubs might be able to meet at the same time. Each classroom will have a different mix of students, so there may be years that the whole class can meet for book clubs at the same time and other years when it will be impossible. I typically will meet with a group of students twice a week—flexibility is key.
Choose a book. Books should be chosen based on student ability. Book topics and genre should be considered to encourage natural student engagement. If possible, allow the students to choose the book. Books chosen at student’s highest instructional level or zone of proximal development will usually yield the most literacy growth.
Decide what types of activities will be completed in relation to the chosen book. This may include writing a chapter or book summary. This might also include interactive discussions about the plot or characters. This might also include a review of vocabulary words before you read. This might also include reflective or recall questions. Engaging students in the passage that they have read usually promotes deeper comprehension.
Develop a way to keep written response activities. Many times, related activities are not completed in one group time. To accommodate unfinished assignments, students might have their own “book club” folder. Students might keep their responses in their classroom “to be completed or must do” folder. Teachers might keep all of their responses in a group folder. I like to use different colors for each group.
Meet with students. Let students know what will be expected of them during “book clubs” or small group time. Never assume that they know how to function during “your” small group time. Each educator usually has similar, but different expectations. Typically, students each take turns to read aloud, moving around the circle or group. Decide ahead of time if they should each read a sentence, a paragraph, or a page before allowing the next student to read. Students should be engaged or following along. Giving students a role during book club usually increases the engagement, like highlighter or pencil person or folder person.
Model how to read. Not all student groups will need this, but most will enjoy you taking a turn to read. They are hearing your voice model how to read a passage. This also gives you a natural pause to ask questions about the passage or model metacognitive thinking. If students are losing their place as they read, have them use their finger or small piece of paper to keep their place. I often use my finger on their book to help them focus, keep their place, and decode words. In time they will not need the scaffold.
Ask questions. Ask students questions about what they have just read or about unfamiliar words. This will assist them to bring clarity and dive deeper into the meaning of the passage. Often students need to clarify their current understanding of a word or passage. Encourage students to take a breath or raise their hand to discuss or clarify a word or passage.
Model how to complete assignments. Are students expected to write their responses in complete sentences? Do students need to use a separate piece of paper? When do they need to answer questions? What types of questions might students ask? How might students respond to other student questions? I often write students’ verbal answer(s) in a central location for those struggling to write the answer, after giving most students time to produce their own written answer. This allows students to begin the process of moving from a verbal to written response. This scaffold is removed as all students become more fluid in writing the answer.

Reference

Cherry-Paul, S. & Johansen, D. (2019). Breathing New Life Into Book Clubs. Heinemann.

The Benefits of Intentional Partner Reading

I discovered the power of intentional student partner reading by accident, while completing my student teaching in the early 2000s. During my student teaching in a Grade 1/2 combination classroom, part of my role was to observe and assist students. My mentor’s classroom featured student reading centers. There were four reading centers/tasks and five student reading groups. Students were grouped by ability and rotated to a new center each day. One group received explicit instruction from the teacher, while the other groups completed literacy related tasks at their center for the day. Reading groups usually lasted 30 minutes. Students seemed to be finished with the task of their reading center earlier than the time allowed for small groups. The students became squirmy and tended to need more attention during the last 10 minutes of small group time. I began to contemplate possible changes to the intended instructional schedule during that time of the school day to possibly avoid the necessary teacher attention.

When it came time for me to “take the wheel” or teach solo for two weeks, I (with the blessing of my mentor teacher) altered her classroom schedule by subtracting 10 minutes from reading group time and adding 10 minutes of intentional peer/partner reading. I paired students and gave each student a curriculum-based book to read at their current independent reading level. Students took turns to orally read their teacher provided book. Each student read for approximately five minutes. Towards the end of my solo teaching, my mentor teacher mentioned that many students grew faster than they had so far this school year—this was early Spring. At the time I didn’t think much about the extra growth. I have since used this strategy for various reasons, like building social emotional skills or reading fluency, during full-time teaching positions. Each time I have used this strategy, the reading achievement growth has been similar or greater to the first results.

I define “intentional” partner reading as two students orally reading a teacher chosen passage or book at their independent reading level, taking turns with their teacher chosen partner to read and listen to a book or passage. Students are intentionally paired higher-level readers with lower-level readers. Each student receives a teacher chosen book to read at their current independent instructional reading-level. While one student is reading the other student is listening or assisting their partner to read. I choose the student partners, putting higher-level readers with lower-level readers. The higher-level students are usually able to assist their partner should they stumble. This also allows the lower students to hear grade-level or higher vocabulary words and writing structures. At times I have paired students who are at same independent reading-level, giving them each a different book to read. These students are usually at or above grade-level. Student personalities may have a factor in how you group students and the intended effectiveness of the process. I do not tell students why they are being partnered with that student, as the point is not to create a dominate and inferior partnership. I will usually change student partners. This is dependent on the group of students and how long I use the strategy.

Some of the benefits of using the intentional partner reading strategy are noted below. This strategy typically builds:

Vocabulary or Lexicon – students hear new words and possible meaning(s) of the new word. Familiar words are revisited, reinforcing the meaning and usage of word.
Comprehension – Students typically know the meaning of more spoken words and sentences than written words and sentences. This is especially true if they haven’t connected the written graphemes of a word with its oral spoken phoneme(s). Oral language ability often dictates student latter comprehension ability. In addition, students often voluntarily ask their partner questions about the text.
Brain Connections – develops brain connections of what they see (graphemes) with what they have heard (phonemes).
Writing Ability usually increases – students hear different structures of sentences and genres of writing. Students also see the spelling of words and correct structures of sentences.
Oral Reading Fluency – students practice decoding and encoding words. Students are more likely to hear their mistakes and try to correct their reading accuracy.
Collaboration Skills – usually gain a sense of support, partnership, togetherness, motivation, accomplishment and purpose for reading the passage or story.
Listening Skills – students practice/build their listening skills, as tend to listen more attentively to their peers.

Many primary and elementary school campuses have curriculum or books closets that house non-fiction and fiction books at various reading-levels. Some libraries or classrooms may also feature leveled non-fiction and fiction reading books. Students usually love the tasks of reading together. This strategy is usually more effective for reading-fluency in the lower reading-levels, K-5.

I have observed, over the years, many educators use the term “partner reading” to mean different formats of two students reading to each other. I will discuss this further in a later blog.

Student Developmental Processing Lag

Student language development was stunted during the pandemic. Students were put in “rooms” with computers. This led to a “student lag” in developing cognitive processing skills. Students are struggling to upload and process language, and analyze and synthesize the information with stored knowledge for future use. You can hear student brain strain as they scrabble to process the information, often struggling to locate old information and hold new information long enough to make the necessary connections to process spoken and written information. Students are now working overtime to build and perhaps struggling maintain brain connections. This lends to many tired and overwhelmed students who often become frustrated. Students will often checkout of the learning process with or without proper interaction and instructional scaffolding. Students who lack intrinsic motivation will likely fall further behind. Intrinsic motivation pushes them to power through the struggle to develop the necessary connections to process information.

Many students didn’t have “normal” interactions with extended relatives, neighbors, classmates, or community members during the pandemic. These nonplanned community interactions usually stimulate the development of oral language capabilities that assist in developing written literacy skills. These skills are interwoven. Students also didn’t receive the “normal” opportunity to build and strengthen brain connections that students usually need to function within a regular school day. Many of these connections are developed through natural social interactions. Students may also develop part of these brain connections through purposeful instructional lessons that allow for practice of taught skill.

The severity of the processing lag will differ depending on different possible factors. Some of those factors are noted below:

Student Age. Students are typically pruning unneeded brain connections during their preprimary years of education. Children typically have major cognitive changes around age 7 and 10-12 that correspond with physical developmental changes. Children between the ages of 2 and 6 spend a large amount of time mimicking their surroundings.
Reading on a digital device. This usually develops skimmers of the words/passages, which decreases their ability to read deeply for accurate comprehension. This also affects their short-term memory development and use.
Lack of interaction with individuals of higher cognitive processing skills
Lack of investigative activities that require interaction outside of their home, like travel or trips to the local museums
Lack of reading instruction and materials that may require the interaction of other individuals
Lack of exercise
Learning how to use technology
Adjusting to longer usage of technology…staring at a computer screen, television or video game
Less time writing manually. Manual writing assist in learning how to process and use information. This also assists in memory formation.

Students may need a few years to “catch-up” to their grade-level expectations. This may be shortened through explicit instruction. Students will be lacking necessary background information (foundational or prior knowledge) that may further impede the learning of new concepts. This may increase the need for differentiating and scaffolding of instruction and learning opportunities to ensure participation and ownership of new information taught. Patience may be one of the bigger pieces of the “catch-up” phase.

References

Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (2000/1966). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Wolf, M. (2018). Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Differentiation vs Scaffolding

The attributes of differentiation and scaffolding have some similarities. There are also some distinctions between the two types of instruction. Each are valuable instructional strategies to assist educators in meeting the needs of all students present. Differentiated and scaffolding are described in the following paragraphs.

Differentiated instruction is defined as adjusting lessons to meet student learning needs by using regular assessment data to develop lessons and instructional groups (Tomlinson, 2022). Educators alter grade-level instruction to better meet student learning-style and learning-level. Students of the same classroom may receive different instructional lessons on the same subject. Tomlinson (2022) suggests four key areas of instruction that educators may adjust to better meet the instructional needs of students present. The first is the intended content to be absorbed by the students. The depth and width of the subject may be altered to match student learning level. The second is how the information is presented to students, such as lectures, exploration station or project format to better ensure absorption and future usage of the presented information. The third area is the intended outcome of the lesson. What will be the product of the lesson? How will the lesson conclude, such as a quiz, reflection or written document? In some cases, the students might be held accountable for writing a five-paragraph essay, while others receiving the same lesson may be only held accountable for writing 1 or 2 paragraphs. The fourth suggested area that might be adjusted is the learning environment, such as student or community-centered. What types of classroom management techniques are used? This might include student desks or group tables. Some environments might include a reading nook or allow students to roam freely.

Differentiated instruction is typically presented to students in a small group format. Small group instruction allows educators to use different types of instruction for a particular group of students. These students may be at a different academic level than their aged peers. These students may need instruction of a grade-level concept not yet user friendly for them. These students may have “holes” in their academic portfolio for various reasons. Scaffolding strategies may also be present in the small group instruction.

Scaffolding is “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, and Beishuizen describe scaffolding as a process that includes contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility. Contingency is the support that teachers initially give to students, such as modeling. Fading may be described as half-in, half-out or the “murky” zone. The teacher is pulling away given support or scaffolding to give full control of task completion back to the student. Transfer of responsibility is the intended outcome. At this stage of the scaffolding process, students “own” the knowledge/skill to complete the task independently and are often able to assist others in completing the task.

The teacher role in scaffolding might include collaboration or discussion with a student to “brainstorm” solutions of an issue or complete a task. A second teacher role might be constantly asking the student questions about the task to help them develop “files” of information about the task. This assists students in building knowledge to increase student ability to explain concepts. A third teacher role is to constantly model and explain tasks in the ideal format of student’s current maturation level. The ideal format is just beyond what the student can accomplish on their own, often referred to as student zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1929;1934/2002).

The scaffolding instructional strategy is usually used to focus more on an individual student’s learning needs during an instructional lesson or completion of a particular task than to a group of students. This strategy is often used unconsciously by the instructor to increase student engagement and completion of a task, such as a teacher might read a question for a student or have a conversation about what the question is asking. Teachers may give students a copy of the formula for area or the multiplication table that can be removed from the student when they can use the information provided fluidly.

Differentiation and scaffolding instructional strategies may be used simultaneously to better meet the individual instructional needs of student(s).

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/

Tomlinson, Carol A. (2022). What is differentiated instruction? Reading Rockets. https://www.readingrockets.org/article/what-differentiated-instruction

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.

Vygotsky, L. (1929). The problem of the cultural development of the child II. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 36, 415-434. Vygotsky Reader, Blackwell. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1929/cultural_development.htm

Vygotsky, L. (1934/2002). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)