Teaching Word Syllabication

Dividing written words into syllables can be a complex, dauting journey. Teach the skill in baby steps or small pieces at a time. There are many different ways to teach students about dividing words into syllables. Teaching them in a manner that builds upon prior teaching or knowledge will increase student accusation of the skill.

Learning syllabication usually begins in pre-school through orally instruction. Educators teach students how to verbally separate words into syllables, using a clapping, tapping or stomping action to indicate each syllable. Typically, students learn how to divide written words into syllables as they begin to learn how to decode and encode written words. Students learn the more complex “rules” to divide written words into syllables as the words become more complex.

There are six major or more common word syllables in the English language. I have found the task of teaching students easier if the syllables types are taught in the following order: a) closed-CVC, b) final e, c) open, d) vowel diagraph, e) r-controlled, f) constant -le. Students tend to first learn about closed syllables through instruction of CVC words. These syllables have a short vowel sound and are always closed in by a consonant, like bat or sit. Instruction in the final e syllable usually follows instruction of closed syllables. The syllabication rules of closed and final e syllables are more stable, recognizable, and easier to retain. The third syllable type to be taught is the open syllable. Open syllables always have a long vowel sound and are not closed in by a constant, like the first syllable of mu/sic. Instruction of closed and open syllables will cover 70% of written words in the English language (Hennesy, 2022; White, 2022).

There are other stable syllable norms or rules that may help students in dividing written words into syllables. The first norm is compound words that may be divided between the two words, like camp/fire. The second norm is words with double constants of the same letter can be divided between the two double consonants, like bb (rab/bit). The third norm that may be followed is a syllable break may occur in a word that contains two different constants side-by-side, like nc (con/cept). This rule may be tricky to learn, as some double constants are letter blends or diagraphs that should not be separated, such as ch, th, fl, or str (constriction, authoritative, sunflower). The fourth norm is diphthongs or vowel teams that cannot be separated, like oa, ea in boatman or teacher. The fifth norm of syllabication is putting a syllable break just before or after an affix in a word, like pre/sort or read/ed. Affixes are morphemes that may be easier for students to spot. The sixth norm is that each syllable must include a vowel phoneme.

The following steps usually increase the retention of syllabication skills and decrease possible student anxiety in learning how to read.

  1. Find and underline all vowel phonemes of a word. Explain that words may have a single vowel or vowel teams that are pronounced with only one phoneme.
  2. Count the underlined vowel phonemes of the word. This is the number of syllables present in the word.
  3. Look for double constants. Are the double constants a constant diagraph or letter blend (spr, fl, sh) that cannot be separated? If not place a separation line through the two constants to show a syllable break.
  4. Look at the current syllables and what syllable breaks should still be made? Are there parts of the word that still have more than one vowel phoneme? Are there affixes that may help with where the next syllable break may need to be placed?
  5. Pronounce/encode the word – sound out each syllable, then blend the syllables together, and then fluently pronounce the word.
  6. Allow time for student(s) to practice and model the process.

Syllable breaks may be confirmed by reviewing the six syllable types and other general syllable break norms, such as compound words and affixes.

References

Hennesy, N. (2021). Making meaning of text: a structured framework for informed instruction. 2021 Annual IDA Reading, Literacy & Learning Conference.

White, N. (2021).  Continuum of decoding strategies: explicit__systematic—cumulative. 2021 Annual IDA Reading, Literacy & Learning Conference.

What is the importance of learning word syllables?

Typically, students will skip words that are not familiar to them. Often those who skip the unknown word(s) do not have the tools in their toolbox to decode the word(s). Some may know the names of the letter(s), but do not know the phonemes connected to the letters. Some may not know how to “chunk” portions of the unknown word. Not having this skill often impedes student comprehension of the written passage. Many students will stop trying to read the passage after failing to comprehend the passage. The possible embarrassment often shuts students down or they learn how to get around not knowing the necessary information about the word(s). This often leads to acting out or becoming silent with the hope of avoiding embarrassment. When students learn how to separate words into smaller more user-friendly chunks or syllables, they usually build confidence in being able to pronounce unknown words. This puts a tool or strategy into their personal tool box. This allows them to avoid possible embarrassment. This gives students the opportunity to move forward without the assistance of others-independence. This may also give them the confidence to assist other students. The tool usually leads to an increase in their academic achievement across all academics.

Students who have the skill of syllabication in their tool box benefit in multiple ways. One benefit is the increase of reading fluency. A second benefit, students are better able to focus on processing the meaning of groups of words, instead of how to pronounce the word. A third benefit of knowing how to decode written words into workable chunks is the increase of student spelling accuracy. A fourth benefit is passage comprehension. Most students comprehend orally at a higher level than they can read. Students use their knowledge of oral language to help them comprehend written words. A fifth benefit is the increase of student intrinsic motivation and decrease student mischief.

Students begin learning about syllables orally through “naturally” breaks in the pronunciation of a word. Students are often taught to clap for each syllable. This allows the student(s) to count the number of syllables in each word. Students usually move from oral division of words to learning about CVC written words, as they learn to read. CVC written words are pronounced phonetical with a short vowel sound. This is also when the study of morphonology becomes more prevalent, as the CVC words usually have their own meaning in which students can use to begin understanding the meaning of multisyllabic words. CVC words are known as closed syllables.

Students need time to practice this skill. Practice of the skill may take place during different points of instruction, such as purposeful small or whole group instruction, or independent study. Some students will need more “regular” moments (5-15 minutes) of review: warm-up or homework.

 

The Interactive Relationship of Letter Knowledge and Phonological Awareness in Learning How to Read

Learning the names and sounds of letters is one of the first steps in reading acquisition. Students often struggle with learning the letters of similar shapes before age four (Thompson, 2009; Molfese et al., 2006). Older students learn and recall letter names and sounds at a higher rate than younger students; older students often have higher cognitive skills. Thompson noted that students typically learn upper case letters before learning lower case letters because the letters classified as having “cross-case visual dissimilarity” are easier for younger students to learn (p. 58). Eight letters are classified as having this cross-case dissimilarity: Aa, Bb, Dd, Ee, Gg, Hh, Nn, and Rr. Learning the corresponding sounds to the letters can also be a challenge. Several studies have found that letter knowledge is related to a student’s phonological skills and cognitive abilities (Molfese et al., 2008; Leppänen, Aunola, Niemi, & Nurmi, 2008; Thompson, 2009). The higher a child’s cognitive processing skills are the higher his rate of letter acquisition. Leppänen et al. and Molfese et al. argued, respectively, that letter knowledge at the end of kindergarten is the best predictor of language skills in grade 4 and in grade 6.

Letter knowledge also involves the idea that each letter has one corresponding sound; some letters have up to three corresponding sounds. The letter sounds also change when the letters are combined with other letters to form words. The letter sounds and rules of letter sounds are part of phonological awareness, which includes a student’s ability to process letter sounds, rhyming words, and segmenting letters within words (Molfese et al., 2006). Phonological awareness is part of the dual route cognitive processing that changes letters into words. Phonological awareness level affects the ability of students to retain individual letter knowledge. Students who demonstrate low phonological awareness skills often need intervention to stay at grade level. However, these phonological awareness skills play a smaller part in reading as students get older. The transition begins

Socio-economic status (SES) can also impact letter knowledge skills for children. For example, children of low SES are usually at a disadvantage when they begin their formal education because they typically have had less exposure to written and spoken words. Parents of low SES are also less likely to have written material in their homes, and they are less likely to read to their children. Parents of low SES children typically have less formal education than parents of higher SES children. High phonological awareness skills will void the effects of lower SES (Nobel, Farah, & McCandliss, 2006).

Phonological awareness skills are more important during the early years of education when children are learning to read (Vaessen & Blomert, 2009). Earlier language skills often predict later phonological awareness skills (Peterson, Pennington, Shriberg, & Boada, 2009). The phonological processing skills of students also determine their rate of letter identification (Molfese et al., 2006). The reliance of students on phonological awareness skills often declines as their cognition develops, and proficient readers use their memory rather than the assistance of phonological awareness skills to decode written words.

Phonological awareness includes ability to process letter sounds, rhyming words, and segmenting letters within words (Molfese et al., 2006). Phonological awareness is a key cognitive function in learning how to read. Students use phonological awareness skills to process pseudo words or non-words, and they provide the rules and sounds of letters to sound out these words. Phonological awareness skills are often used for initially processing letters into words that are coded into memory for future use in reading fluency and reading comprehension. Students’ level of phonological awareness is often used as a predictor for later reading skills. High phonological awareness skills frequently void the effects of lower socioeconomic status (Nobel, Farah, & McCandliss, 2006). Low phonological awareness can also lead to diagnoses of developmental phonological dyslexia.

References

Leppänen, U., Aunola, K., Niemi, P., & Nurmi, J. (2008). Letter knowledge predicts grade 4 reading fluency and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 18, 548-564.

Molfese, V., Modglin, A., Beswick, J., Neamon, J., Berg, S., Berg, C., & Mohar, A. (2006). Letter knowledge, phonological processing, and print knowledge: Skill development in nonreading preschool children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(4), 296-305.

Noble, K., Farah, M. & McCandliss, B. (2006). Socioeconomic background modulates cognition-achievement relationships in reading. Cognitive Development, 21(3), 349-368.

Peterson, R., Pennington, B., Shriberg, L, & Boada, R. (2009). What influences literacy outcome in children with speech sound disorder? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 1175-1188.

Thompson, G. (2009). The long learning route to abstract letter units. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26(1), 50-69.

Vaessen, A, & Blomert, L. (2009). Long-term cognitive dynamics of fluent reading development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 213-231.

 

Grade or Objective-Based Student Report Card

The educational field in general is a challenging work setting. Most of challenge comes from the expansive variety of individuals that need to learn the same concepts. Each individual is unique and may need different tools to learn the same concept. Every classroom is different based on the variety of individuals present in that classroom. Every instructor is unique and brings different tools to their classroom in how to teach the particular concepts needed to be learned.  Every classroom usually has similar assignments and similar forms of instruction. How each of those tasks are evaluated maybe different. This makes the task of producing valid, fair report cards a challenging task. Fair meaning the student in question is being evaluated the same as every other student in your district or your state or across the United States. The discussion and struggles of how to produce valid evaluations will be debated till the end of time.

There are different types of student report cards, each are derived from different types of data.  One type is grade-based that uses the data of daily tasks or assignments related to the subject(s) being taught. This might include daily assignments or longer projects. A second piece of data that is usually included in a grade-based report card is assessments that were given based on current subject(s) within that scope of instruction. In some cases, the assessment outcomes may be curved to match the learning abilities of students in the class, which will be different for each class taking the same subject. In some cases, there might be extra credit added to the assessment that might be related or unrelated to the subject of assessment. In some cases, the assessments may include information that has not been taught or unrelated to the current focus of the exam. A third piece of data that might be included in a grade-based report card is student work ethic. This might be added in different ways. Points might be given for turning in the assignment no matter how its completed. Points might be given for being on task. Points might be given for extra credit, such as completing additional related tasks. Points might be given for writing your name and date correctly. Points might be given for turning in your signed paperwork or returned report card. Some of the same components are used to report objectives mastered on an objective-based report card.

A student report card based on objectives or ability may include some of the following components. One component might be teacher observation. A teacher uses his or her expert opinion to determine if a student is able to complete a task. A teacher might include student work ethic in their equation of determining student ability. Teachers often take anecdotal notes during the course of the day that may be used to assess student ability for reporting purposes. Anecdotal data might include personal traits, parts of tasks, knowledge of a particular skill, or possible scaffolds. A second component of objectives-based report cards might be instructional assignments. Assignments usually present a variety data that can be used to assess student ability. Is the student following directions? Can the student write a sentence or paragraph using the correct grammar and punctuation? Can the student comprehend what the task is asking them to do? Are they able to write legibly? Is the student able to summarize or reformulate information?  A third component might be formative data. Formative data includes any measurement that provides information to instructors on how to improve their teaching to increase student achievement. This might include a simple thumbs up, thumbs down or a deeper probe of how a student builds a sentence.

Grades based reporting shows an overall grade, but does not necessarily reveal student ability of a particular skill. Both types of reporting can be a valid source of student ability. Educators tend to focus on student objectives during the earlier years of education, PreK-Grade 5, when grade-based reporting begins. This is not a rigid timeline as each state, district, and school may use a different timeline of transition.

Possible Team Members of an Effective Response to Intervention Model (RTI)

Every RTI model will have a different ring or configuration depending on the needs of current students and available resources to make the mechanism run smoothly. The following players should be considered as part of an effective RTI model.

  1. The regular classroom teacher. The classroom teacher is responsible for core instruction in Tier 1 of RTI. Kashima, Schleich, and Spradlin (2009) stated that regular education classroom teachers should administer universal screening to students in order to determine their current level of achievement. They should also analyze student achievement data and differentiate curriculum and instruction based on their analysis of the data (Kashima et al, 2009a; Bean & Lillenstein, 2012). Teachers should also collaborate with parents and other professionals to provide feedback about student progress in the classroom using data from direct and indirect assessments (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012).
  2. The literacy coach. The literacy coach usually experiences an increase in management responsibilities and in their involvement of evidence-based instruction (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012). Coaches monitor teacher knowledge of curriculum, instruction, gathering data, and data usage. The literacy coach provides on-going coaching of evidence-based curriculum and instruction or curriculum and instruction that have proven to increase student achievement (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009b). Coaches also support the principal during the RTI implementation process. Coaching includes developing and promoting team management of student instruction through collaboration.
  3. The reading specialist. Reading specialists provide focused and frequent instruction to students in Tier 2 of the RTI model (Kashima, Schleich & Spradlin, 2009b). They generally provide Tier 2 instruction in small group settings. Reading specialists analyze student data and make advisements related to student achievement. Reading specialists also collaborate with other educators and parents regarding student achievement data, placements, and progress monitoring.
  4. The special education teacher. The special education teacher should become more involved in the development and delivery of the core curriculum, instruction, and assessment in the regular education classroom (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; Kashima, Schleich & Spradlin, 2009b). Special education teachers are a resource for regular teachers in developing differentiated instruction for students at different levels of instruction (Kashima et al., 2009b). They assist and administer student assessments and analyze the related data. They also assist in the placement and development of educational plans for individual students. Special education teachers should collaborate with other educators in both a team and an individual format about student data and possible student placements (Kashima et al., 2009b). Special education teachers usually deliver one-on-one instruction in Tier 3 of the RTI model.
  5. The school counselor. The school counselor provides advice regarding placement of students. School counselors often serve as the liaison between different services, such as intervention services or diagnostic assessments. School counselors are responsible for making decisions based on student and school data (Ryan, Kaffenberger, & Carroll, 2011).  They serve as the coordinator of Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions.  District-level and school-level RTI leadership teams also collaborate on a regular basis regarding how to effectively implement the RTI model. School counselors also serve on RTI leadership teams and collaborate with other members of the leadership team and with community members, such as parents.
  6. The school psychologist. Implementing RTI affects the job functions of a school psychologist. School psychologists should have training in the following components that were developed by Colorado Department of Education through an alignment of state and federal regulations related to RTI: (a) leadership, curriculum, and instruction; (b) assessment; (c) problem-solving processes; (d) school climate and culture; and (e) family and community engagement (Crepeau-Hobson & Sobel, 2010). The school psychologist is often the liaison between the district and school because they serve on both the district and school site leadership teams (O’Conner & Freeman, 2012). They are knowledgeable in cognition and child development. School psychologists often administer diagnostic testing in relation to RTI placement. Psychologists usually assist in developing and implementing data collection and dissemination (Crepeau-Hobson & Sobel, 2010; Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009b). Psychologists are seen as experts in analyzing educational assessment data and should teach other educators how to analyze data (Kashima et al., 2009b). Psychologists usually advise collaborative teams that can include parents on possible intervention strategies and student education plans (Crepeau-Hobson & Sobel, 2010).
  7. The speech pathologist. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association states that the speech pathologist role in RTI includes “screening, assessing, and training children and adolescent with reading and written language disorders” (Kerins, Trotter, & Schoenbrodt, 2010, p. 289). Speech pathologists, therefore, should be knowledgeable in how to help students master phonological awareness skills. Speech pathologists also collaborate with classroom teachers, parents, and special educators. Many speech pathologists are members of a collaborative team that develops students’ educational plans for intervention and provides intervention instruction. The role of speech pathologists is that of professional consultant (Kerins, et. al, 2010).

There are other possible members of an effective RTI team. The previous possibilities were discovered during my research of the RTI model in preparation of my dissertation research.

 

References

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

Crepeau-Hobson F., & Sobel, D. (2010). School psychologist and rti: analysis of training and professional development needs. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 4(4), 22-32.

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.

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of RTI: A closer look at evidence-based core curriculum assessment and progress monitoring, and data-based decision making. Center for Evaluation & Education, 1-12.

Kerins, M., Trotter, D. & Schoenbrodt, L. (2010). Effects of a tire 2 intervention on literacy measures: lessons learned. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 26(3), 287-302. doi: 10.1177/0265659009349985

O’Connor, E., & Freeman, E. (2012). District-level considerations in supporting and sustaining rti implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 297-310. doi: 10.1002/pits.21598

Ryan, T., Kaffenberger, C., & Carroll, A. (2011). Response to intervention: An opportunity for school counselor leadership. Professional School Counseling, 14(3), 211-221.

The Essential Educators of an Effective Response to Intervention (RTI) Model

RTI is an instructional model used to better ensure that all students learn how to read and write. An effective model will reach 80% of learners at the first level of instruction. Tier 1 instruction should include differentiation and scaffolding to reach students on the cusp of not ingesting and owning the necessary skills for knowing how to effectively read and write. Tier 2 instruction is for students not able to grasp the instruction in Tier 1 and should include more precise explicit, systematic instruction. This instruction is usually received in a small group environment with other students needing similar instruction. Tier 3 and above levels of instruction should be assessed, direct, and strategic instruction that has the potential of meeting the needs of each student at these levels. Students receiving Tier 3 instruction often have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). These students usually receive one-on-one instruction and are often part of special education classes. Some of these students receive part of their instruction in a regular classroom, as well as individualized instruction outside of the classroom. Each model will be different to meet the needs of students present. Each model usually includes different essential educators that make the gears of the model work effectively. Individual schools often use “more user-friendly names” for their RTI model that better fit the community its serving.

Individual schools in partnership with the district leaders develop school instructional leadership teams for effective implementation and sustainment of a RTI model. The district should provide the knowledge of the framework for a RTI program and be available to provide support and direction to the school leadership team. School-level leadership teams might include the (a) principal, (b) school psychologist, (c) educational diagnostician, (d) reading specialist, (e) special education teacher, (f) general education teacher, (g) occupational therapist, (h) literacy coach, and (i) the school counselor (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; Ryan, Kaffenberger, & Carroll, 2011; Tyre et al., 2012). School leadership teams are responsible for analyzing data, student placement, and instruction (Kashima, Schleich & Spradlin, 2009a; Nellis, 2012; Tyre, Feuerborn, & Beisse, 2012). The roles of the leadership members should reflect the needs of present students.

School administrators or principals are key to effective implementation of the RTI model (Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009b; Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; White, Polly, & Audette, 2012). Administrators are responsible for setting the direction and culture of the school and professionally developing individuals at the school-level, in relation to implementing RTI with fidelity (Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009b). These individuals should possess both interpersonal and communication skills to effectively lead or participate in conversations that provide both critical and positive feedback about the RTI process (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012). This feedback should be given with (a) respect and should take note of their input, (b) provide data to support the feedback, and (c) focus on student learning and outcomes. Administrators are also responsible for developing “risk free zones” to encourage open collaboration. They should focus on empowering educators to effectively provide instruction to meet the needs of all students (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; Kashima et al., 2009b). Administrators are also responsible for “establishing an infrastructure for school-wide student screening” and “ensure that student data is properly managed” (Kashima et al., 2009b, p. 2). These individuals should “conduct routine classroom walk-throughs, observations, and discussions to provide feedback and ensure reliability” of the RTI program (Kashima et al., 2009b, p. 2). Administrators are usually the backbone of the RTI model.

More about other possible leadership team members in my next post.

References

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

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of                 RTI: A closer look at evidence-based core curriculum assessment and              progress monitoring, and data-based decision making. Center for                       Evaluation & Education, 1-12.

Nellis, L. (2012). Maximizing the effectiveness of building teams in                          response to intervention implementation.  Psychology in the Schools.                 49(3), 245-256.

Ryan, T., Kaffenberger, C., & Carroll, A. (2011). Response to intervention:                An  opportunity for school counselor leadership. Professional School                    Counseling, 14(3), 211-221.

Tyre, A., Feuerborn, L., Beisse, K., & McCready, C. (2012). Creating                              readiness for response to intervention:  An evaluation of readiness                    assessment tools. Contemporary School Psychology, 16, 103-114.

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.                                                                      http://doi/10.1080/02568543.2011.63206

 

 

 

Why Include Morphology Analysis in Literacy Instruction?

Students usually benefit immensely from learning how to analysis morphemes—spelling, vocabulary, comprehension, and word memory. Students benefit across all subjects of education, as all subjects usually dictate that you must know how to read in order to successful pass each subject matter. Each subject contains words that are unique to that subject. Those words paint the picture(s) of that subject, such as in music-symbol, baritone, allegro or in math-adding, multiply, deduct. Research shows that teaching students about morphological awareness usually increases their ability to comprehend written passage(s) (Carlisle, McBride-Chang, Nagy, & Nunes, 2010). In the same article Carlisle, McBride-Chang, Nagy, & Nunes (2010) noted that learning how to analysis words or learning how to break down words into smaller units of meaning shows a strong correlation between morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge. What is morphology and when should educators begin formal instruction of morphology?

Morphology is the study of word formation. Words are single or a combination of morphemes. Morphemes are the smallest units of meaning. The different units of a word dictate its meaning, adding or subtracting different units of meaning help to fine tune its meaning. There are different types of morphemes that are used to orchestrate word meaning.

  • Unbound or free – These morphemes can stand alone and are usually the heart or base of a word. These are words like; spell, port, or graph.
  • Bound – These morphemes cannot stand alone. Bound morphemes are added to free morphemes and are generally referred to as affixes, like “ful”, “re”, “il”, “est” or “bi”.
  • Derivational – These morphemes change the meaning or direction of the word, such as hope, hopeless, hopelessly or hope, hopeful, hopefully.
  • Inflectional – These morphemes indicate a grammatical feature, such as numbers or a comparative. These morphemes are usually suffixes, like “s”, “ed”, or “ing”.

It is important to note that a vowel may function as a connector of meanings within a word, such as in therm + o + meter (Donah & White, 2017). There are others morphemes, such as conjunctions that serve as connectors of words within a sentence.

Students begin learning unconsciously about morphemes as they learn oral language. This is when they begin to add and subtract different morphemes (sounds) to form different words of meaning to better communicate their thoughts with other individuals. Students unconsciously build their vocabulary based on their environment. Some students may begin transferring their oral language knowledge to understand written words before they begin their primary school education. Most students are ready to begin discussing the analysis of word chemistry in kindergarten. The timeline will be different for each student. In most cases the student will begin the conversation about the spelling or different parts of word. Teachers might begin the conversation by asking questions about words that are familiar to that student or group of students, like “this” or “his”.

Studying the way morphemes interact, combine, and change the meaning of words seems like a daunting, laborious task that many students just assume avoid altogether. Addressing morphology in spontaneous and planned instruction may ease the task of learning the chemistry of words. Often students ask questions about words or groups of words that lend to the opportunity to have a “mini” word discussion. The depth of discussion about the question should be relevant to the learning level of student(s). Intentional instruction might be included throughout the instructional day within each subject of study. The when, how, and what of the lesson will be dependent on student ability or grade level. The format of planned instruction usually differs, taking into account time and student ability. Some lessons may last 5 minutes, others 30-45 minutes. Planned instruction might include metacognitive modeling, independent practice, small-group word exploration/collaboration, or interactive games. This is vocabulary or lexicon development and comprehension skill development, which are part of the foundational skills necessary to read and write effectively.

References

Carlisle, J.F., McBride-Chang, C., Nagy, W., & Nunes, T. (2010). Effects of

instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: an

integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 464-487.

https://doi.org/10.1598//RRQ.45.4.5.

Donah, S. & White, N.C. (2017). Morphemic awareness. International Dyslexia

Association Conference-Atlanta, GA.

Phonological Awareness – Traditional Rhymes

Many students are arriving at school without the phonological awareness skills necessary to develop effective reading skills. The lack of phonological awareness skills may be attributed to a variety of entities. One entity that may be attributed to the lack of phonological processing skills is developmental dyslexia. These students typically acquire this disability naturally through their genetic gene pool. These students develop different connections in their brains that inhibit them from naturally developing and process the right highways to process written language. Another entity is poverty or living in an environment that doesn’t provide opportunity for exposure to rich oral or written language that includes rhyme, repetitive wording, word play, rhythm, etc. This may include traditional storytelling, reading of written books, nursery rhymes and songs. Another entity is that the educational community at-large has thrown out many traditional writings. These traditional writings are part of the fabric that lays the foundation for learning how to read English—oral language. These writings provide natural and planned instructional lessons to learn rhythm, rhyme, alliteration, syllable and phoneme awareness, and word play. These traditional stories and songs also assist in learning how to comprehend. These traditional stories also assist in character development. These writings lend to a variety of instructional formats for lesson delivery that helps students engage naturally in the learning process. These lessons are typically oral.

The following are examples of traditional writings:

  • Row, Row Your Boat – was first published in the mid-1800s. The song is about perseverance. This song includes opportunities to teach alliteration, rhyme, and rhythm.
  • Hickory, Dickory, Dock – was first put on paper in mid-1700s. This nursery rhyme is about the time it takes for the mouse to run up and down the clock. This rhyme also lends a hand in teaching alliteration, time, and rhythm.
  • Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star – was originally written as a poem by Jane Taylor in the early 1800s. This rhyme includes many opportunities for phonological awareness instruction – alliteration, rhyme, and repetition.
  • Pat-A-Cake, Pat-A-Cake – was first put on paper in the late 1500s. This nursery rhyme/song teaches sequencing, rhythm, and graphemes. This rhyme also teaches about the process of making pastry.
  • The Wheels of the Bus – is a fairly new song that was first published in the 1930s. The song was originally written as a song “entertain” students during long bus rides. The song is also good for teaching motion, coordination, rhythm, and alliteration.

Many of the traditional rhymes and songs have been rewritten. For example, the classical nursery rhyme Jack and Jill was originally written about two boys.

Jack and Gill
Went up the hill
To fetch a pail of water
Jack fell down and broke his crown
And Gill came tumbling after (Mother Goose’s Melody, 1791 edition).

Later the name Gill was change Jill and other verses were written to further the “story” and fit the happenings of the time. Some newer versions of traditional rhymes/tales are for the better, some are not. Educators must be steadfast in choosing the appropriate version for instruction.

Students without these ‘natural” exposures and/or correct initial wiring of the brain usually need direct, explicit, systematic instruction that includes lots and lots of practice to overcome their lack of foundational literacy skills. These students typically arrive at school a year or more behind in developing the necessary foundational reading skills. Students that show lack of phonological skills usually benefit from kinetic and visual activities, such as writing or visually seeing pictures, letters, and words. These types of activities are also beneficial for students learning English as a second language and students at-risk of or that have symptoms of dyslexia. These students should receive daily 5–15-minute explicit, systematic instruction to gain the necessary foundational skills to learn how to read. These lessons may be taught in small groups or whole group settings. Small group instruction gives teachers the opportunity to provide more precise differentiation and scaffolding of instruction. While teaching one group of students the other groups can be independently practicing taught skill(s). Small group instruction also lends a way for practice of taught skill(s) using a variety of methods, such as exploration or collaboration that usually increases the retention of instruction. Teaching phonological awareness skills in a variety of methods lessens the often laborious or mundane task of learning these skills.

 

The Art and Science of Scaffolding

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). The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is known as the space just beyond a student’s unassisted ability. Student ZPD may be discovered through who, why, what, where, and how questions posed by the teacher. The teacher analyzes student answers to the posed questions to determine at what point they begin to need assistances in completing the task. The number of questions that need to be asked and analyzed may be different for each student and task. This is usually dependent on teacher knowledge of task and student ability. Student ZPD a living entity that is always changing.

There are three stages to scaffolding process that require constant adjustments. The first stage is contingency. In this stage the teachers model how to complete the task. Teachers also differentiate instruction to meet student learning abilities. The second stage is fading. In this stage, teachers assist students in completing the task. This might mean answering a few questions. This might mean collaborating with the student. This might mean remodeling parts of the task. Students may spend more time in this stage. The third stage is transfer of responsibility. In this stage, students work independently to complete the task. Students may move back and forth between stages multiple times before they have true ownership of the task. At times they might move through to independent without going back and forth between the stages of scaffolding. This is dependent on student background, abilities, and personality or learning style.

Many teachers use the art of scaffolding in their teaching. Scaffolds are used intentionally and unintentionally at all learns levels. Scaffolds are used to assist students for varying reasons. Students may have gaps in their knowledge. Students may have gaps in their skills. Students may have a disability that inhibits them from learning at the speed of their classmates. For example, if you can ride a bicycle, you most likely used a form scaffolding to learn how to ride a bike. Your parent may have held the bike until you were pedaling and could keep the bike upright and moving forward. You may have also used training wheels until you felt comfortable enough to try the skill of riding a bike by yourself. You may have taken the extra wheels off and realized that you still need them to accomplish your goal. You might have needed more or less assistance in learning how to ride a bike than other individuals. Your parents and friends provided the scaffolding you needed to learn how to ride a bike. We use similar scaffolds in the classroom to assistance students.

  • Teachers might provide students with an alphabetic strip at their desks.
  • Teachers might provide students with a multiplication chart.
  • Teachers might provide students with a word wall.
  • Teachers might provide a dictionary.
  • Teachers might also provide manipulatives for math.

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/

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 Need for Purposeful, Explicit Instruction of Phonological Awareness

Phonological awareness skills are the foundation of written literacy. Phonological awareness is “an awareness of various levels of speech sound system, such as syllables, accent patterns, rhyme, and phonemes” (Henry, p. 313). Students usually acquire most of their phonological awareness skills naturally through their environment. For most students, social interactions outside of the home environment stopped for more than a year. Students didn’t have the luxury of experiencing natural interactions with in their community. They were also not exposed to other “natural” environments, such vacation venues. Students lost the natural modeling of high-cognitive language and actions that usually takes place in their natural and extended environments. Students lost their natural venue to strengthen their lexicon and oral language skills. Most students did have access to technology that may have decreased the loss of oral language development. Students may have paid a higher price for oral language development through technology, as technology may have a negative impact on brain development. Dual language students may have suffered a greater loss, as they are missing the natural absorption of two languages. These natural social skills are the foundations for reading and comprehending written language. Many students may need to “catch-up” their oral language skills to learn how to effectively read and comprehend written words.

Phonological awareness can be taught purposefully during different types of instruction. Play is one kind of instruction that may boost social interaction and phonological awareness. The play may be unorganized or organized allows students to talk and explore different venues. Collaboration is another form of instruction that allows for social interaction. The collaboration might be students who are at the same learning levels or a higher and a lower student working together. Small group instruction lends to more explicit instruction that might focus on listening/hearing of sounds through learning letter sounds; isolating letter sounds within words; repeating dictated sounds, words, and sentences; listening for changes in rhyming or word families; listening for similar patterns within words; or encoding and decoding of words. Phonological awareness instruction should rely heavily on oral instruction.

References

Henry, M.K. (2010). Unlocking Literacy, Effective Decoding & Spelling instruction (2nd ed.) Baltimore: Brookes Pub.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)