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.

What is Structure Literacy Instruction – Pillars 1 & 2

Structured literacy instruction includes six pillars or parts of language development-oral and written. Structured literacy instruction is taught explicitly and systematically, beginning with Pillar 1. Structured literacy may be used to teach literacy at all levels of instruction, such as Tier 1-general classroom, Tier 2-intervention usually taught in small groups, Tier 3-intervention usually taught in one-on-one group setting, or special education. The number of levels for instruction in a RTI model may be different for each school, depending on the learning needs of the current students and the available resources.

Pillar 1 is phonology, the study of spoken sounds (phonemes)—rules of how sounds are encoded, such as why these sounds follow this pattern to form this sound(s). Individuals should have phoneme awareness skills before learning how to read. This is the ability to hear, identify, and manipulated individuals sounds in spoken words. Phoneme awareness is part of phonological awareness. Phonological awareness is the ability to process and manipulate letter sounds, rhyming words, and segmenting of sounds within words. The study of phonology usually increases student ability to spell, pronounce, and comprehend written words.

Pillar 2 is sound-symbol correspondences or the relationship(s) between phoneme(s) and grapheme(s). This may be referred to as phonics instruction that teaches predictable or the constant rules of sound-symbol correspondences to produce written language. At this stage students learn one-on-one correspondence, for example the written letter B represents this phoneme or sound. Students begin decoding and encoding words as they begin to learn the sound-symbol correspondences. Student knowledge of the phoneme(s) and grapheme(s) relationships usually increases student ability to read, comprehend, and spell written language.

I will include pillars 3 and 4 of structured literacy instruction in my next post.

References

Birsh, J.R. (2011). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub Co.

Henry, Marcia K. (2010). Unlocking literacy effective decoding and spelling instruction. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub Co.

International Dyslexia Association, dyslexiaida.org/what-is-structured-literacy/

Moats, L. (2000). Speech to print. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub Co.

TALE Conference Handout

Download Now!

Oral Language Development-Phonological Awareness56

Phonological awareness skills are developed through a child’s environment. Children are learning what types of words to use for particular situations, based on “modeled” oral language. Children are forming their natural responses to the words heard, based on the responses heard. Children are learning how to form words and sentences based upon what they are hearing throughout their day. I will also argue that children learn how to form verbal responses based on more than their sense of hearing. Children also form language through touching, seeing, smelling, and tasting. Individuals have different types of environmental influence that assist in developing their oral language.

There are different “layers” of influence in developing oral language or verbiage that becomes written language. The first influence is the home. The second influence is where the child spends most of their day—school, daycare, etc. The third layer is those brief encounters with other individuals that may occur during the day, such as listening to a store clerk. In today’s world, “the media/technology” has also become a factor in language development. The amount of exposure/interaction time dictates the amount of influence. The amount of natural phonological awareness skills that a student possesses when entering the formal classroom depends on the exposure within the different layers of language development.

Phonological awareness is the ability to process letter sounds, rhyming words, and segmenting letters within words. These skills may be purposely taught throughout the day before children arrive at school or formal education. Simply stopping and helping a child sound out the correct pronunciation of a word—segmenting each sound, such as /c/ /a/ /t/ is a form of phonological awareness development. Reading a book that emphasizes the alphabet and adding the sound of the letter is another form of phonological awareness development. Reading poetry or books that included rhyming words—Dr. Suess—is a form of phonological awareness development. Formal or purposeful education of phonological awareness is usually woven within a child’s formal education.

Phonological Awareness

Phonological awareness is a key cognitive function in learning how to read. Phonological awareness skills are more important during the early years of education when children are learning to read (Vaessen & Blomert, 2009). 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. 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. 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.

Phonological awareness is the ability to process letter sounds, rhyming words, and segmenting letters within words (Molfese et al., 2006). Students use phonological awareness skills to process pseudowords or nonwords, and they provide the rules and sounds of letters to sound out these words. Phonological awareness skills are developed through oral language. Oral language is developed through child’s environment, which may happen through chance or purposeful conversations. Earlier oral language skills often predict later phonological awareness skills (Peterson, Pennington, Shriberg, & Boada, 2009). The phonological processing skills of children usually determine their rate of letter identification (Molfese et al., 2006).

References

Molfese V., Modglin, A., Desbick, 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.

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.

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

Diagnosing Dyslexia

The information in this blog is focused on developmental dyslexia, which is acquired through genetics. Usually, students who acquire dyslexia through environmental causes can be flagged or diagnosed using the same information.

The definition of dyslexia is:

Dyslexia is 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 (International Dyslexia Association, 2002).

I am not big fan of labeling students for various reasons, but labeling must occur if the student is not getting the support and instruction that they need to acquire literacy skills. Students will continue to struggle to acquire and use grade-level literacy skills, if they do not learn foundational literacy skills during their early elementary school days. Most students can receive the support and instruction that they need to remain at grade-level through a response to intervention (RTI) or multitiered program. RTI is a program that when implemented with fidelity can provide instructional lessons at student learning level, in addition to their regular classroom literacy instruction. Some students will need more intense intervention that may include special education services, which requires the development of a 504 or IEP plan. This will depend on your school’s literacy program and student learning needs.

Diagnosing dyslexia can be tricky and complex. Dyslexia affects approximately 3 of every 20 students. Dyslexia is blind to ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Some students will “scream” dyslexia, many will not. Some students will never be diagnosed. Children of parents diagnosed with developmental dyslexia have a 50% higher chance of having dyslexia. It is also important to note that students can show traits of dyslexia, but not have developmental dyslexia.

Diagnosing dyslexia usually begins with a screening of student literacy skills. A screening is a series of short probes or assessments used to learn student reading ability. Most schools universally screen students three times a year. Universal screenings can flag students who may have dyslexia, this will depend on the reading probes used to screen students. Some probes have a stronger correlation to reading deficits normally found in individuals diagnosed with dyslexia. Student knowledge of phonological awareness is a stronger flag until Grade 2, when rapid automatized naming tests (RAN) or reading fluency probes become a stronger flag (Ray, 2017). Usually students that show a deficit in decoding nonsense words are dyslexic. Teacher observations of student reading ability can strengthen the validity of a word decoding outcome. There are also “private” on-line screenings. Use on-line screening with caution, as not all screenings are valid. The Shaywitz DyslexiaScreenTM was developed by Dr. Sally Shaywitz, a professor and researcher in Learning Development at Yale University. This screening can be used for students in kindergarten and Grade 1. The screener can be found at https://dyslexia.yale.edu/, the Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity. Students who show signs of literary deficits or traits of dyslexia may be assessed deeper or more extensively by a trained educational professional.

Diagnosing Dyslexia

The Gillingham (1955) formula of diagnosing dyslexia was developed by Anne Gillingham while she was working for Dr. Samuel Orton in the early 1900s. She believed that standardized achievement tests were not a valid method to diagnose students’ reading deficits or to place students in remediation. Gillingham determined that the following seven assessments should be given to students one year before beginning reading instruction: (a) intelligence, (b) optical or vision, (c) family history, (d) motor pattern or skills, (e) visual sensory recall skills, (f) auditory sensory recall skills, and (g) kinesthetic sensory skills. The data from each assessment should be compiled and analyzed for each child. The child is then placed into a classroom setting, based on the analyzed outcome of these assessment. Gillingham noted that when students were assessed correctly and place in the proper programs, many of the emotional issues disappeared. Gillingham also noted that occasionally the analyzed placement needed to be revisited as the child progressed through their formal education. Gillingham (1956) believed that teachers in the regular classroom were the first to identify students at-risk for reading acquisition.

Today, dyslexia can be diagnosed by a neuropsychologist who specializes in educational disabilities, in particular dyslexia. The process includes three or four hours of testing that can be quit tiring for students. Most public schools do not have licensed psychologists trained to administer the depth of assessment required to diagnose dyslexia. Students can also be diagnosed using MRI imaging. This method of diagnosis should be used with caution, as very few people know how to conduct or correctly read the MRI screening images for dyslexia traits.

Ray, J.S. (2017). Tier 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/

Morphology-Word Analysis

While reading a novel to a group of Grade 5 students, I came across a “new” or unfamiliar word. The class and I began a discussion about the meaning of the word. First, we looked for clues in the surrounding words and decided that there was not enough information to come to an absolute conclusion. So, we began dissecting the word into smaller units of meaning or morphemes. Many students did not know how to break down the word into morphemes, nor did they know the meaning(s) of the smaller units of the word. But through further discussion, students began to focus on smaller units of the word and what those parts might mean. The meaning of the word began to ooze, which allowed students to make an educated conclusion of what new word might mean. This is a form of morphology.

Morphology is the study of word structure. The analysis of words or encoding and decoding of words helps individuals to understand their origin and how the word parts fit together. Word analysis also helps students to learn the meaning(s) of morphemes and how the word parts conclude its meaning. Word analysis also increases student background knowledge, which increases student ability to comprehend written passages. Word analysis also increases student ability to spell and pronounce words. Morphology should be introduced in the primary school years. Morphology should be explicitly taught.

References

Birsh, J.R. (2011). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills.

Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub Co.

Moats, L. (2000). Speech to print. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub Co.

Universal Screening

In my last post I defined universal screening as: a series of short, easy-to-administer probes of 1-3 minutes used determine student learning level. The data from universal screening is used to determine those students who are at-risk for reading acquisition and for student placement in the response to intervention model. Universal screening is usually given three times a year. This screening should identify 90% of the students who may be at-risk for reading acquisition. Universal screening is often used to monitor student progress and as a diagnostic assessment to determine students’ individual learning needs.

Universal screening is a vital component of the response to intervention (RTI) model. Screening students with the right assessment probes at the right time is essential to an effective RTI model. Students should be assessed for proficiency of their current grade level. Students not showing grade level proficiency should be placed in tiers or groups of focused instruction to improve their literacy skills. The groups may look different in each classroom or school depending on the current learning needs of present students. Students should be monitored to ensure that current placement is effective for them.

The following is a timeline for the types of universal screeners that should be used to determine students who are at-risk for literacy acquisition. This table was developed while I was conducting research for chapter 2 of my dissertation.

Table 1

Universal Screening Grade Level Timeline

Reading Skill	Column A Gersten et al., 2009	Column B Kashima et al., 2009	Column C Lam & McMaster, 2014	Column D NJCLD, 2011
Letter naming & fluency	Grade K-1	Grade K-1	Grade K-1
Phoneme segmentation	Grade K-1	Grade K-1
Phonemic awareness Nonsense fluency	Grade 1		Grade K-3
Word identification	Grade 1-2		Grade K-3
Oral reading fluency	Grade 1-2	Grade 1	Grade K-3	Grade K-3
Sound repetition		Grade K-1
Vocabulary		Grade 1
Reading comprehension		Grade 2-3		Grade K-3
Listening comprehension		Grade 2-3		Grade K-3
Written expression				Grade K-3
Basic reading skills				Grade K-3
Oral expression				Grade K-3

Note: Column A was adapted from “Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention (RTI) and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades” by R. Gersten et al., 2008, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2009-4045, p. 13. Column B was adapted from “The Core Components of RTI: A Closer Look at Evidence-Based Core Curriculum, Assessment and Progress Monitoring, and Data-Based Decision Making by Y. Kashima, B. Schleich, and T. Spradlin, 2009, Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, p. 6. Column C was adapted from “A 10-Year Update of Predictors of Responsiveness to Early Literacy Intervention” by E. A. Lam and K. L. McMaster, 2014, Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 37(3), p. 143. Column D was adapted from “Comprehensive Assessment and Evaluation of Students with Learning Disabilities” by The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2011, Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 3-16.

Other references

Gilbert, J., Compton, D., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Early screening for risk of reading disabilities: Recommendations for a four-step screening system. NIH Public Access, Author Manuscript. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903290 doi:10.1177/1534508412451491

Kilgus, S. P., Methe, S. A., Maggin, D. M., & Tomasula, J. L.(2014). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (r-cbm): A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of evidence supporting use in universal screening. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 377-405. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.002.

Assessments—Commonly Used in the Classroom

There are many types of assessments that can be used to inform student achievement and instructional needs. Some assessments can be used for multiple purposes. Determining why your assessing students should drive the types of assessments to use and the timeframes to give them. The more common assessments are:

Formative assessments: Any set of measurements used “to monitor student learning to provide ongoing feedback that can be used by instructors to improve their teaching and by students to improve their learning” (Eberly Center, 2010).
Summative assessments: Any set of measurements that “evaluate student learning at the end of an instructional unit by comparing it against some standard or benchmark” (Eberly Center, 2010).
Observation assessment: Educators note particular traits; such as behaviors, skills, or attitudes of a student that occur during an instructional task. Educators usually chose particular times of instruction to record observational or anecdotal notes. Anecdotal notes should be kept confidential. Anecdotal notes should be used to strengthen other assessment outcomes and to inform student placement and instruction.
Progress monitoring: A process that involves assessing students’ academic performance, quantifying student rates of improvement or responsiveness to instruction, and evaluating the effectiveness of instruction (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2015). Progress monitoring is used monitor student progress over a set timeframe, usually related to an intervention instruction. Progress monitoring can also be used for student placement.
Diagnostic assessments: Used to evaluate individual student abilities in order to identify strengths and deficits of a specific academic domain (Mellard, McKnight, & Woods, 2009). These assessments can be used to reduce the false positives of universal screening—students assessing higher or lower than their learning level. Diagnostic assessment data is used to inform student placement and instruction.

Universal Screening: A series of short, easy-to-administer probes of 1-3 minutes used to determine those students who are at-risk for reading acquisition. Universal screening is usually administered school or district-wide three times a year. The screening should identify 90% of the students who may be at-risk for reading acquisition. Universal screening is often used to monitor student progress and as a diagnostic assessment to determine students’ individual learning needs.

In my next post, I will further describe universal screenings and what types of assessment probes should be used to determine those students who may be at-risk for reading acquisition in Grades K-3.

References:

Eberly Center, Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation (2017). Formative vs Summative Assessment. Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from www.cmu.edu/assessment/basics/formative-summative.html

Mellard, D. F., McKnight, M., & Woods, K. (2009). Response to intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 24(4), 186-195. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00292.x

National Center for Learning Disabilities (2015). RTI Action Network. Retrieved from http://rtinetwork.org.

What is Response to Intervention?

Response to Intervention (RTI) is often misunderstood as a special education component of education, when RTI is a regular education component used to eliminate the need of special education services. RTI is also known as Multi-Tiered System of Support. The RTI model is a system within a system. The RTI model usually functions within a school, but can function just within a grade level or a classroom. Each design of the RTI model should match the learning needs of current students. The necessary components of the model may change from year to year to meet the changing needs of students. A healthy RTI model will reach most struggling students, freeing-up special education services for students who have the most severe learning needs.

Several definitions of the RTI model exist; a typical RTI model has three tiers of instruction:

Tier 1 instruction is taught using research-based curriculum and instruction that is differentiated to meet student learning needs. Tier 1 takes place in the general classroom, taught by a regular classroom teacher. Tier 1 should meet the learning needs of 80% of the students. Students who are struggling to meet the expectations of Tier 1 are referred for Tier 2 instruction, using universal screeners and classroom data. Students can skip tiers to better match individual learning needs.
Tier 2 instruction becomes more intense using explicit systematic instruction based on student learning needs. Tier 2 instructions can be taught by regular classroom teachers, paraprofessionals, reading specialist or special education teachers. Tier 2 instructions typically take place outside of the regular classroom, in a small group setting. Students are progress monitored, usually once a week to ensure that the curriculum and the intensity of instruction are meeting student learning needs. Data from monitoring is used to adjust curriculum and instruction. Students not showing progress after a specified time at Tier 2 are referred for Tier 3 instruction.
Tier 3 instruction becomes more intense and individualized. Some students may need more diagnostic testing to better pinpoint their particular learning needs. Tier 3 is usually taught in one-on-one settings by a paraprofessional, reading specialist or special education teacher. Tier 3 in some models is special education.

Each tier of the RTI model typically has a team of educators that support the instruction and movement of students in and out of that tier. Team members usually include the regular classroom teacher, reading specialist, special education teacher, and or the RTI liaison. Team members can also include administrators, parents, community liaisons, and other educational professionals, such as speech pathologist or psychologist.

Reference:

How the Brain Processes Written Language

Reading is not a natural activity; it is a learned process (Wolf, 2007). The process of reading is very complex, using several highways and side-roads to effectively analyze written forms into usable information. The process of learning how to read begins at birth when babies begin attaching sounds to meaning. The brain also begins attaching visual or picture forms to sounds and meaning. The natural foundation or wiring for reading is dependent on your genetics and its growth is dependent on your environment.

Most individuals are genetically wired to develop the basic or initial letter and word processing networks to analyze and convert written words into usable meaning. The natural wiring includes three different regions of the brain that individuals use to process written words in meaning (Pugh et al. 2000; Eden, 2004). These regions are located in the left hemisphere of the brain. The first region is the anterior—interior front gyrus or Broca’s area of the brain (Pugh et al., 2000). This region is responsible for processing articulatory recoding or phonological processing (Pugh et al., 2000; Moats, 2014). This region connects letters to sounds. The second region of the brain is the temporoparietal or Wernicke’s gyri (Pugh et al., 2000). This area of the brain is known for processing orthography or visual representation into phonology or patterns of speech and semantic or meaning. The third region that is necessary for fluid reading and meaning is the occipitotemporal or storage of familiar word forms (Pugh et al., 2000). This area stores words, their pronunciations, and their meaning. Some individuals do not have the natural wiring to learn how to read.

Individuals who have developmental dyslexia are not naturally wired to process written forms into speech and meaning. Researchers (Pugh, 2000; Eden, 2004; Hoeft, 2014) have learned through MRI imaging that individuals with developmental dyslexia initially only use the Anterior region of the brain or only one of the three regions necessary to effectively process written passages. The other two regions are initially not connected to the Anterior region. Dyslexics typically compensate using areas of the right side of the brain (Healy, 2010). The connections can be developed through direct, systematic instruction. Each individual student with dyslexia may need different types of intervention intensity to develop the necessary highways or bridges that connect the areas of brain that most individuals use to process written language.

References

International Dyslexia Association Conference (2013-2014) Dr. G. Eden, Dr. F. Hoeft, Dr. L. Moats, & Dr. K. Pugh

Healy, J. (2010). Different Learners. New York: Simon & Schuster

Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the Squid. New York: Harper Perennial

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)