Category: Instructional Models

The Necessary Components of Learning How to Spelling

Writing is often hard for students. Writing in general requires a higher level of cognitive skills. Writing requires students to synthesize known information. This is easier to accomplish orally. Individuals often speak (especially young children) at a higher cognitive level than they can write. Oral language is usually developed naturally through one’s environment, whereas writing words on paper requires instruction. Students often orally convey their thoughts in fragments, whereas most thoughts on paper must be put into complete sentences. One piece of the writing pie is correctly spelling or encoding words on paper. Students will often use lower-level words that they might be able to spell correctly. Students who struggle in spelling words correctly usually avoid writing words on paper. This is when creative instruction needs to be brought in play.

English is not a transparent language; it has stable rules and many exceptions to those stable rules. In transparent languages like, Finish or Italian the graphemes and phonemes are more consistent, with little expectations of the graphemes changing sounds within words. English is derived from multiple languages. Most American English words are derived from Latin, Greek, and Anglo-Saxon languages. These languages have stable rules that can be learned through studying letter-sound correspondences, syllable patterns and morpheme patterns. When a student knows where the word is derived from and the “rules” of that language assist in spelling the word accurately.  Webster brought more constancy in how we spell American English, while he creating the first instructional spelling books in the early 1800s.

Spelling requires students to know about phonology, orthography, and morphology to correctly encode a word. Phonology is the study of the sounds of letters that develop words. Students need to know the one-on-one grapheme-phoneme correspondences of the 26 letters in the English alphabet. During the study of phonology students begin learning how each letter may change its sound depending upon where the letter is placed in a word. Students should know these norms by Grade 2. They will use this information throughout their lifetime.

Orthography is the “rules” of how words are spelled within a language. The rules dictate if a letter will remain a one-on-one correspondence or change based on other letters within a word. Orthography is the visual representation or graphemes that represent words spoken orally. Students should have background knowledge of the “norms” of how letter placement creates the sounds of words. Orthographic knowledge increases student lexicon, which increases student reading fluency.

Morphology is the study of the meaning of the smaller parts of words, such as re- meaning again and -ing meaning an action. These different parts usually dictate its meaning. Students need to know the meaning of how something is spelled as American English has many words that are spelled differently, but sound the same (homophones).

Phonology, orthography, and morphology should be taught simultaneously. Phonemic awareness or oral language ability is the prerequisite in which these vital elements of learning how to decode and encode words is built upon. Some students will need to review some or all of the parts of phonemic awareness to effectively learn how to decode and encode words. Decoding is an easier skill for most students to grasp and use, than encoding words. Each of these components of learning how to spell words correctly increases with complexity as students mature. Teaching lessons about semantics along with lessons of morphology, usually increases student ability to effectively spell words that convey a more accurate meaning. These components are part of the Structured Literacy Method of effectively teaching students how to read and write.

References

Redding, Nancy. (2023). The Importance of Spelling Instruction. Presentation International Dyslexia Conference (IDA).

Rosenberg, Dee. (2023). The Forgotten Skills Needed for Literacy Success: Spelling and Handwriting. Presentation International Dyslexia Conference (IDA), Wilson Language Training.

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

Gillingham and Stillman’s Phonic Instructional Theory

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

Structured Literacy Supports All Learners-Dyslexic, ESL

Structured Literacy Supports All Learners:  Students At-Risk of Literacy Acquisition—Dyslexia and English Learners

Abstract

Learning to read is a complex endeavor that requires developing brain connections. The brain connections for reading written words begins forming during the development of oral language. The maturing of oral language and reading instruction continue the growth of the necessary brain connections to read and write. Structured Literacy instruction helps to develop and strengthen brain connections for reading and processing written language. Structured Literacy encourages educators to teach the essential literacy foundational skills during the pre and primary school years, so students have a better chance of achieving and maintaining proficiency in literacy. 

This article was published in the Texas Association for Literacy Instruction Yearbook, Volume 7, September 2020, Chapter 5, p. 37-43, downloadable at  http://www.texasreaders.org/yearbooks.html.

Is Response to Intervention (RTI) for General or Special Education Students?

When I am discussing RTI with educators many seem to believe that the RTI model is special education. In a research article titled The Blurring of Special Education in a New Continuum of General Education Placements and Services, Fuchs et al. (2010) describes that the meaning of RTI is interpreted differently by regular education teachers and those who provide support for at-risk students. General education teachers usually reflect the RTI model through the lens of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2002)/Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015). Those working in general education usually define RTI as “a reformed service delivery that emphasizes early intervention and the unification of general education and special education, which in turn facilitates adoption of challenging standards and accountability for all” (Fuchs et al., 2010, p. 304). General education teachers support collaboration among teachers to improve student learning and focus more on assessment and instruction than cognitive abilities. This group also emphasizes problem solving and differentiated instruction.

Whereas the educators supporting students at-risk, such as resource, speech, special education, etc. view the RTI model through the lens of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (2004). Their view defines RTI as a model to promote early intervention and to increase the validity of identifying students who may have a learning disability (Fuchs et al., 2010). Educators supporting students at-risk place more value on cognitive, linguistic, and perceptual data to inform the type of intervention treatment. Educators working with at-risk students believe that students who are unresponsive to instruction in Tier 2 should be evaluated by a multidisciplinary team using student data. Fuchs et al. also noted that educators supporting at-risk students recognize that instruction should be evidence-based, explicit, and top-down or researcher determined. This group usually relies more on student data and effective research-based interventions.

The RTI model was designed for educators to develop a multitiered instructional system to deliver standards-based, grade-level, student-supported curricula and instruction based on the current needs of present students and the resources available to support the RTI model at their school. A healthy RTI model should reach most struggling students, freeing-up special education services for students who have the most severe learning needs.

I described a typical RTI model in an October 2018 blog post as having three tiers of instruction, some may have more.

  • 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 may also include administrators, parents, community liaisons, and other educational professionals, such as speech pathologist or psychologist.

 

References

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S. & Stecker, P. (2010). The blurring of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301-323.

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W.D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades, a practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.

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 Policy, 1-11. https:ceep.indiana.edu

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

 

Proven Instructional Models and Technology That Increases Student Intrinsic Motivation

As our nation moves to a more independent or on-line form of instruction students that are more intrinsically motivated will likely be more successful.  Students are born with natural or intrinsic motivation—curiosity, ambition, and emotions (Wilson & Wilson, 1921).  Student inner, intrinsic motivation usually moves them towards participation in an activity that they enjoy.  Student inner motivation may also give them the desire to participate in activities that they may not enjoy, but will move them forward in the completion of a task or goal.  Student environment usually creates a desire learn how to read, comprehend, and write.  There are also proven instructional methods that usually increase student intrinsic motivation to learn.  The following methods may increase student engagement, involvement during on-line instruction.

The first three instructional methods rely on technology.  Research has proven that technology in general usually increases student intrinsic motivation to become engaged in the process of learning.  Technology is a good tool, but educators need to be mindful of the purpose and the amount of time that students are spending in front of an electronic screen.  As the type and amount of screen time may be hindering student reading ability.  In Dr. Wolf’s (2018) book Reader Come Home, she states that electronic devices may limit student ability to develop deep-reading processes.   Deep-reading involves many connections or parts of the brain to fully comprehend the written words.   Deep-reading also requires more energy than skimming.  To maintain and increase the brain connections necessary to comprehend written words students need to regularly exercise deep-reading skills as they mature (Healy, 1990; Wolf, 2018).   The skills of deep-reading can be taught in a viral environment.

  • The U-Learning Method uses mobile computers that can adapt to different learning environments, allowing students to learn on location (Hsiao, Line, Fang, & Li, 2010). This type of instruction allows students to have access to resources in the field.  U-Learning also allows students to record research notes, video, and pictures.  U-Learning can be used for independent or small group learning.
  • Student web pages usually increases intrinsic motivation (Dredger, Woods, Beach, & Sagstetter, 2010; Reed-Swale, 2009). Students develop and maintain web pages that are overseen by the teacher.  Students have the opportunity to write about topics of their interest.  Students usually enjoy the opportunity to express their thoughts, while working at their academic level.
  • Digital applications usually create ambition or intrinsic motivation (Saine, Lerkkanen, Ahonen, Tolvanen, & Lyytinen, 2010; Servilio, 2009; Yang, 2010). Digital application instruction gives teachers a platform to teach students how to problem solve in a non-threatening environment (Yang, 2012).  Some digital applications allow for differentiated instruction (Saine et al., 2010; Servilio, 2009).  Digital instructional games allow students to visually connect letters and sounds (Saine et al. 2010).  Computer applications, digital games can be a positive resource to use within the classroom.
  • The Project-based Learning (PBL) model usually increases student intrinsic motivation and reading achievement, in particular comprehension (Chu, Tse, Lou, & Chow, 2011). The PBL approach gives students the opportunity to explore, collect information, analyze data, and present findings.  The PBL model also gives students the opportunity to select a topic for a research project based on the teacher’s guidelines for that lesson.
  • Interdisciplinary Units usually increase student motivation to participate in instructional lessons (Opitz, 2011; Chu, Tse, Loh, & Chow, 2011). Research suggests combining two different subjects into one assignment to spark student interest in the instructional lesson.  Students may enjoy one of the subjects and despise the other subject; however, the subject they enjoy will usually motivate them to complete the assignment.  When literacy instruction is integrated with other subjects or projects of interest student intrinsic motivation and literacy achievement usually improves.  Student motivation also increases when they are allowed to choose the topic of study under the direction of the teacher.
  • The Flow-Learning Model was developed for the study of nature (Cornell, 1998). Flow-learning includes four stages that provide instructors with a framework to present instructional lessons—provides for a natural beginning, middle and end to the instructional lesson.   The stages are: (a) awaken student enthusiasm or curiosity, (b) narrow student attention towards the topic of instruction, (c) practice or direct experience of the lesson, and (d) student reflection of their interaction or practice of the lesson (Cornell, 1998).  The flow-learning model can give students the opportunity to see, watch, touch, and experience the lesson (Hsiao, Lin, Fang, & Lee, 2010).  The flow-learning model allows for all instructional groups and can be adapted for use in the outdoor or indoor instructional setting.

References

Chu, S.K.W., Tse, S.K., Loh, E.K.Y., & Chow, K. (2011).  Collaborative inquiry project-based learning: Effects on reading ability and interests. Library & Information Science  Research, 33(3), 236-243.  doi: 10.1016/j.list.2010.09.008

Cornell, J. (1998).  Flow learning.  Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/~vcrec004/rtm351/Flow%20Learning%20Summary.pdf

Dredger, K., Woods, D., Beach, C., & Sagstetter, V. (2010).  Engage me: using new literacies to create third space classrooms that engage student writers. The National Association for Media Literacy Education’s Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(2), 85-101.

Healy, J. M. (1990).  Endangered Minds.  New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbooks.

Hsiao, H.-S., Lin, C.-C., Fang, R.-T., & Li, K.-J. (2010). Location based services for outdoor ecological learning system: Design and implementation. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 98-111.

Opitz, M.F. (2011) Transcending the curricular barrier between fitness and reading with fitlit. The Reading Teacher, 64(7), 535-540.  doi: 10.1598/RT.64.7.8

Reed-Swale, T.W (2009). Engaging digital natives in a digital world teaching more than web design. Synergy Learning, 22(128), 22-25.

Saine, N.L., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Ahonen, T., Tolvanen, A., & Lyytinen, H. (2010). Predicting word-level reading fluency outcomes in three contrastive groups: Remedial and computer assisted remedial reading intervention, and mainstream instruction. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 402-414. doi:  10.1016/j.lindif.2010.06.004

Servilio, K. (2009).  You get to choose! Motivating students to read through differentiated instruction.  Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 5(5), Article 5.  Retrieved November 7, 2012 from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol5/iss5/art5

Wilson, H.B., & Wilson, G.M. (1921). The motivation of school work. Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press.

Wolf, Maryanne (2018).  Reader, come home.  The reading brain in a digital world. New York, NY:  HarperCollins.

Yang, C. Y. (2012). Building virtual cities, inspiring intelligent citizens: digital games for developing students’ problem solving and learning motivation. Computer & Education, 59(2), 365-377.  doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.012.

 

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.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Facebook
Twitter