Category: Instructional Strategies

Gillingham and Stillman’s (1956) Phonics Instructional Theory, Part II

This is Part 2 of a two-part blog on the phonics instructional theory of Anna Gillingham and Bessie Stillman (1956). The first part was published on this platform (The Literacy Brain) on July 5, 2023. There are eight linkages or steps to their theory of teaching phonics. I wrote about the history of their theory and linkages one and two in Blog 1. Gillingham and Stillman suggest that these steps should be used as initial instruction during Grades 1 and 2 and remedial instruction in Grade 3.

Gillingham and Stillman’s (1956) instructional 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.

An additional note about linkage two, which is about how to properly write graphemes. Gillingham and Stillman (1956) emphasized the importance of proper penmanship. They stated that “no symbol is really serviceable for easy writing until it can be formed without visual supervision” (p. 41). Tracing letters may take place for several weeks before students begin to write them on their own. Writing letters incorrectly lends to poor writing and spelling.

The third step asks the teacher to show the student a grapheme (visual) of a letter and asks the student to name (auditory) the grapheme. Occasionally, the teacher moves (kinesthetic) the student’s hand to form the letter. The student is not supposed to watch the process, but name (auditory) the letter that his hand was guided to form. The teacher asks the student, what sound (auditory) does this letter make? Student needs to know both the visual and kinesthetic feel of a letter.

During the fourth linkage, the teacher asks the student to write (auditory/kinesthetic) the grapheme (auditory/visual) for a spoken sound, like d for /d/.

In step five, the teacher shows (visual) the student the grapheme from Step 3 and asked them to stated what it says (its sound) (auditory). The teacher moves (kinesthetic) the student’s hand to form the letter, while the student looks away and says (auditory) the sound of the letter that his hand was guided to form. The teacher asks the student, what sound (auditory) does this letter make?

In step six, the teacher states (auditory) a grapheme.  Then the student states the phoneme of the teacher stated letter or groups of letters. This is an exercise of auditory recall, along with the connection of auditory and kinesthetic.

In step seven, the teacher says (auditory) a phoneme and the student states (auditory) the name of the grapheme. This is similar to Linkage 6 in how the brain is processing the information.

In linkage eight, the teacher states a phoneme (auditory) and the student writes (kinesthetic) down the grapheme (visual) of the phoneme. Students should practice this step with and without looking at their paper. The student should name the letter(s) as they write the symbol(s) for the sound.

Gillingham and Stillman (1956) suggest that linkages of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are less important than linkages 5, 7 and 8. They stated that the latter steps of their phonics instructional theory require daily practice. They also discussed that teacher observation will assist them to provide or repeat other necessary instructional steps. Students are building connections between the graphemes and phonemes during the steps of the instructional process. In step five, students are translating the written symbol(s) in to the symbol’s phoneme. In linkage seven, students are listening to a sound and naming the written symbol(s) for the sound heard. This is done orally. In linkage eight student are translating from an oral sound to a written symbol or letter. Students who struggle with any of these tasks (linkages 1-7) usually have a language deficit.

References

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

 

Why Reflection?

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

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

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

Through questioning your conclusion might reveal:

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

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

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

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

 

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.

 

 

Scaffolding of Writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

The Essential Components and Teacher Education of RTI

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

Essential Components of RTI

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

Essential Teacher Knowledge

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

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

References

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

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

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

 

 

Developing the Reading Brain Connections is Hard Work!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

What is Partner Reading?

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

The Benefits of Intentional Partner Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Differentiation vs Scaffolding

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

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

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

Scaffolding is “a supportive instructional structure that teachers use to provide the appropriate mechanisms for a student to complete a task that is beyond their unassisted abilities” (Ray, 2017, p. 14). van de Pol, Volman, and Beishuizen describe scaffolding as a process that includes contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility. Contingency is the support that teachers initially give to students, such as modeling. Fading may be described as half-in, half-out or the “murky” zone. The teacher is pulling away given support or scaffolding to give full control of task completion back to the student. Transfer of responsibility is the intended outcome. At this stage of the scaffolding process, students “own” the knowledge/skill to complete the task independently and are often able to assist others in completing the task.

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Facebook
Twitter