Category: Reading Intervention

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.

 

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.

 

 

Gillingham’s Theory of Phonics Remediation

Gillingham (1956) labored countless hours in the pursuit of an instructional process for students who have language deficits. Gillingham worked closely with Dr. Orton, a neurologist, in his research lab, investigating the struggles in reading acquisition of children referred to Dr. Orton. Gillingham used Dr. Orton’s theory (1955, 1956) regarding language function to find solutions to students’ reading problems. Many of the students who were referred to Dr. Orton had emotional issues and reading acquisition deficits, and students were three to four years behind students of their age.

Most of the students referred to Dr. Orton’s practice had similar characteristics in relation to their learning abilities. Students were often assessed in the higher intelligence range (Gillingham, 1956). However, students often shut down when reading was mentioned. Most students had proficient memories.  Most students also wrote their letters in a mirrored image. All students gave great effort in learning to read, but most of them were often labeled as lazy or uncooperative. Many of the referred students were thought to have emotional issues that were believed to be the central issue in learning to read. Many of the students were tested by an oculist or optometrist for vision issues, but usually, no vision issues were found. Parents were flustered about why their children could not learn to read, but their siblings could learn to read. Gillingham noted that most of the students had a family history of reading acquisition deficits. Gillingham found that many of the students responded positively to other forms of reading curriculum and instruction given by a remedial teacher, and then most of the emotional issues dissipated.

Gillingham (1955) also came to the conclusion that students who struggled with reading acquisition skills could be assessed and taught using a different curriculum than the dominant reading curriculum. This different curriculum and instruction would teach these students how to read and allow them to keep up with their peers academically. Gillingham believed that this new type of instruction would prevent students from experiencing “the heartache and frustration and their parents from the anxiety and expense that is now met when the child is a reading case” (p. 28).

Gillingham (1956) wrote a manual based on her findings about how to teach students to read. The predominant form of reading instruction was whole word. Gillingham used the “reading and spelling with phonetic words” curriculum and instruction for students who were identified as having possible or known deficits in learning to reading (p. 39). The major support systems for students struggling with reading acquisition skills are noted in Gillingham’s 1956 manual, which is titled Remedial Training for Children with Specific Disability in Reading, Spelling, and Penmanship. Gillingham describes the teacher’s role in teaching students with reading deficits. Gillingham also describes current research theories in teaching struggling learners how to read. The roles of school administrators and of parents are also described. In addition, Gillingham included descriptions of technology, curriculum, and student motivation in learning how to read. Community support systems for remedial students are also noted. My next blog will describe Gillingham’s theory about phonics remediation in further detail.

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 Essential Components and Teacher Education of RTI

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

Essential Components of RTI

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

Essential Teacher Knowledge

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

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

References

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

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

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

 

 

The Benefits of Determining and Addressing Students Literacy Needs – Early

Students of all economic and cultural backgrounds arrive at institutions of formal education assuming that educators will be able to teach them how to effectively read and write. Some will have the knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, some will have knowledge of how to hold a pencil and write. Some will know how to read. Some will have good oral language skills. Some will have good social emotional skills. Some will show up without any of the previous skills. They will be all put into the same classroom. The teacher is expected to meet the learning needs of all students throughout the day.

There are tools that teachers should have available to ease the “craziness” of having 20-25 students that are all at different levels of learning and social behavior. One tool is universal screening of early or foundational literacy knowledge and skills. Universal screenings are very short probes to determine which students may lack the necessary skills to be successful in their current grade. These screenings usually assist in determining which students may need additional small group or one-on-one instruction to learn foundational learning skills. These screenings also assist in determining students who might need further diagnostic assessment and different instruction for various learning disabilities, such as dyslexia. These short probes are usually used in partnership of teacher observation and completed assignments to increase the validity of the universal screening outcomes.

These probes should begin in kindergarten, and the findings a focus of instruction during Grades K-3. The earlier a student(s) learning needs or lack of knowledge and skills are address the less the student(s) will struggle. Students who receive earlier intervention instruction usually skip the deep emotional scars. Left unmeet these students usually spend their time clawing their way through their day, trying to avoid the shame of not be able to fully participate. Often students just need a few weeks of intense instruction in kindergarten. I have yet to meet a student who didn’t want to function at grade-level with their peers.

The types of probes are dependent on student age and ability. A student in kindergarten should be assessed in phonemic awareness and rapid automatic naming skills. A student in Grade 2 should be assessed in some of the previous probes along with word reading of both regular and pseudonym words. These are usually given three times a year within an instructional response to intervention (RTI) model* that focuses on academics-literacy and math. The probes and intervention instruction begin to separate students with true learning disabilities from those who didn’t gain or learn the foundational skills necessary before entering the formal educational setting. This also ensures that students with true disabilities receive more accurate instruction and assistance earlier than later for their disability.

Students who receive explicit, direct instruction in Grades K-2 for the lacking foundational literacy skills usually “catch-up” to grade level expectation and maintain their intervention gains. Some students will need assistance throughout their formal academic instruction. Students who receive the right academic intervention instruction will avoid many latter social emotional issues. The cost to society and formal education escalates, as students maturate and cannot effectively participate at their grade-level. The earlier students’ lack of foundational skills is addressed; the less funding is needed to bring up them up to grade-level. Students’ brains are more malleable during their younger years.

* Each RTI model should be different, but similar in nature to reflect the students’ academic learning needs and the resources available. All RTI models will have tiers or levels of instruction. Most RTI models in Grades K-4 focus on developing reading skills. Some RTI models may focus on behavior. Behavior focused RTI models may assist in determining the learning levels of students, as behavior often signals a lack of academic skills necessary to function at grade-level. Once the academic needs are meet the behavior issues usually melt away.

In my next blog, I will describe the necessary components and teacher education of a successful RTI program.

References

Moll, K., Georgii, B. J., Tunder, R., & Schulte-Kӧrne (2022). Economic evaluation of dyslexia intervention. Dyslexia, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1728

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

Developing the Reading Brain Connections is Hard Work!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

What is Partner Reading?

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Building a Habit of Deep Reading

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

The Benefits of Intentional Partner Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Student Developmental Processing Lag

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Facebook
Twitter