Category: Reading Intervention

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.

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.

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

White, R., Polly, D,. & Audette, R. (2012). A case analysis of an elementary              school’s implementation of response to intervention. Journal of                            Research in Childhood Education, 26, 73-90.                                                                      http://doi/10.1080/02568543.2011.63206

 

 

 

Phonological Awareness – Traditional Rhymes

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

The following are examples of traditional writings:

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Art and Science of Scaffolding

Scaffolding is “a supportive instructional structure that teachers use to provide the appropriate mechanisms for a student to complete a task that is beyond their unassisted abilities” (Ray, 2017, p.14). The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is known as the space just beyond a student’s unassisted ability. Student ZPD may be discovered through who, why, what, where, and how questions posed by the teacher. The teacher analyzes student answers to the posed questions to determine at what point they begin to need assistances in completing the task. The number of questions that need to be asked and analyzed may be different for each student and task. This is usually dependent on teacher knowledge of task and student ability. Student ZPD a living entity that is always changing.

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

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

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

References

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

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

Why Differentiation of Instruction?

Most student didn’t receive the “full, normal load” of instruction during the 2020-21 school year. This means that students may not have ownership of the prior knowledge that is necessary to be successful at learning new tasks that teachers may present to them in the Fall of 2022. In college, students must have received and often prove that they have the prerequisite or prior knowledge necessary to be successful in their current class. With this in mind, teachers need to find a way to present new information without students having the necessary knowledge to be successful in the current lesson.

Differentiation is one tool that can be used to ease the absorption of the new knowledge without having the prior knowledge necessary to digest and own the new information. Differentiation sounds like a lot of work, but the tool is relatively easy to use. Most teachers already use this tool to successfully teach diverse groups of students. Each classroom of students usually includes students that function academically at different grade levels. Most classrooms have students a grade below or above, but some have students that function two or more grade levels below or above the standard for that grade level. This depends on the instructional policies of each state and district, and the current resources available to meet each student’s individual educational needs.

When differentiating student instruction, it is important to know student learning abilities and interest. Students will push through or work through the struggle of completing the assignment if the subject is of interest to them. Teachers can increase student interest through the introduction (attitude) of the lesson or subject. Teachers can also increase student interest in the lesson by the activities used within the lesson, such as allowing students to use their hands for exploration or take a walk to learn about components of the lesson or use a computer to research items of the lesson or allow them to work with a partner. These are all types of differentiation of instruction.

Differentiation of academic lessons may take more planning, as you should take into consideration: (a) the subject being taught, (b) student learning abilities, (c) student learning styles, and (d) the resources available to teach the lesson.  For example, if the lesson is about researching animal habitats. The lesson may be taught in a whole or small group setting. The lesson may also include hands on objects, videos, books, etc.  The gathering of information may include general note taking, drawing pictures, or answering progenerated questions. The lesson may include a trip to a natural habitat, which may be available on school grounds. The reporting of the information gathered might be an oral report, a tri-fold brochure, a written essay, or a PowerPoint presentation. The lesson may be about a particular interest of the students as a whole, or students may choose an animal of their interest to research.

When designing a lesson based on the academic background knowledge of students, you may need to add depth to the lesson or provide information to students before they can accomplish the lesson. For example: I was teaching a group of students that functioned academically between the of Grades 5 and 12, in the same classroom. The assignment was to analyze sentences and determine if the sentence is a fact or an opinion. Most students didn’t know the difference, nor understood how to analyze a sentence. I began the lesson by discussing the differences of the two different types of sentences, and then modeled to students how to analyze a sentence to determine fact or opinion—instead of handing the worksheet to students. The lesson was followed-up with additional practice and discussions.  Another example: I was teaching a group of Grade 2 students of wide-ranging abilities. The lesson was to research animal habitats. Students were given the opportunity to choose the type of animal habitat to research that could be located on a particular school computer application. The application had the text-to-speech ability for students who were struggling to read at grade-level. Students were also given the opportunity to read library books about their chosen animal’s habitat. I chose some student’s library books to feature and use for discussion about how to research and find information, this gave struggling students the opportunity to hear their book read aloud. Students used a brochure template to develop their report. The report was completed in student’s own handwriting using a pencil or colored pencils. This allowed students to write more or less sentences based on their academic writing ability. Students who struggled in writing could use more pictures to described the habitat. Students were also allowed to use the teacher or other students to help them research and formulate written sentences.

The teacher’s ability to differentiate curriculum and instruction may be one of keys to recovering from the academic pause of the 2020-21 school year.

Differentiation of instruction is taking the student ability and learning style of groups of students into consideration, when designing an instructional lesson (Tomlinson, 2010).

 

 

Structured Literacy Supports All Learners-Dyslexic, ESL

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

References

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

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

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of rti: A closer look at evidence-based core curriculum, assessment and progress monitoring, and data-based decision making. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 1-11. https:ceep.indiana.edu

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

 

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Facebook
Twitter