Category: Reading Intervention

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/

 

More Instructional Support Strategies for Dyslexic Students

Individuals with dyslexia have brain processing issues, because their brains did not initially develop the same highways and byways to process written language.  But many dyslexic students will have fluid oral communication skills.  This may be why it has taken many years for society to recognize dyslexia as learning disability.  Some students you will not recognize as dyslexic, others will jump up and down dyslexia.  Boys tend to be diagnosed or show higher signs of dyslexia as they seem to squirm louder than girls.

Dyslexic students usually work twice as hard to learn how to read than the average student, as they are developing new brain connections.  Teaching all students using rich Structure Literacy curriculum and instruction can reach most students.  Taking brain breaks or moments of rest can the increase student motivation.  My thought is that any students who is struggling to learn how to read and write should be supported in the process.  Each dyslexic student will need different types of supports to develop the necessary highways and byways, as student environment plays a role in the brain development process.  The earlier the intervention or supports are put into place the higher chance the student has to overcome the risk of literacy acquisition.  The following dyslexic instructional strategies can be effective for any student at-risk in literacy.

  1. Use highlighters or a marking code. A highlighter is a tool that students can use for various tasks.  Students can use them to highlight important information that they may need for future tasks, such as writing or reading comprehension.  Highlighters can be used to note different parts of texts, such as topic sentence, detail, conclusion, parts of a sentence, etc.  Students can use different colors to signify different types of information.  Students can also use boxes, circles, underline, stars, etc. to note the same things when different colored highlighters are not available.  This technique is helpful to teach/model students by highlighting different parts of written language.  This technique can also assist early writers in proof reading their writing.
  2. Read the passage or words aloud at any volume. When students read the passage aloud, they are involving both their hearing and visual senses.  Most dyslexic students already have good oral communication skills—they can effectively process heard information.  Reading the passage aloud usually allows them to better comprehend the passage.  In addition, students are using their visual sense to build or strengthen their brain connections for reading using just their vision.  Whisper phones are a way for students to read written words aloud and not disrupt their fellow classmates.  Some students will grow out of the need to use both their visual and hearing to comprehend the passage, while others will need to occasional use both senses.
  3. Listen and follow along at grade-level. Students listen to a book on tape and read it with the tape or follow along.  This is a good tool for students who can orally comprehend at grade-level, but not read the words and comprehend at grade-level.  This strategy allows students to be exposed to grade-level information and it helps them to build and strengthen brain connections for reading to comprehend at grade-level.  This strategy should be used along with other strategies to increase student achievement level.  This strategy has been used for many years to teach primary students how to read.  Students listen to an oral reading of a book or passage and follow along.  Some of the computer programs have books or passages that can be read as the words are highlighted, but students need to follow along.
  4. Discussing information read. Developing an environment where all students feel safe to share is key for the success of this strategy.  Each student can bring their background/environment knowledge to the discussion.  Many dyslexic students have strong backgrounds of knowledge and good oral communication skills.  Discussing the read information can assist students in expanding their lexicon or student knowledge about a topic.  Student discussion(s) can also increase their information processing highways and byways.  This instructional strategy can also assist students in retaining the information read.  This strategy can also strengthen student ability to communicate orally.
  5. Encourage their interest, passion. When possible allow students to choose their topic of study.  This usually increases engagement and intrinsic motivation.  Some students will still “battle” the assignment or parts of the assignment.  I usually use science topics during the primary and elementary school years to increase student engagement in a task.  Most students can find an animal, insect that stirs their intrinsic motivation to read and write about.  The topic can be narrowed, to a particular aspect of the animal.
  6. Assistance in copying words from the board. Some dyslexic students struggle in copying words from the board or from a distance.  This could be due to vision issues, which is usually an additional issue—not dyslexia.  I usually lend them my notes or ask another student to assist them.  Most can copy from a paper that is placed right next to the paper that they are writing on.  Interactive word walls are excellent tools for students who struggle in copying from the board.

References

Gillingham, A. (1956). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Massachusetts: Educators Publishing Service, Inc.

Hinshelwood, James. (1917). Congenital word-blindness. London: H.K. Lewis.

Teaching Sound-Symbol Correspondences

         For me, a joy of teaching is watching a student realize that they have the power (the tools) to analyze and decode words into the correct sounds. This skill can be easy for some students to master, most will need instruction. The type and intensity of instruction will differ for each student. I suggest that all instruction should include practice in naming the letter and its sound(s). This practice should happen each day. Using cards that include picture(s) of an item that begins with the sound of the letter will increase the retention of the sound-symbol correspondences. There are other instructional strategies that can be used in addition to flashcards. Some of these instructional strategies are discussed in the following paragraph.

         The following strategies include three of more of the five senses—hearing, touching, seeing, tasting, and smelling. The first strategy is to match cards of letters with cards that feature pictures of items that begin with the same sound as the letter. There should be pictures that represent all of the sounds that a letter can make, for example G…. /g/ /j/ or E…. /e/ /E/.  Students says the letter and the beginning sound of the featured item when they the matched cards. The second strategy is using a white board and marker. Students write the letter, then say the sound. Or the teacher says the sound the student writes the letter. The third strategy is using sand. Colored maybe a better choice as this usually gives a better contrast and students tend to like color. Pour just enough sand to give about a fourth of an inch layer on a plate, on a table or on deep cookie sheet type container. Students write a letter in the sand and say the sound(s) of the letter. Or the teacher says the sound of the letter the student writes the letter. The fourth strategy is using pudding. This can be used in the same manner as the sand. This is a different texture. The fifth strategy is using play dough. Students use the play dough to form a letter(s). Students point to the formed letter and say its sound(s). The teacher can ask students to form letters by uttering its corresponding sound. Students can use pictures of the letter to help them form the letter. The sixth strategy is using music. Using video that includes sound that students can sing-a-long with or mimic increases the number of senses that students use. Using video that includes motions, along with music and pictures can increase the retention of letter and sound correspondences. The last strategy that I will included in this blog is using a grate (usually plastic). The grate is usually about the size of a piece of paper. The texture should be defined enough that when you place a piece of paper over it you can run a crayon over it to create a picture of the grate. The grate can be used in a few ways. Students trace the letter with their index finger, while saying its sound. Students place a piece of paper on the grate and write a letter using a crayon. Students then say the letters’ corresponding sound(s).

              Sound-symbol correspondences or the relationship(s) between phoneme(s) and grapheme(s) are Pillar 2 of Structure Literacy Instruction. This may be referred to as phonics instruction that teaches predictable or the constant rules of sound-symbol correspondences to produce written language. At this stage students learn one-on-one correspondence, for example the written letter B represents this phoneme or sound. It is important to note that some letters are represented by more than one sound, depending on the origin and spelling of the word. Students begin decoding and encoding words as they begin to learn the sound-symbol correspondences. Student knowledge of the phoneme(s) and grapheme(s) relationships usually increases student ability to read, comprehend, and spell written language.

Instructional Notes of Grade 4 Writing Assignment-differentiating, scaffolding

I was substituting in a Grade 4 classroom at a Title 1 school, where most students qualified for free meals. I had substituted in this classroom a few times before, so I was familiar with their learning abilities. Many of the students were English second language (ESL) learners. Most of the students were at-risk for literacy.

The regular classroom teacher had left the task of independently reading a passage and drawing a picture or writing a summary about the passage. Since I was familiar with the learning abilities present in this class, I chose to have students (voluntarily) take turns reading the passage. This may have created some confusion as most could not read the passage fluidly. When we finished reading the passage, I ask them to begin drawing or writing their interpretation of the passage. I usually let students work independently on the assignment before beginning to verbally work through the assignment. (The tricky thing about being a substitute is that it’s not really your job to teach, more to facilitate. Most of the time unless you have the ability to visit a classroom multiple times you do not know the learning capabilities of the students.)

After about 5 or so minutes, most of the students seemed to be lost in how to interpret the passage. I began verbally rereading the passage, one or two sentences at time. I then asked students to verbally explain what the read sentences meant. Students were still struggling, so I began to break down the sentences in phrases and words. I learned that students did not know the meaning of key words. I found myself explaining snow-capped rooves and other items within the passage to help them understand the meaning. I used pictures and the dictionary as sources to help students learn how to research the meaning. Most students were then able to draw a picture of the passage. And one or two students were able to translate their picture into words. I asked those students that were able to translate their pictures into words to read their interpretation of the passage. I used those words/sentences about the passage as examples that I wrote on the board. Students who were still struggling to write their own translation of the passage were allowed to copy, this helps to develop brain connections for writing words. As the lesson moved along students began to relax, which allowed them to process the information into the form necessary to accomplish the task.

Instructional Notes—Analysis of the Lesson
I had taken for granted that most of the students in this classroom would know the meaning of most of the words. The words were of things present in the community. The passage was talking about snowcapped roofs, chimneys, shapes of houses, and fireplaces. Many individuals in this community use fireplaces and wood stoves to heat their home and there is a ski resort within an hour of school.

Students initial lack of understanding could be derived from multiple issues. Students may not have learned the name of those things described in the passage in their native language, in English, or in both their native language and English. Students may also have learning issues that impede them from translating written words into their own words. This may have been the first time for some students to translate a passage into a picture or into their own words.

My point is students should have the opportunity to reverse, learn or review, and then regroup before moving forward again. Many students need to be shown and reshown and reshown how to accomplish a task. Often students need the task broken down into manageable parts, many will focus on the portion that they cannot accomplish and because of anxiety of that part will not accomplish the parts they can do. Most students do not want you to do the work for them. Students usually will begin writing their own words, after many opportunities to practice. It takes time to develop the brain connections necessary for fluid writing.

Defining Scaffolding in Relation to Instruction

Educators seem to enjoy the tussle of how to define the different elements of instruction. This could be rooted in their historical-cultural background. This could also be rooted in the need to be heard. Whatever the case, it can become confusing to individuals trying to find a solid definition of a term. Hopefully this post will help you to better understand scaffolding in relation to instruction. I have presented six definitions of scaffolding in relation to instruction, the first five definitions assisted in the development of the sixth. Each definition reflects Vygotsky’s 1929 cultural-historical theory of psychological development in relation to scaffolding.

The first definition of scaffolding is “support given by a teacher to a student when performing a task that the student might otherwise not be able to accomplish” (van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010). In the same article van de Pol, Volman, and Beishuizen describe scaffolding as a process that includes contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility. “Contingency is the tailored, adjusted, and differentiated responses or support that a teacher gives to a student during instruction. Fading is the gradual withdrawal of the scaffolding or contingency support. Transfer of responsibility is the completion of the fading stage, when students can independently process the task” (Ray, 2017, p. 26).

The second and third definition of scaffolding were found in an article titled, Scaffolding Students’ Comprehension of Text. The second definition is “what teachers say and do to enable children to complete complex mental tasks they could not complete without assistance (Pearson & Fielding, 1991, p. 842.” The third definition is “a temporary supportive structure that teachers create to assist a student or a group of students to accomplish a task that they could not complete alone (Graces, Watts, & Graves, 1994, P. 44)” (Clark & Graves, 2005, p. 571). In the same article Clark and Graves discuss scaffolding as a process of gradual release of responsibility that includes three key components: a) all teacher—modeling and instruction, b) joint responsibility—guided practice, and c) all student—practice and application. The article also states that scaffolding allows the teacher to “chunk” the assignment into smaller manageable parts while maintaining the integrity of the whole.

The fourth definition of scaffolding is “a ‘process’ that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts” (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976, p. 90). In the same article Wood, Bruner, and Ross describe the scaffolding process to have six key functions or strategies within the process:
1. recruitment – creating engagement of the learner
2. reduction in degrees of freedom – simplifying or narrowing the process
3. direction of maintenance – motivating student towards the goal
4. marking critical features – noting the relevant components of the task, like a rubric and interpreting discrepancies of correct and incorrect production
5. frustration control – providing assistance that creates a learning environment of less stress to the learner
6. demonstration – modeling task for student to emulate
To reach independence or have ownership of a task, Wood and his colleagues believed that students must have some ideas of how to solve the task before they can systematically solve or produce the task themselves.

The fifth definition of scaffolding is found in Vygotsky’s (1929) cultural-historical theory of psychological development, particularly in relation to cognitive development and the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky emphasized several components of scaffolding. The first component is collaboration between teacher or person of higher cognitive ability and the student to solve an issue or complete a task (Vygotsky, 1935). Vygotsky believed that interaction between the student and the teacher must involve a process of removing the scaffolds in order to allow the student to complete the assessed skill using his or her own abilities (as cited in Gredler, 2009). The second component is constantly asking the student to explain the task, these responses help students develop the ability to ask questions and explain concepts. The third component is constantly modeling and explaining tasks, teacher modeling of the ideal form should change to match the current maturation level of students (Vygotsky, 1934/2002). Vygotsky believed that instruction, in the form of teacher modeling, should take place just beyond the tasks that a student can accomplish on their own. The fourth component is assessment to find ideal instruction point or the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky proposed four strategies that teachers could use to scaffold assessment of student capabilities, which included (a) demonstrate how to complete a task and observe the student mirror this demonstration, (b) start a task and ask the student to complete the task, (c) ask the student to complete a task in collaboration with a higher functioning student, and (d) demonstrate metacognition in solving the task (Gredler, 2009). Vygotsky believed that each student has a unique ideal learning level that is based on past interactions of adults, peers, culture, and natural environment and biological factors.

With the previous in mind, a sixth definition of instructional scaffolding was developed “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).

References
Clark, K., & Graves, M. (2005). Scaffolding students’ comprehension of text. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 570-580. https://www.jstor.org/journal/readingteacher
Gredler, M. (2009). Learning and Instruction Theory into Practice. Upper Saddle Creek, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
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.
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.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Kozulin, A. (1935/2011). The dynamics of the schoolchild’s mental development in relation to teaching and learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 10(2), 198-211. http://ia-cep.org/journal/jcep
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.

Scaffolding Instruction

I enjoy the challenge of teaching students how to read and write.  Partly, because each student is unique in their instructional needs and this allows me to keep my mind active.  I was working with a student this past weekend, listening to him read and assisting him with words that were just beyond his ability to read independently.  Part of the challenge is that I am not sure what instruction he has received for the words just beyond his ability to read independently.  Some reading instruction teaches straight phonics, some teaches a blended or a combination of both phonics and whole word, and some teaches straight whole word.  And most teachers emphasize different parts or have different “tricks” from their past environmental interactions that they add to the curriculum to increase the absorption of the curriculum during instruction.  Which is part of the challenge that I enjoy. 

When he came upon a word that he couldn’t read, I listened to how he was “examining” or trying to figure the word out.  I learned that he does have some phonics training, in that he knows the sound of individual letters within the words.  I also learned that he probably does not know vowel blends.  I also learned that he probably does not know all of the different sounds that each letter can make depending on how the letters are placed within the word.  To confirm some of my observational notes, I asked him questions?  Some of the questions were related to the whole word, most were related to the individual letters and the possible sounds that each letter could make.  One question was, what sound does the letters “ow” make?  Another question was, what sound does this letter make?  To further confirm my analysis, I had him segment phonic words into individual letter sounds, like c / a / t.  This knowledge helped me to “scaffold” my instruction to meet his learning level needs. 

Scaffolding instruction means, “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).  I will further define this term in my next blog.

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

Structured Literacy Teacher, Instructional Knowledge

Structure Literacy Teacher (SLT) is a fairly new label, developed by the International Dyslexia Association (IDA), to describe the most effective form of instruction for students identified dyslexic.  This type of instruction is also effective for English Second Language (ESL) learners and for other students at-risk for literacy acquisition (Baker et al., 2014; Gersten et al., 2009).  Structured literacy instruction should include following instructional principles: 

  • systematic instruction, taught in logical order—builds upon prior knowledge
  • students should learn the foundational or prerequisite skills of the current lesson
  • explicit instruction, direct—clearly explained and teacher modeled
  • scaffolded instruction to match student abilities, providing exact temporary support
  • interactive discussions about the “new” task
  • multiple opportunities to practice the new task or skill
  • monitoring of student achievement through observation, interaction, and formal assessment

Structured literacy instruction includes six pillars or parts of literacy development—oral and written.  Structured literacy instruction should begin with Pillar 1, as each is dependent on the previous pillar(s).

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

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

Pillar 3 is syllable knowledge, the understanding of the different types of syllables.  Syllable knowledge increases the accuracy of language pronunciation and comprehension.  Syllable knowledge also increases student decoding and encoding skills.  The English language has six major types of syllables that are described in the following chart.

Type of syllable

Example

CVC

cat, log, bit, set, cut

Final e

kite, bone, bake, cute

Open

me, sky, be/gan, mu/sic, fe/ver

Vowel Diagraph

oi-soil, oil; ee-sleep, keep; ea-beat, leak; oa-boat, road; oo-zoom, smooth

r-controlled

ar-car, start; ir-girl, swirl; er-her, flower; ur-fur, burn; or-fork, corn 

Constant-le

marble, puddle, bugle, maple, little

Pillar 5 of structured literacy instruction is syntax or the study of sentence structure.  The principles that dictate the sequence and function of words in a sentence.  These principles are also referred to as the mechanics, grammar, and variation of a sentence. Pillar 4 is morphology that is the study of the smallest units of meaning or morphemes.  Morphology focuses on how parts of meaning fit together to form words and new meaning.  Word analysis helps students to learn the meaning(s) of morphemes and how the word parts conclude its meaning.  Word analysis also increases student background knowledge, which increases student ability to comprehend written passages. 

The more common parts of a sentence.

Parts of a sentence

Definition

Examples

Verb

describes the action

bark, ran, call, like

Adverb

modifies a verb, helps to clarify or further define a verb

warmly, quiet, loudly, today, outside

Noun

person, place or thing

house, dog, car, book

Adjective

modifies a noun, adjusts the meaning or further defines the noun to clarify meaning

beautiful, dark, old

Article

determiners, modifies and precedes a noun

a, an, the

Preposition

usually precedes a noun and in relation to another word in the clause

at, in, on, with, for, about, of, after

Conjunction

connecting words, they connect clauses and sentences

and, but, if

Pillar 6 of structured literacy is semantics or study of the meaning of words, symbols, and units of words.  A person’s lexicon stores the meaning of words, symbols, and units of words—vocabulary.  People begin to develop their lexicon at birth. Individuals attach meaning to tones of sound.  These meanings are adjusted as individuals are introduced to new tones or meanings.  Individuals transfer the meaning of tones (voice) to symbols (print) as they learn how to read and write.  To better understand words and groups of words teachers often use concept maps to examine the definition of a word.   Students identify the related synonyms and antonyms of the word.  Students often identify or attach pictures to a word or groups of words.  Semantics assist in attaching inferred meaning to written and oral verbiage.  Semantics can include morphology.

You can find details about becoming a certified Structured Literacy Teacher on the IDA website.

References

Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C.P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Kieffer, M.J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014).  Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012).  Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx.

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 (NCEE), Institute of education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.

 

Grouping Students for Instruction

Meeting the instructional needs of all students is a bit overwhelming!  There are some instructional approaches that can help teachers to better meet the challenge.  One approach is teaching students in small groups, 4 to 6 students.  Student groups can be developed using different formulas based on the intended outcome of the small group instruction.  Small groups allow for more “intimate” or one-on-one conversation that help you, the teacher form a better idea of their academic and social needs.  They also allow teachers to monitor and or scaffold student interactions, like collaboration or discussions.  Every student wants their voice heard; each student needs to learn how to listen to others.  Small group instruction gives the teacher opportunity to teach focused lessons that may include a new task or reteaching of a previous task.  Small group instruction also allows for the other groups of students to practice a task, new or old. 

Some of the reasons that I develop groups of students are to:

  • Develop social skills, usually 2-4 students
  • Group projects, can be efficient with 2-6 students depending on the project to be completed  
  • Learning level instruction—most classrooms will have 3-5 different learning levels for math and reading, 4-6 students, grouped by data
  • Reviewing
  • Introducing

When working with a new group of students, I often use different ways of building groups, such as student choice, drawing names, or numbering students.  When grouping students by ability to teach, I tend to focus on the data—current assessments and observations.  I usually ask the following questions when I group or regroup students.

  1. What is the activity?
  2. What should the final outcome look like?
  3. How will students react to the task?
  4. What is the learning level of students? Will they need help in completing the task?  Who would be most helpful to those needing assistance?  Not completing the task for them, but leading them to the completion of the task.
  5. Who will be here for the lesson? Most classrooms have students entering and exiting the classrooms throughout the day.
  6. How will students work together?
  7. How many “parts” to the task? I asked this question when grouping students for group projects. 

When grouping students remember that each group is growing and may need adjusting along the way.

Universal Screening

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

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

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

Table 1

Universal Screening Grade Level Timeline

 

Reading Skill

 Column A

Gersten et al., 2009

 Column B

Kashima et al., 2009

 Column C

Lam & McMaster, 2014

 Column D

NJCLD, 2011
 

Letter naming & fluency

  

Grade K-1

  

Grade K-1

  

Grade K-1

  

 
Phoneme segmentation Grade K-1 Grade K-1
Phonemic awareness

Nonsense fluency

  

Grade 1

 Grade K-3
Word identification Grade 1-2 Grade K-3
Oral reading fluency Grade 1-2 Grade 1 Grade K-3 Grade K-3
Sound repetition Grade K-1
Vocabulary Grade 1
Reading comprehension Grade 2-3 Grade K-3
Listening comprehension Grade 2-3 Grade K-3
Written expression Grade K-3
Basic reading skills Grade K-3
Oral expression Grade K-3

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

Other references

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

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

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

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Facebook
Twitter