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.

 

 

Teaching Word Syllabication

Dividing written words into syllables can be a complex, dauting journey. Teach the skill in baby steps or small pieces at a time. There are many different ways to teach students about dividing words into syllables. Teaching them in a manner that builds upon prior teaching or knowledge will increase student accusation of the skill.

Learning syllabication usually begins in pre-school through orally instruction. Educators teach students how to verbally separate words into syllables, using a clapping, tapping or stomping action to indicate each syllable. Typically, students learn how to divide written words into syllables as they begin to learn how to decode and encode written words. Students learn the more complex “rules” to divide written words into syllables as the words become more complex.

There are six major or more common word syllables in the English language. I have found the task of teaching students easier if the syllables types are taught in the following order: a) closed-CVC, b) final e, c) open, d) vowel diagraph, e) r-controlled, f) constant -le. Students tend to first learn about closed syllables through instruction of CVC words. These syllables have a short vowel sound and are always closed in by a consonant, like bat or sit. Instruction in the final e syllable usually follows instruction of closed syllables. The syllabication rules of closed and final e syllables are more stable, recognizable, and easier to retain. The third syllable type to be taught is the open syllable. Open syllables always have a long vowel sound and are not closed in by a constant, like the first syllable of mu/sic. Instruction of closed and open syllables will cover 70% of written words in the English language (Hennesy, 2022; White, 2022).

There are other stable syllable norms or rules that may help students in dividing written words into syllables. The first norm is compound words that may be divided between the two words, like camp/fire. The second norm is words with double constants of the same letter can be divided between the two double consonants, like bb (rab/bit). The third norm that may be followed is a syllable break may occur in a word that contains two different constants side-by-side, like nc (con/cept). This rule may be tricky to learn, as some double constants are letter blends or diagraphs that should not be separated, such as ch, th, fl, or str (constriction, authoritative, sunflower). The fourth norm is diphthongs or vowel teams that cannot be separated, like oa, ea in boatman or teacher. The fifth norm of syllabication is putting a syllable break just before or after an affix in a word, like pre/sort or read/ed. Affixes are morphemes that may be easier for students to spot. The sixth norm is that each syllable must include a vowel phoneme.

The following steps usually increase the retention of syllabication skills and decrease possible student anxiety in learning how to read.

  1. Find and underline all vowel phonemes of a word. Explain that words may have a single vowel or vowel teams that are pronounced with only one phoneme.
  2. Count the underlined vowel phonemes of the word. This is the number of syllables present in the word.
  3. Look for double constants. Are the double constants a constant diagraph or letter blend (spr, fl, sh) that cannot be separated? If not place a separation line through the two constants to show a syllable break.
  4. Look at the current syllables and what syllable breaks should still be made? Are there parts of the word that still have more than one vowel phoneme? Are there affixes that may help with where the next syllable break may need to be placed?
  5. Pronounce/encode the word – sound out each syllable, then blend the syllables together, and then fluently pronounce the word.
  6. Allow time for student(s) to practice and model the process.

Syllable breaks may be confirmed by reviewing the six syllable types and other general syllable break norms, such as compound words and affixes.

References

Hennesy, N. (2021). Making meaning of text: a structured framework for informed instruction. 2021 Annual IDA Reading, Literacy & Learning Conference.

White, N. (2021).  Continuum of decoding strategies: explicit__systematic—cumulative. 2021 Annual IDA Reading, Literacy & Learning Conference.

What is the importance of learning word syllables?

Typically, students will skip words that are not familiar to them. Often those who skip the unknown word(s) do not have the tools in their toolbox to decode the word(s). Some may know the names of the letter(s), but do not know the phonemes connected to the letters. Some may not know how to “chunk” portions of the unknown word. Not having this skill often impedes student comprehension of the written passage. Many students will stop trying to read the passage after failing to comprehend the passage. The possible embarrassment often shuts students down or they learn how to get around not knowing the necessary information about the word(s). This often leads to acting out or becoming silent with the hope of avoiding embarrassment. When students learn how to separate words into smaller more user-friendly chunks or syllables, they usually build confidence in being able to pronounce unknown words. This puts a tool or strategy into their personal tool box. This allows them to avoid possible embarrassment. This gives students the opportunity to move forward without the assistance of others-independence. This may also give them the confidence to assist other students. The tool usually leads to an increase in their academic achievement across all academics.

Students who have the skill of syllabication in their tool box benefit in multiple ways. One benefit is the increase of reading fluency. A second benefit, students are better able to focus on processing the meaning of groups of words, instead of how to pronounce the word. A third benefit of knowing how to decode written words into workable chunks is the increase of student spelling accuracy. A fourth benefit is passage comprehension. Most students comprehend orally at a higher level than they can read. Students use their knowledge of oral language to help them comprehend written words. A fifth benefit is the increase of student intrinsic motivation and decrease student mischief.

Students begin learning about syllables orally through “naturally” breaks in the pronunciation of a word. Students are often taught to clap for each syllable. This allows the student(s) to count the number of syllables in each word. Students usually move from oral division of words to learning about CVC written words, as they learn to read. CVC written words are pronounced phonetical with a short vowel sound. This is also when the study of morphonology becomes more prevalent, as the CVC words usually have their own meaning in which students can use to begin understanding the meaning of multisyllabic words. CVC words are known as closed syllables.

Students need time to practice this skill. Practice of the skill may take place during different points of instruction, such as purposeful small or whole group instruction, or independent study. Some students will need more “regular” moments (5-15 minutes) of review: warm-up or homework.

 

The Interactive Relationship of Letter Knowledge and Phonological Awareness in Learning How to Read

Learning the names and sounds of letters is one of the first steps in reading acquisition. Students often struggle with learning the letters of similar shapes before age four (Thompson, 2009; Molfese et al., 2006). Older students learn and recall letter names and sounds at a higher rate than younger students; older students often have higher cognitive skills. Thompson noted that students typically learn upper case letters before learning lower case letters because the letters classified as having “cross-case visual dissimilarity” are easier for younger students to learn (p. 58). Eight letters are classified as having this cross-case dissimilarity: Aa, Bb, Dd, Ee, Gg, Hh, Nn, and Rr. Learning the corresponding sounds to the letters can also be a challenge. Several studies have found that letter knowledge is related to a student’s phonological skills and cognitive abilities (Molfese et al., 2008; Leppänen, Aunola, Niemi, & Nurmi, 2008; Thompson, 2009). The higher a child’s cognitive processing skills are the higher his rate of letter acquisition. Leppänen et al. and Molfese et al. argued, respectively, that letter knowledge at the end of kindergarten is the best predictor of language skills in grade 4 and in grade 6.

Letter knowledge also involves the idea that each letter has one corresponding sound; some letters have up to three corresponding sounds. The letter sounds also change when the letters are combined with other letters to form words. The letter sounds and rules of letter sounds are part of phonological awareness, which includes a student’s ability to process letter sounds, rhyming words, and segmenting letters within words (Molfese et al., 2006). Phonological awareness is part of the dual route cognitive processing that changes letters into words. Phonological awareness level affects the ability of students to retain individual letter knowledge. Students who demonstrate low phonological awareness skills often need intervention to stay at grade level. However, these phonological awareness skills play a smaller part in reading as students get older. The transition begins

Socio-economic status (SES) can also impact letter knowledge skills for children. For example, children of low SES are usually at a disadvantage when they begin their formal education because they typically have had less exposure to written and spoken words. Parents of low SES are also less likely to have written material in their homes, and they are less likely to read to their children. Parents of low SES children typically have less formal education than parents of higher SES children. High phonological awareness skills will void the effects of lower SES (Nobel, Farah, & McCandliss, 2006).

Phonological awareness skills are more important during the early years of education when children are learning to read (Vaessen & Blomert, 2009). Earlier language skills often predict later phonological awareness skills (Peterson, Pennington, Shriberg, & Boada, 2009). The phonological processing skills of students also determine their rate of letter identification (Molfese et al., 2006). The reliance of students on phonological awareness skills often declines as their cognition develops, and proficient readers use their memory rather than the assistance of phonological awareness skills to decode written words.

Phonological awareness includes ability to process letter sounds, rhyming words, and segmenting letters within words (Molfese et al., 2006). Phonological awareness is a key cognitive function in learning how to read. Students use phonological awareness skills to process pseudo words or non-words, and they provide the rules and sounds of letters to sound out these words. Phonological awareness skills are often used for initially processing letters into words that are coded into memory for future use in reading fluency and reading comprehension. Students’ level of phonological awareness is often used as a predictor for later reading skills. High phonological awareness skills frequently void the effects of lower socioeconomic status (Nobel, Farah, & McCandliss, 2006). Low phonological awareness can also lead to diagnoses of developmental phonological dyslexia.

References

Leppänen, U., Aunola, K., Niemi, P., & Nurmi, J. (2008). Letter knowledge predicts grade 4 reading fluency and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 18, 548-564.

Molfese, V., Modglin, A., Beswick, J., Neamon, J., Berg, S., Berg, C., & Mohar, A. (2006). Letter knowledge, phonological processing, and print knowledge: Skill development in nonreading preschool children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(4), 296-305.

Noble, K., Farah, M. & McCandliss, B. (2006). Socioeconomic background modulates cognition-achievement relationships in reading. Cognitive Development, 21(3), 349-368.

Peterson, R., Pennington, B., Shriberg, L, & Boada, R. (2009). What influences literacy outcome in children with speech sound disorder? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 1175-1188.

Thompson, G. (2009). The long learning route to abstract letter units. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26(1), 50-69.

Vaessen, A, & Blomert, L. (2009). Long-term cognitive dynamics of fluent reading development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 213-231.

 

Grade or Objective-Based Student Report Card

The educational field in general is a challenging work setting. Most of challenge comes from the expansive variety of individuals that need to learn the same concepts. Each individual is unique and may need different tools to learn the same concept. Every classroom is different based on the variety of individuals present in that classroom. Every instructor is unique and brings different tools to their classroom in how to teach the particular concepts needed to be learned.  Every classroom usually has similar assignments and similar forms of instruction. How each of those tasks are evaluated maybe different. This makes the task of producing valid, fair report cards a challenging task. Fair meaning the student in question is being evaluated the same as every other student in your district or your state or across the United States. The discussion and struggles of how to produce valid evaluations will be debated till the end of time.

There are different types of student report cards, each are derived from different types of data.  One type is grade-based that uses the data of daily tasks or assignments related to the subject(s) being taught. This might include daily assignments or longer projects. A second piece of data that is usually included in a grade-based report card is assessments that were given based on current subject(s) within that scope of instruction. In some cases, the assessment outcomes may be curved to match the learning abilities of students in the class, which will be different for each class taking the same subject. In some cases, there might be extra credit added to the assessment that might be related or unrelated to the subject of assessment. In some cases, the assessments may include information that has not been taught or unrelated to the current focus of the exam. A third piece of data that might be included in a grade-based report card is student work ethic. This might be added in different ways. Points might be given for turning in the assignment no matter how its completed. Points might be given for being on task. Points might be given for extra credit, such as completing additional related tasks. Points might be given for writing your name and date correctly. Points might be given for turning in your signed paperwork or returned report card. Some of the same components are used to report objectives mastered on an objective-based report card.

A student report card based on objectives or ability may include some of the following components. One component might be teacher observation. A teacher uses his or her expert opinion to determine if a student is able to complete a task. A teacher might include student work ethic in their equation of determining student ability. Teachers often take anecdotal notes during the course of the day that may be used to assess student ability for reporting purposes. Anecdotal data might include personal traits, parts of tasks, knowledge of a particular skill, or possible scaffolds. A second component of objectives-based report cards might be instructional assignments. Assignments usually present a variety data that can be used to assess student ability. Is the student following directions? Can the student write a sentence or paragraph using the correct grammar and punctuation? Can the student comprehend what the task is asking them to do? Are they able to write legibly? Is the student able to summarize or reformulate information?  A third component might be formative data. Formative data includes any measurement that provides information to instructors on how to improve their teaching to increase student achievement. This might include a simple thumbs up, thumbs down or a deeper probe of how a student builds a sentence.

Grades based reporting shows an overall grade, but does not necessarily reveal student ability of a particular skill. Both types of reporting can be a valid source of student ability. Educators tend to focus on student objectives during the earlier years of education, PreK-Grade 5, when grade-based reporting begins. This is not a rigid timeline as each state, district, and school may use a different timeline of transition.

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

 

 

 

Why Include Morphology Analysis in Literacy Instruction?

Students usually benefit immensely from learning how to analysis morphemes—spelling, vocabulary, comprehension, and word memory. Students benefit across all subjects of education, as all subjects usually dictate that you must know how to read in order to successful pass each subject matter. Each subject contains words that are unique to that subject. Those words paint the picture(s) of that subject, such as in music-symbol, baritone, allegro or in math-adding, multiply, deduct. Research shows that teaching students about morphological awareness usually increases their ability to comprehend written passage(s) (Carlisle, McBride-Chang, Nagy, & Nunes, 2010). In the same article Carlisle, McBride-Chang, Nagy, & Nunes (2010) noted that learning how to analysis words or learning how to break down words into smaller units of meaning shows a strong correlation between morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge. What is morphology and when should educators begin formal instruction of morphology?

Morphology is the study of word formation. Words are single or a combination of morphemes. Morphemes are the smallest units of meaning. The different units of a word dictate its meaning, adding or subtracting different units of meaning help to fine tune its meaning. There are different types of morphemes that are used to orchestrate word meaning.

  • Unbound or free – These morphemes can stand alone and are usually the heart or base of a word. These are words like; spell, port, or graph.
  • Bound – These morphemes cannot stand alone. Bound morphemes are added to free morphemes and are generally referred to as affixes, like “ful”, “re”, “il”, “est” or “bi”.
  • Derivational – These morphemes change the meaning or direction of the word, such as hope, hopeless, hopelessly or hope, hopeful, hopefully.
  • Inflectional – These morphemes indicate a grammatical feature, such as numbers or a comparative. These morphemes are usually suffixes, like “s”, “ed”, or “ing”.

It is important to note that a vowel may function as a connector of meanings within a word, such as in therm + o + meter (Donah & White, 2017). There are others morphemes, such as conjunctions that serve as connectors of words within a sentence.

Students begin learning unconsciously about morphemes as they learn oral language. This is when they begin to add and subtract different morphemes (sounds) to form different words of meaning to better communicate their thoughts with other individuals. Students unconsciously build their vocabulary based on their environment. Some students may begin transferring their oral language knowledge to understand written words before they begin their primary school education. Most students are ready to begin discussing the analysis of word chemistry in kindergarten. The timeline will be different for each student. In most cases the student will begin the conversation about the spelling or different parts of word. Teachers might begin the conversation by asking questions about words that are familiar to that student or group of students, like “this” or “his”.

Studying the way morphemes interact, combine, and change the meaning of words seems like a daunting, laborious task that many students just assume avoid altogether. Addressing morphology in spontaneous and planned instruction may ease the task of learning the chemistry of words. Often students ask questions about words or groups of words that lend to the opportunity to have a “mini” word discussion. The depth of discussion about the question should be relevant to the learning level of student(s). Intentional instruction might be included throughout the instructional day within each subject of study. The when, how, and what of the lesson will be dependent on student ability or grade level. The format of planned instruction usually differs, taking into account time and student ability. Some lessons may last 5 minutes, others 30-45 minutes. Planned instruction might include metacognitive modeling, independent practice, small-group word exploration/collaboration, or interactive games. This is vocabulary or lexicon development and comprehension skill development, which are part of the foundational skills necessary to read and write effectively.

References

Carlisle, J.F., McBride-Chang, C., Nagy, W., & Nunes, T. (2010). Effects of

instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: an

integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 464-487.

https://doi.org/10.1598//RRQ.45.4.5.

Donah, S. & White, N.C. (2017). Morphemic awareness. International Dyslexia

Association Conference-Atlanta, GA.

Facebook
Twitter