The Literacy Brain

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.

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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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

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.

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.

The Need for Purposeful, Explicit Instruction of Phonological Awareness

Phonological awareness skills are the foundation of written literacy. Phonological awareness is “an awareness of various levels of speech sound system, such as syllables, accent patterns, rhyme, and phonemes” (Henry, p. 313). Students usually acquire most of their phonological awareness skills naturally through their environment. For most students, social interactions outside of the home environment stopped for more than a year. Students didn’t have the luxury of experiencing natural interactions with in their community. They were also not exposed to other “natural” environments, such vacation venues. Students lost the natural modeling of high-cognitive language and actions that usually takes place in their natural and extended environments. Students lost their natural venue to strengthen their lexicon and oral language skills. Most students did have access to technology that may have decreased the loss of oral language development. Students may have paid a higher price for oral language development through technology, as technology may have a negative impact on brain development. Dual language students may have suffered a greater loss, as they are missing the natural absorption of two languages. These natural social skills are the foundations for reading and comprehending written language. Many students may need to “catch-up” their oral language skills to learn how to effectively read and comprehend written words.

Phonological awareness can be taught purposefully during different types of instruction. Play is one kind of instruction that may boost social interaction and phonological awareness. The play may be unorganized or organized allows students to talk and explore different venues. Collaboration is another form of instruction that allows for social interaction. The collaboration might be students who are at the same learning levels or a higher and a lower student working together. Small group instruction lends to more explicit instruction that might focus on listening/hearing of sounds through learning letter sounds; isolating letter sounds within words; repeating dictated sounds, words, and sentences; listening for changes in rhyming or word families; listening for similar patterns within words; or encoding and decoding of words. Phonological awareness instruction should rely heavily on oral instruction.

References

Henry, M.K. (2010). Unlocking Literacy, Effective Decoding & Spelling instruction (2nd ed.) Baltimore: Brookes Pub.

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).

Evaluating Assessment—Why Are We Assessing?

Education will resemble a new normal, when we begin a new school year in the fall. This may be a good time to take a deep breath and evaluate how we assess students and use the gathered data. What are the current assessments at the school, district, state, and national levels? Can we combined some of those assessments to serve for multiple items? Can the data from some items be used for other items, but read differently? Does the time spent testing vs the number of hours spent learning make sense? Are we using the data gained from this assessment? There is a high possibility that more students may need extra time to learn and practice new skills this upcoming year. Students’ achievement rates will (mostly) remain a mystery until students return to in-class instruction. Some students may have thrived in their “new” learning environment and be on grade-level. Some students may be a grade or more below the grade-level standard. Some students might have struggled no matter the format or crazy interruptions. Many will need the instruction and practice time to catch-up.

One measurement that should remain is universal screening* of elementary school students (Grades K-8) for grade-level achievement. This battery of short probes gives a good first look at student achievement levels and may be used to progress monitor students as they move through the school year. The probes should be based on grade-level** benchmarks, such as Grade K, phonological awareness and letter-sound correspondences and Grade 1, phonological awareness, sound-letter correspondences, oral reading, etc. Universal screenings also provide a first look at students who may be need instructional supports or deeper assessing. Response to Intervention (RTI) tiers can be developed using universal screening data. Curriculum based assessments and observations can be used to increase the validity of universal screenings and to find students testing false-positive.

Students may test false-positive, meaning the student failed to show his true achievement level on test day—usually very few students. Some students will assess positive for signs of reading disabilities, but not have a reading disability. This may be due to: (a) lack of instruction, (b) lack of practice, (c) another illness-cold, (d) bad test taker, and or (e) their pet died. These students will become apparent as a false-positive during future instruction and observations and or through data of past assessments and observations. A short follow-up assessment may also resolve the false-positive score. Treat each student that tests positive for low-academic achievement and learning disabilities, as if they were until you determine the false-positive. Treating them as a positive for a short amount of time, one to four weeks, is better than ignoring the possibility. Student self-esteem is at stake. Some students will test at the borderline or right above the cut score and should be placed in a “watch” and observe mode to monitor their progression of grade-level instruction. Some students may have parental support to assist in working with them. Some students may have classmate or friend that can help them.

Kindergarteners usually arrive at all different levels. Some will need small group instruction, while others will need more intense instruction to bring them up to grade-level achievement. Students should leave Kindergarten with good foundational skills for learning how to read and write. Every kindergarten student should be able to write a sentence, know their letters-sound correspondences and be able to read a simple sentence before moving on to Grade 1. Many will be able to read short stories and write fluid sentences. Students not at grade-level will likely be in a catch-up mode throughout their academic career.

*Universal Screening: A series of short, easy-to-administer probes of 1-3 minutes used to determine those students who are at-risk for reading acquisition. Universal screening is usually administered school or district-wide three times a year. The 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 Grade Level Timeline (Ray, J., 2017).

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

References

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