Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction: Helping Every Child Succeed [6 ed.] 0134986881, 9780134986883
The most effective evidence-based, step-by-step strategies for reading assessment and instruction Strategies for Reading
2,577 114 36MB
English Pages 432 [428] Year 2019
Polecaj historie
![Styles and Strategies for Teaching Middle School Mathematics : 21 Techniques for Differentiating Instruction and Assessment [1 ed.]
9781452223117, 9781412968331](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/styles-and-strategies-for-teaching-middle-school-mathematics-21-techniques-for-differentiating-instruction-and-assessment-1nbsped-9781452223117-9781412968331.jpg)
![Every Child Ready for School : Helping Adults Inspire Young Children to Learn [1 ed.]
9780838996607, 9780838911259](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/every-child-ready-for-school-helping-adults-inspire-young-children-to-learn-1nbsped-9780838996607-9780838911259.jpg)
![Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction: Helping Every Child Succeed [6 ed.]
0134986881, 9780134986883](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/strategies-for-reading-assessment-and-instruction-helping-every-child-succeed-6nbsped-0134986881-9780134986883.jpg)
Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Brief Contents
Contents
About the Authors
Preface
Chapter 1 Strategic Reading Instruction
Introduction: How this Book is Organized
Putting It All Together: The Teaching and Learning Cycle
Background Briefing for Teachers: The Foundation Skills of Reading
Overview of the Evidence-Based Reading Foundations
When Are The Foundation Reading Skills Taught?
About The Common Core State Standards
Reading Assessment: The Basics
Principles of Reading Assessment
PRINCIPLE 1: ASSESSMENT INFORMS INSTRUCTION
PRINCIPLE 2: BE PREPARED: GATHER YOUR ASSESSMENT MATERIALS IN ADVANCE
PRINCIPLE 3: DOCUMENT STUDENTS’ GROWTH OVER TIME
The Four Purposes of Reading Assessment
Types of Reading Assessments Found in This Book
FORMATIVE READING ASSESSMENTS
SUMMATIVE READING ASSESSMENTS
CRITERION REFERENCED READING ASSESSMENTS
NORM-REFERENCED READING ASSESSMENTS
Characteristics of High Quality Reading Assessment
Reliability
Validity
Validity and Reliability in the Real World
Chapter 2 Response to Intervention (RTI): Differentiating Reading Instruction for All Readers
What Is RTI?
RTI as a Reading Safety Net
How Is RTI Implemented?
Implementing Effective Tier 1 Literacy Instruction
Essential Components of Evidence-Based Literacy Instruction
Essential Components of Standards-Based Literacy Instruction
Leading and Managing a Classroom Effectively
Establishing Classroom Routines
Systematic Instruction
Explicit Instruction
Implementing Effective Tier 2 Literacy Instruction: Triage in Classrooms
Small-Group Tier 2 Reading Instruction
Managing a Classroom When Implementing Tier 2 Instruction
Implementing Effective Tier 3 Literacy Instruction
“Outsourcing” Is Out
Chapter 3 Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy
Background Briefing for Teachers
Speaking and Listening in the Common Core State Standards
Expressive Language: Speaking and Oral Language Development
THEORIES OF ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
THE BIRTH OF ORAL LANGUAGE
THE PHASES OF ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
INFUSE ACADEMIC VOCABULARY INTO ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
EFFECTS OF POVERTY ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
CREATE LANGUAGE-RICH CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENTS
Receptive Language: Listening
Assessing Oral Language Development
Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) Assessment Using Technology
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
Informal Language Inventory
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
The Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Word Use Fluency Test
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
Picture Naming Test
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
Oral Language Checklist
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Assessing Listening Ability
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test/Expressive Vocabulary Test (English & Spanish versions)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Story Retelling Evaluation Guide: A Listening Comprehension Assessment
Summary of Oral Language and Listening Assessment Strategies
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile and an If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide
Teaching Strategies for Developing Oral Language and Listening
Alphaboxes
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Text Talk: Building Academic Vocabulary Using Online Resources
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Rule of Five: Improving Mean Length of Utterance (MLU)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Let’s Talk!
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
One Looks, One Doesn’t
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Poetry Potpourri (Appropriate for English Learners)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Storytelling
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Dialogic Reading
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Critical Dialogues
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Adapting Instruction for Those Who Struggle
Chapter 4 Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print
The Foundations of Early Literacy
Background Briefing for Teachers – Part I: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness
Background Briefing for Teachers – Part II: Letter Name Knowledge
Should We Teach a Letter a Week?
Not All Letters Are Created Equal! (Or Require The Same Amount of Instruction)
Allocated Instruction Time: Short is Sweet
Explicit Instruction is Key
Background Briefing for Teachers – Part III: Concepts about Print
Functions of Print
Mapping Speech onto Print
Technical Aspects of Print
Assessing Early Literacy Skills
Assessing Phonological Awareness
Same–Different Word Pair Task
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Syllable and Sound Counting Task
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Auditory Sound Blending Task
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Segmenting Sounds
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Dictation
Assesing Phonemic Awareness
Initial Consonant Sounds Assessment
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Blending Sounds Assessment
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Phonemic Segmentation Assessment
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Assessing Letter Name Knowledge
Letter Identification
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Letter Production Task
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Alphabet Knowledge Test (AKT)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Assessing Applications for Early Literacy Instruction
Assessing Children’s Concepts about Print
Concepts About Print Test
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Mow Motorcycle Task
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile and an if-then Chart for Early Reading Skills
Instructional Strategies for Teaching Phonological and Phonemic Awareness
Grab the Odd One Out
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Word Rubber Banding
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Picture Box Sound Counting (Elkonin Boxes)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Sing It Out
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Instructional Strategies for Teaching Letter Name Knowledge
The Sounds Rhythm Band
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Highlighting Letters Strategy
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Reading Published Alphabet Books
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
English Language Learners: Letter Name and Sound Mnemonics
Standard: No Specific Standards Offered
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Planning Explicit Alphabet Letter Knowledge Lessons
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Instructional Strategies for Helping Students Learn Concepts about Print
The Language Experience Approach: Working with English-first and English Language Learners
PURPOSE
MATERIALS NEEDED FOR A GROUP EXPERIENCE CHART
PROCEDURE FOR A GROUP EXPERIENCE CHART
MATERIALS NEEDED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE STORY
PROCEDURE FOR INDIVIDUAL LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE STORY
Voice Pointing
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Verbal Punctuation
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
E Books: Using Technology to Teach Concepts About Print
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Chapter 5 Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills
Background Briefing for Teachers
Phonics and the State Core Standards
Research on Phonics
The Need for Explicit and Systematic Phonics Instruction
Approaches to Phonics Instruction
Phonics Students Must Know
Letter Names and Sounds
Common Rules Governing Letter Sounds
THE C RULE
THE G RULE
THE CVC GENERALIZATION
VOWEL DIGRAPHS
THE VCE FINAL E GENERALIZATION
THE CV GENERALIZATION
R-CONTROLLED VOWELS
Special Consonant Rules
SINGLE CONSONANTS
CONSONANT DIGRAPHS, TRIGRAPHS, AND SILENT LETTER COMBINATIONS
INITIAL CONSONANT BLENDS OR “CLUSTERS”
DOUBLE CONSONANTS
PH AND THE /F/ SOUND
Special Vowel Rules
VOWEL DIGRAPHS OR “TEAMS”
SCHWA / ∂/
DIPHTHONGS
Y RULES
Other Phonics they use
Segmenting and Blending Sounds
Syllabication
Onset and Rime: Word Families
Body and Coda (Word “Chunks”)
Structural Analysis
High-Frequency or “Sight” Words
What Does A Good Decoding Program Look Like?
Assessing Students’ Decoding and Word Recognition
The Early? Names Test
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
The Starpoint Phonics Assessment (SPA)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
The Consortium on Reading Excellence (CORE) Phonics Survey 2nd Edition Section II, Decoding Skills (ESL Assessment)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Running Records
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
UNDERSTANDING MISCUES USING MSV ANALYSIS
THE MISCUE GRID: AN EFFICIENT RUNNING RECORDS SCHEME
ANALYZING RUNNING RECORDS USING A MISCUE GRID: MISCUE COUNTING AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
IMPLEMENTING RUNNING RECORDS: A SELF-EVALUATION RUBRIC
Assessing Sight Word Recognition: Thorndike-Lorge Magazine Count High Frequency Word List
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Assessing Sight Word Recognition: Zeno 107 High Frequency Word List
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
San Diego Quick Reading Assessment: Assessing Word Recognition for Placing Students in Text
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile
Connecting Assessment Findings to Teaching Strategies
Teaching Strategies: Helping Students Increase Decoding and Word Recognition
Adapting Decoding and Word Recognition Instruction for English Learners
Adaptations and Modification of Decoding and Word Recognition Instruction for English Learners (Spanish)
A Framework for Phonics Instruction
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Sequential Segmenting Strategy
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Hierarchical Segmenting
Sequential Blending Strategy for Single-Syllable Words
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Hierarchical Blending
Spelling in Parts (SIP)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Sound Swirl
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Word Boxes (Elkonin Boxes)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
The Drastic Strategy
PURPOSE
Using Technology to Teach Decoding and Word Recognition
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
Chapter 6 Reading Fluency
Background Briefing for Teachers
What is Fluency?
Fluency and the Common Core State Standards
Assessing Children’s Reading Fluency
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) Test (Grades 1.5 and Up)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
One-Minute of Reading Test Plus Prosody
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Analysis of the 1 Minute of Oral Reading
Components of Fluency Assessment
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile
Connecting Assessment Findings to Teaching Strategies
Developing Reading Fluency for Each Student
Oral Recitation Lesson
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Fluency-Oriented Reading Instruction
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Repeated Readings
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Assisted and Partner Reading
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Readers’ Theater
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Radio Reading
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Scaffolded Silent Reading (ScSR)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Explicit Fluency Instruction
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Neurological Impress Method
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
English Language Learners
Closed-Caption Television
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Read Naturally®
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURES
Choral Reading
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
PRETEACHING PREPARATIONS
TEACHING STUDENTS HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN WHOLECLASS CHORAL READING STRATEGY STEPS: MONDAY
TEACHER EVALUATION: CHORAL READING
Chapter 7 Reading Vocabulary
Background Briefing for Teachers
There Are Four Types of Vocabulary To Be Learned
Morphology
Levels of Vocabulary Learning
How Students Learn New Vocabulary
Reading Vocabulary and State Standards
Assessing Students’ Vocabulary Knowledge and Needs
Interactive Highlighting of Unknown Vocabulary (Real Time Technology)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Oral Reading Assessment
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Vocabulary Definition
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Word Map
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Multiple Dimensions of Word Knowledge
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Cloze Test (Modified for Academic Vocabulary Assessment)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
HOW DOES THIS PROCESS DIFFER FROM A TRADITIONAL CLOZE PASSAGE?
Maze Test
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile and an If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide
Connecting Assessment Findings to Teaching Strategies
Teaching Strategies for Vocabulary Development
Word Walls
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
OTHER POPULAR WORD WALL ACTIVITIES
Five-Step Method
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Making Words (Modified for Academic Vocabulary)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Frayer Model
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Vocabulary Cluster: English Learners
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Vocabulary Bingo!
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Think-Pair-Share
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Decent Stories
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Chapter 8 Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts
Background Briefing for Teachers
What Research Says About Reading Comprehension
DIRECT EXPLANATION AND TRANSACTIONAL STRATEGY INSTRUCTION
NARRATIVE TEXT FEATURES AND STRUCTURE
A WORD ABOUT STATE STANDARDS AND NARRATIVE TEXT READING
Assessing Students’ Narrative Text Comprehension
Bloom’s Question Stems and Question Verbs
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURES
The Reading Strategy Use Scale (Modified)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Flynt/Cooter Reading Attitude Survey (Motivation)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURES
Self-Regulation Questionnaire—Reading Motivation
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Predictability Log (English Learners)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Social Collaboration Performance Outcome Evaluation
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Oral Story Retellings: Knowledge of Narrative Text Structure
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Story Grammar Map Assessment
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Reading Retelling Record (R3)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Click or Clunk: Assessment and/or RTI Strategy
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Narrative Pyramid
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Anecdotal Records: Technology Tools
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Digital Management Systems: E-Portfolios
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Using Student Assessment Data To Guide Instruction: If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide
Teaching Strategies: Narrative Reading Comprehension
Joint Productive Activity (JPA): Cooperative Learning and/or Response to Intervention (RTI)
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Story Grammar Instruction
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Graphic Organizers: Seeing the Structure of Stories
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Schema Stories: Using Story Structure Knowledge to Guide Text Comprehension
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Question–Answer Relationships (QAR): Answering Questions about Narrative Texts
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Summary Writing: Focus on Close Reading of Text
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Reciprocal Teaching (RT) – Narrative Text Application
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Directed Reading–Thinking Activity (DR-TA):
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
K-W-L Strategy
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Yarning Circles (English Learners): Background Knowledge, Motivation, and Close Reading
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Singing Routine: Technology
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Chapter 9 Teaching with Informational Texts
Background Briefing for Teachers
Informational Text: A Tale of Neglect
Increased Informational Text Reading in Today’s Society
Preparing the Reader to Successfully Read Increasingly Complex Informational Texts
What Makes Informational Texts Challenging?
Vocabulary
Sentence Structure
Coherence
Absence of Explicit Text Features
Implicit Text Structure or Organization
Reader, Text, and Task Considerations
Assessing Informational Text Comprehension
Assessing Comprehension of Informational Text
Modified Informational Text Reading Strategy Use Scale
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Modified Meta-comprehension Strategy Index
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
Motivation for Reading Questionnaire, Revised Version
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Student Reading Interest Survey
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Individual and Group Self-Assessment of Interactions with Informational Text
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Question– Answer Relationships (QARs): Author and Me and On My Own
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Assessing Comprehension of Informational Text: The Text
Informational Text Oral Retellings
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Text Frames to Assess Comprehension of Informational Text
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Informational Text Structure Assessment: Selecting a Graphic Organizer
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Question– Answer Relationships (QARs): Right There, Think and Search
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Assessing Text Complexity: Text Reader Match
Connecting Assessment Findings to Informational Text: Comprehension Instructional Strategies
Connecting Assessment Findings to Teaching Strategies
Strategies for Teaching Comprehension of Informational Texts Focusing on the Reader
Comprehension Process Motions: Engaging Movements to Promote Primary Grade Comprehension
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Building Students’ Background Knowledge
The Picture Walk
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Think-Pair-Share: Readers Collaborate to Comprehend
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Focusing on the Text
Becoming a Word Detective
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Graphic Organizers: Visual Representation of Informational Text Structures
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Close Reading of Informational Texts
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Increasing Text Complexity
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Teaching Informational Text: Comprehension Instruction Focused on the Task
Question Answering
Question–Answer Relationships: Answering Questions about Text—Text-Dependent Questions
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Question Generation
Elaborative Interrogation
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Retelling
Informational Text Oral Retellings
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Multiple Strategy Instruction
Reciprocal Teaching
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
English Language Learners
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Collaborative Strategic Reading: Helping Students Who Struggle
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Chapter 10 Extending our Reach: Summer Learning Loss, Family Involvement, and Professional Learning Communities
How are the Kids Doing?
A Call to Action
Professional Learning Communities
What Effective PLCs Look Like
Addressing Summer Learning Loss
Why American Schools Have Summer Vacation
What’s Wrong With Summer Vacation?
Why Low-Income Students Suffer More Summer Learning Loss
Why Preventing Summer Learning Loss Is Difficult In America
Ways To Reverse Summer Learning Loss
Summer Programs Sponsored by Public Libraries
Summer Programs and Resources Sponsored by Non-Profit Organizations
Getting Families More Involved
How Teachers Can Set The Stage
Easy Strategies For Parents To Use
In Conclusion . . .
References
Name Index
Subject Index
Citation preview
Untitled-1 1
28/11/18 8:05 PM
Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction: Helping Every Child Succeed
This page intentionally left blank
A01_THOM6233_05_SE_WALK.indd 9
1/13/17 6:50 PM
Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction: Helping Every Child Succeed Sixth Edition
D. Ray Reutzel University of Wyoming
Robert B. Cooter, Jr. Bellarmine University
Director and Publisher: Kevin Davis Portfolio Manager: Drew Bennett Managing Content Producer: Megan Moffo Content Producer: Yagnesh Jani Portfolio Management Assistant: Maria Feliberty Managing Digital Producer: Autumn Benson Digital Studio Producer: Lauren Carlson Digital Development Editor: Carolyn Schweitzer Executive Product Marketing Manager: Krista Clark Procurement Specialist: Deidra Headlee Cover Design: Pearson CSC, Jerilyn Bockorick Cover Art: FatCamera/Getty Images Full Service Vendor: Pearson CSC Full Service Project Management: Pearson CSC, Editorial Project Manager: Pearson CSC, Maria Piper Printer-Binder: Kendallville Offset Cover Printer: Kendallville Offset Text Font: PalatinoLTPro-Roman Copyright © 2019, 2015, 2011, 2003 by Pearson Education, Inc. 221 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Permissions Department, 501 Boylston Street, Suite 900, Boston, MA 02116 or fax your request to 617-671-2290. Between the time website information is gathered and then published, it is not unusual for some sites to have closed. Also, the transcription of URLs can result in typographical errors. The publisher would appreciate notification where these errors occur so that they may be corrected in subsequent editions. U.S. Postal Service: Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Program 101 Independence Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20540-4283 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Reutzel, D. Ray (Douglas Ray), 1953- author. | Cooter, Robert B., author. Title: Strategies for reading assessment and instruction in the Common Core era / D. Ray Reutzel and Robert B. Cooter, Jr. Description: [Sixth edition] | Boston, MA : Pearson, [2019] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018041384 | ISBN 9780134986883 Subjects: LCSH: Reading. | Reading--Remedial teaching. | Child development. | Common Core State Standards (Education) | Education--Standards--United States. Classification: LCC LB1050 .R477 2019 | DDC 372.4—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018041384
ISBN-10: 0-13-498688-1 ISBN-13: 978-0-13-498688-3 www.pearsonhighered.com
For the many teachers, reading coaches, students, and professional colleagues who have given me far more than I have given them. Thank you for sharing your challenges so that we could work on them together! —DRR For all the small children for whom school is a place of hope. —RBC
This page intentionally left blank
A01_THOM6233_05_SE_WALK.indd 9
1/13/17 6:50 PM
Brief Contents Preface
1 Strategic Reading Instruction
xix
1
2 Response to Intervention (RTI):
Differentiating Reading Instruction for All Readers
3 Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy
5 Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills
178
7 Reading Vocabulary
211
8 Reading Comprehension: 14 33
Narrative Texts
9 Teaching with Informational Texts
240 289
10 Extending our Reach: Summer
Learning Loss, Family Involvement, and Professional Learning Communities 352
4 Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print
6 Reading Fluency
68 118
References
364
Name Index
386
Subject Index
393
vii
This page intentionally left blank
A01_THOM6233_05_SE_WALK.indd 9
1/13/17 6:50 PM
Contents Preface
1 Strategic Reading Instruction
xix
1
1 Putting It All Together: The Teaching and Learning Cycle 2 Background Briefing for Teachers: The Foundation Skills of Reading Overview of the Evidence-Based Reading Foundations When Are The Foundation Reading Skills Taught? About The Common Core State Standards
4 4 6 7
Reading Assessment: The Basics Principles of Reading Assessment
7 7
8 9
FORMATIVE READING ASSESSMENTS
34
THE BIRTH OF ORAL LANGUAGE THE PHASES OF ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT INFUSE ACADEMIC VOCABULARY INTO ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
Assessing Oral Language Development Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) Assessment Using Technology
38 39 39
MATERIALS
CRITERION REFERENCED READING ASSESSMENTS
Informal Language Inventory
NORM-REFERENCED READING ASSESSMENTS
Characteristics of High Quality Reading Assessment Reliability Validity
11 11 12
Validity and Reliability in the Real World
12
41
PURPOSE MATERIALS
The Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM)
41
PURPOSE MATERIALS
2 Response to Intervention (RTI):
Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy
43
PURPOSE
14
What Is RTI? RTI as a Reading Safety Net
15 16
How Is RTI Implemented?
18
Implementing Effective Tier 1 Literacy Instruction Essential Components of Evidence-Based Literacy Instruction Essential Components of Standards-Based Literacy Instruction Leading and Managing a Classroom Effectively Establishing Classroom Routines Systematic Instruction Explicit Instruction
19
“Outsourcing” Is Out
34
PURPOSE
SUMMATIVE READING ASSESSMENTS
Implementing Effective Tier 3 Literacy Instruction
33
THEORIES OF ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
Receptive Language: Listening
PRINCIPLE 3: DOCUMENT STUDENTS’ GROWTH OVER TIME
Implementing Effective Tier 2 Literacy Instruction: Triage in Classrooms Small-Group Tier 2 Reading Instruction Managing a Classroom When Implementing Tier 2 Instruction
Background Briefing for Teachers Speaking and Listening in the Common Core State Standards Expressive Language: Speaking and Oral Language Development
33
CREATE LANGUAGE-RICH CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENTS
PRINCIPLE 2: BE PREPARED: GATHER YOUR ASSESSMENT MATERIALS IN ADVANCE
Differentiating Reading Instruction for All Readers
The Foundation of Literacy
EFFECTS OF POVERTY ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
PRINCIPLE 1: ASSESSMENT INFORMS INSTRUCTION
The Four Purposes of Reading Assessment Types of Reading Assessments Found in This Book
3 Oral Language and Listening:
19 20 23 24 25 25 27 27 29 30 31
MATERIALS
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Word Use Fluency Test
46
PURPOSE MATERIALS
Picture Naming Test
47
PURPOSE MATERIALS
Oral Language Checklist
48
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Assessing Listening Ability The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test/Expressive Vocabulary Test (English & Spanish versions)
49 49
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Story Retelling Evaluation Guide: A Listening Comprehension Assessment Summary of Oral Language and Listening Assessment Strategies
50 52
ix
x Contents Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile and an If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide
53
Teaching Strategies for Developing Oral Language and Listening Alphaboxes
53 55
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Text Talk: Building Academic Vocabulary Using Online Resources
56
PURPOSE MATERIALS
Background Briefing for Teachers – Part III: Concepts about Print Functions of Print Mapping Speech onto Print Technical Aspects of Print
72 73 73 74
Assessing Early Literacy Skills
75
Assessing Phonological Awareness Same–Different Word Pair Task
77 77
MATERIALS
57
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
Syllable and Sound Counting Task
MATERIALS
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
MATERIALS
Let’s Talk!
58
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
MATERIALS
59
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
MATERIALS
60
PURPOSE PROCEDURE
Storytelling
62
PROCEDURE
81 81
82
PURPOSE
64
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
PURPOSE
Phonemic Segmentation Assessment
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
84
PURPOSE
65
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
PURPOSE
Assessing Letter Name Knowledge Letter Identification
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Adapting Instruction for Those Who Struggle
80
PURPOSE
Blending Sounds Assessment
MATERIALS
Critical Dialogues
Dictation
MATERIALS
PURPOSE
Dialogic Reading
79
PROCEDURE
Assesing Phonemic Awareness Initial Consonant Sounds Assessment
MATERIALS
78
PROCEDURE
Segmenting Sounds PURPOSE
Poetry Potpourri (Appropriate for English Learners)
77
PROCEDURE
Auditory Sound Blending Task PURPOSE
One Looks, One Doesn’t
71 72 72
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
Rule of Five: Improving Mean Length of Utterance (MLU)
Not All Letters Are Created Equal! (Or Require The Same Amount of Instruction) Allocated Instruction Time: Short is Sweet Explicit Instruction is Key
67
86 86
PURPOSE MATERIALS
4 Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print
PROCEDURE
Letter Production Task MATERIALS
68
The Foundations of Early Literacy
68
Background Briefing for Teachers – Part I: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness
69
Background Briefing for Teachers – Part II: Letter Name Knowledge Should We Teach a Letter a Week?
87
PURPOSE PROCEDURE
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Alphabet Knowledge Test (AKT) 70 71
87
PURPOSE
PURPOSE MATERIALS
89
Contents xi PROCEDURE
Assessing Applications for Early Literacy Instruction Assessing Children’s Concepts about Print Concepts About Print Test
92 94 94
Instructional Strategies for Helping Students Learn Concepts about Print The Language Experience Approach: Working with English-first and English Language Learners
PURPOSE
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
MATERIALS NEEDED FOR A GROUP EXPERIENCE CHART
PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE FOR A GROUP EXPERIENCE CHART
Mow Motorcycle Task
95
PURPOSE
113
PURPOSE MATERIALS
96 101 101
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
Verbal Punctuation
PROCEDURE
114
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
E Books: Using Technology to Teach Concepts About Print
MATERIALS
Word Rubber Banding
MATERIALS NEEDED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE STORY
Voice Pointing
PROCEDURE
Instructional Strategies for Teaching Phonological and Phonemic Awareness Grab the Odd One Out
110
PROCEDURE FOR INDIVIDUAL LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE STORY
MATERIALS
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile and an if-then Chart for Early Reading Skills
109
116
PURPOSE
102
PURPOSE
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Picture Box Sound Counting (Elkonin Boxes)
102
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Sing It Out
104
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Instructional Strategies for Teaching Letter Name Knowledge The Sounds Rhythm Band
104 104
PURPOSE
105
PURPOSE
Background Briefing for Teachers Phonics and the State Core Standards Research on Phonics The Need for Explicit and Systematic Phonics Instruction Approaches to Phonics Instruction
121 121
Phonics Students Must Know Letter Names and Sounds Common Rules Governing Letter Sounds
121 122 123
THE CVC GENERALIZATION VOWEL DIGRAPHS THE CV GENERALIZATION
PROCEDURE
106
PURPOSE
R-CONTROLLED VOWELS
Special Consonant Rules CONSONANT DIGRAPHS, TRIGRAPHS, AND SILENT LETTER COMBINATIONS
PROCEDURE
INITIAL CONSONANT BLENDS OR “CLUSTERS”
106 106
PURPOSE
DOUBLE CONSONANTS PH AND THE /F/ SOUND
Special Vowel Rules
MATERIALS
VOWEL DIGRAPHS OR “TEAMS”
PROCEDURE
SCHWA / ∂ /
Planning Explicit Alphabet Letter Knowledge Lessons 108 MATERIALS PROCEDURE
124
SINGLE CONSONANTS
MATERIALS
PURPOSE
118 118 119
THE VCE FINAL E GENERALIZATION
MATERIALS
English Language Learners: Letter Name and Sound Mnemonics Standard: No Specific Standards Offered
118
THE G RULE
PROCEDURE
Reading Published Alphabet Books
Recognition Skills
THE C RULE
MATERIALS
Highlighting Letters Strategy
5 Phonics, Decoding and Word
126
DIPHTHONGS Y RULES
Other Phonics they use Segmenting and Blending Sounds
127 127
xii Contents Syllabication Onset and Rime: Word Families Body and Coda (Word “Chunks”) Structural Analysis High-Frequency or “Sight” Words
128 128 130 130 130
What Does A Good Decoding Program Look Like?
131
Assessing Students’ Decoding and Word Recognition The Early? Names Test
132 132
PURPOSE MATERIALS
135
PURPOSE PROCEDURE
161
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Hierarchical Segmenting Sequential Blending Strategy for Single-Syllable Words
164 165
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
167 169
MATERIALS
137
PROCEDURE
Sound Swirl
171
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
138
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
Word Boxes (Elkonin Boxes)
171
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE
UNDERSTANDING MISCUES USING MSV ANALYSIS THE MISCUE GRID: AN EFFICIENT RUNNING RECORDS SCHEME ANALYZING RUNNING RECORDS USING A MISCUE GRID: MISCUE COUNTING AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS IMPLEMENTING RUNNING RECORDS: A SELF-EVALUATION RUBRIC
Assessing Sight Word Recognition: Thorndike-Lorge Magazine Count High Frequency Word List
Sequential Segmenting Strategy
PURPOSE
PURPOSE
Running Records
PROCEDURE
Hierarchical Blending Spelling in Parts (SIP)
MATERIALS
The Consortium on Reading Excellence (CORE) Phonics Survey 2nd Edition Section II, Decoding Skills (ESL Assessment)
MATERIALS
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
The Starpoint Phonics Assessment (SPA)
PURPOSE
The Drastic Strategy
173
PURPOSE
Using Technology to Teach Decoding and Word Recognition
174
PURPOSE
150
MATERIALS
PURPOSE MATERIALS
6 Reading Fluency
PROCEDURE
Assessing Sight Word Recognition: Zeno 107 High Frequency Word List
151
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
San Diego Quick Reading Assessment: Assessing Word Recognition for Placing Students in Text
152
Background Briefing for Teachers
178
What is Fluency? Fluency and the Common Core State Standards
179 181
Assessing Children’s Reading Fluency DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) Test (Grades 1.5 and Up)
182
PURPOSE
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile Connecting Assessment Findings to Teaching Strategies Teaching Strategies: Helping Students Increase Decoding and Word Recognition Adapting Decoding and Word Recognition Instruction for English Learners Adaptations and Modification of Decoding and Word Recognition Instruction for English Learners (Spanish) A Framework for Phonics Instruction
178
182
PROCEDURE
One-Minute of Reading Test Plus Prosody 154
183
PURPOSE MATERIALS
156
PROCEDURE
Analysis of the 1 Minute of Oral Reading 157
184
PURPOSE MATERIALS
158
PROCEDURE
Components of Fluency Assessment PURPOSE
158 160
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
185
Contents xiii
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile Connecting Assessment Findings to Teaching Strategies Developing Reading Fluency for Each Student Oral Recitation Lesson
188 188 191 191
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Fluency-Oriented Reading Instruction
193
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Repeated Readings
194
PURPOSE MATERIALS
195
PURPOSE
196
PURPOSE
218
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
219
PROCEDURE
220
MATERIALS
198
PROCEDURE
Multiple Dimensions of Word Knowledge
PURPOSE
222
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
199
PROCEDURE
Cloze Test (Modified for Academic Vocabulary Assessment)
PURPOSE MATERIALS
223
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
203
PURPOSE
MATERIALS PROCEDURE HOW DOES THIS PROCESS DIFFER FROM A TRADITIONAL CLOZE PASSAGE?
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
204 204
PURPOSE
Maze Test
225
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
205
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURES
Choral Reading
PROCEDURE
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
Read Naturally®
217
MATERIALS
Word Map
MATERIALS
English Language Learners Closed-Caption Television
214
MATERIALS
197
PURPOSE
Neurological Impress Method
212 212 212 213 213 214
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
Explicit Fluency Instruction
Assessing Students’ Vocabulary Knowledge and Needs Interactive Highlighting of Unknown Vocabulary (Real Time Technology)
Vocabulary Definition
MATERIALS
Scaffolded Silent Reading (ScSR)
Background Briefing for Teachers There Are Four Types of Vocabulary To Be Learned Morphology Levels of Vocabulary Learning How Students Learn New Vocabulary Reading Vocabulary and State Standards
211
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
Radio Reading
7 Reading Vocabulary
Oral Reading Assessment
MATERIALS
Readers’ Theater
TEACHER EVALUATION: CHORAL READING
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
Assisted and Partner Reading
TEACHING STUDENTS HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN WHOLECLASS CHORAL READING STRATEGY STEPS: MONDAY
206
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile and an If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide Connecting Assessment Findings to Teaching Strategies
226
Teaching Strategies for Vocabulary Development Word Walls
227 228
PURPOSE
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE
PRETEACHING PREPARATIONS
OTHER POPULAR WORD WALL ACTIVITIES
227
xiv Contents Five-Step Method
231
Predictability Log (English Learners)
PURPOSE
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE
Making Words (Modified for Academic Vocabulary)
232
Social Collaboration Performance Outcome Evaluation 253
PURPOSE
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE
Frayer Model
233
PURPOSE
Oral Story Retellings: Knowledge of Narrative Text Structure
MATERIALS
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
MATERIALS
Vocabulary Cluster: English Learners
234
PURPOSE
235
PURPOSE
236
PURPOSE
238
PURPOSE
261
PURPOSE
240 241
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Digital Management Systems: E-Portfolios
264
PURPOSE
241
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Using Student Assessment Data To Guide Instruction: If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide
NARRATIVE TEXT FEATURES AND STRUCTURE A WORD ABOUT STATE STANDARDS AND NARRATIVE TEXT READING
243 243
PURPOSE
Teaching Strategies: Narrative Reading Comprehension Joint Productive Activity (JPA): Cooperative Learning and/or Response to Intervention (RTI)
264 266 266
PURPOSE MATERIALS
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
PROCEDURES
247
PURPOSE
Story Grammar Instruction
268
PURPOSE MATERIALS
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE
249
PURPOSE
Graphic Organizers: Seeing the Structure of Stories
269
PURPOSE MATERIALS
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
PROCEDURES
Self-Regulation Questionnaire—Reading Motivation
260
PROCEDURE
Anecdotal Records: Technology Tools
DIRECT EXPLANATION AND TRANSACTIONAL STRATEGY INSTRUCTION
Flynt/Cooter Reading Attitude Survey (Motivation)
PROCEDURE
Narrative Pyramid MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
The Reading Strategy Use Scale (Modified)
259
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
Assessing Students’ Narrative Text Comprehension Bloom’s Question Stems and Question Verbs
PROCEDURE
Click or Clunk: Assessment and/or RTI Strategy MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Background Briefing for Teachers What Research Says About Reading Comprehension
257
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
Narrative Texts
PROCEDURE
Reading Retelling Record (R3) MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
8 Reading Comprehension:
256
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
Decent Stories
PROCEDURE
Story Grammar Map Assessment MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Think-Pair-Share
254
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
Vocabulary Bingo!
252
249
Schema Stories: Using Story Structure Knowledge to Guide Text Comprehension
PURPOSE
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE
274
Contents xv
Question–Answer Relationships (QAR): Answering Questions about Narrative Texts
275
Motivation for Reading Questionnaire, Revised Version
PURPOSE
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
Summary Writing: Focus on Close Reading of Text
PROCEDURE
277
Student Reading Interest Survey
PURPOSE
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE PURPOSE PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE
Question– Answer Relationships (QARs): Author and Me and On My Own
MATERIALS
284
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
PURPOSE
Assessing Comprehension of Informational Text: The Text Informational Text Oral Retellings
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
285
MATERIALS
PURPOSE PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE
286
Text Frames to Assess Comprehension of Informational Text
PURPOSE
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
MATERIALS
312
PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE
289
Background Briefing for Teachers Informational Text: A Tale of Neglect Increased Informational Text Reading in Today’s Society Preparing the Reader to Successfully Read Increasingly Complex Informational Texts What Makes Informational Texts Challenging? Vocabulary Sentence Structure Coherence Absence of Explicit Text Features Implicit Text Structure or Organization Reader, Text, and Task Considerations
289 290
Assessing Informational Text Comprehension
297
Assessing Comprehension of Informational Text Modified Informational Text Reading Strategy Use Scale
297
290 291 292 292 293 293 294 295 296
Informational Text Structure Assessment: Selecting a Graphic Organizer
313
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Question– Answer Relationships (QARs): Right There, Think and Search 316 PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Assessing Text Complexity: Text Reader Match Connecting Assessment Findings to Informational Text: Comprehension Instructional Strategies Connecting Assessment Findings to Teaching Strategies
317 322 323
Strategies for Teaching Comprehension of Informational Texts Focusing on the Reader 323 Comprehension Process Motions: Engaging Movements to Promote Primary Grade Comprehension 323 PURPOSE
297
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
PURPOSE
Building Students’ Background Knowledge The Picture Walk
MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Modified Meta-comprehension Strategy Index
310 310
MATERIALS
PURPOSE
9 Teaching with Informational Texts
308
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
Singing Routine: Technology
306
MATERIALS
281
PURPOSE
Yarning Circles (English Learners): Background Knowledge, Motivation, and Close Reading
Individual and Group Self-Assessment of Interactions with Informational Text PURPOSE
MATERIALS
K-W-L Strategy
305
PROCEDURE
Reciprocal Teaching (RT) – Narrative Text Application 279
Directed Reading–Thinking Activity (DR-TA):
303
299
PURPOSE
PURPOSE
MATERIALS
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
326 326
xvi Contents Think-Pair-Share: Readers Collaborate to Comprehend 327 PURPOSE MATERIALS
MATERIALS
328 329
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
Collaborative Strategic Reading: Helping Students Who Struggle
MATERIALS
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
MATERIALS
Graphic Organizers: Visual Representation of Informational Text Structures MATERIALS PROCEDURE
335
PURPOSE MATERIALS
339
Ways To Reverse Summer Learning Loss Summer Programs Sponsored by Public Libraries Summer Programs and Resources Sponsored by Non-Profit Organizations
358 358
340 340
Getting Families More Involved How Teachers Can Set The Stage Easy Strategies For Parents To Use
360 361 361
In Conclusion . . .
363
References
364
Name Index
386
Subject Index
393
338 339
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Retelling Informational Text Oral Retellings
342 342
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Multiple Strategy Instruction Reciprocal Teaching
344 344
PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction PURPOSE MATERIALS PROCEDURE
353 353
356 356 356
PROCEDURE
Question Generation Elaborative Interrogation
How are the Kids Doing? A Call to Action
Addressing Summer Learning Loss Why American Schools Have Summer Vacation What’s Wrong With Summer Vacation? Why Low-Income Students Suffer More Summer Learning Loss Why Preventing Summer Learning Loss Is Difficult In America
MATERIALS
Question Answering Question–Answer Relationships: Answering Questions about Text—Text-Dependent Questions
Loss, Family Involvement, and Professional Learning Communities 352
355 355
337
PURPOSE
Teaching Informational Text: Comprehension Instruction Focused on the Task
10 Extending our Reach: Summer Learning
Professional Learning Communities What Effective PLCs Look Like
PROCEDURE
Increasing Text Complexity
350
PROCEDURE
332
PURPOSE
Close Reading of Informational Texts
347 347
PURPOSE
PROCEDURE
Focusing on the Text Becoming a Word Detective
English Language Learners Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
346
357 357
359
About the Authors D. Ray Reutzel is Dean of the College of Education at the University of Wyoming. Previous to his current position, he was the Emma Eccles Jones Distinguished Professor and Endowed Chair of Early Literacy Education at Utah State University, a position he held for 14 years. He is the author of more than 230 published research reports in top tier research journals, articles, books, book chapters, and monographs. He is the co-author of the best selling textbook on the teaching of reading, Teaching Children to Read: The Teacher Makes the Difference, 8th Edition published by Pearson Education, Boston, MA. He has received more than 17 million dollars in research/professional development grant funding. He has been active in securing legislative and private foundations gifts in excess of 40 million dollars. He is the past Editor of – Literacy Research and Instruction, The Reading Teacher and the current Executive Editor of the Journal of Educational Research. He received the 1999 A.B. Herr Award and the 2013 ALER Laureate Award from the Association of Literacy Researchers and Educators. Ray served as President of the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers, ALER, from 2006–2007. He was presented the John C. Manning Public School Service Award from the International Reading Association, May 2007 in Toronto, Canada and served as a member of the Board of Directors of the International Reading Association from 2007–2010. Ray was a member of the Literacy Research Association’s Board of Directors from 2012–2015. Dr. Reutzel was elected a member of the Reading Hall of Fame in 2011 and is serving as its President from 2017–2019. Ray was also named as a member of the International Literacy Association’s prestigious Literacy Research Panel from 2018–2021. He is also an author of school-based literacy instructional materials with Curriculum Associates® and is a newly appointed member of the prestigious Literacy Research Panel of the International Reading Association (ILA) until 2021.
xvii
xviii About the Authors
Robert B. Cooter, Jr. is Professor Emeritus of Literacy Education and Research at Bellarmine University. His primary work focuses on translating evidence-based research into systemic, real classroom approaches for improving literacy learning for children living at the poverty level. Cooter previously served as editor of The Reading Teacher (International Literacy Association) and his best-selling college textbooks are used at over 200 universities include: Teaching Children to Read: The Teacher Makes the Difference (8th ed.), Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction (6th ed.), and The Flynt/Cooter Comprehensive Reading Inventory-3 (CRI-3). In the public schools, Dr. Cooter previously served as the “Reading Czar” (associate superintendent) for the Dallas Independent School District (TX) and was named a Texas State Champion for Reading by the governor for DISD’s literacy improvement successes. Robert and Kathleen Spencer Cooter and their colleague, J. Helen Perkins, are recipients of the Urban Impact Award from the Council of Great City Schools for their work designing and implementing effective training programs for teachers serving children in low SES elementary schools in Dallas and Memphis. Later, Cooter and his team were awarded a $16 million academic literacy research project in Memphis funded by the U.S. Department of Education using his literacy academy model for teachers. These and other projects in various states are the basis for much of Cooter’s writing and literacy work with schools today.
Preface
T
eaching reading effectively in today’s schools is arguably as much science as it is art. To meet the literacy needs of all students, teachers necessarily begin their twork with knowledge as to how reading and writing develop based on evidence-based research and the English Language Arts Common Core Standards. Effective literacy teachers are able to assess student progress quickly and efficiently, and then provide effective literacy instruction to meet their needs. All of this and more must be delivered in real time, with real children, in real classroom situations.
New to This Edition MyLab Education One of the most visible changes in the sixth edition, also one of the most significant, is the expansion of the digital learning and assessment resources embedded in the eText and the inclusion of MyLab Education in the text. MyLab Education is an online assessment program designed to work with the text to engage learners and to improve learning. Within its structured environment, learners see key concepts demonstrated through real classroom video footage, practice what they learn, test their understanding, and receive feedback to guide their learning. Designed to bring learners more directly into the world of K-12 classrooms, the online resources in MyLab Education include: • Application Exercises utilize case studies and video to provide practice assessing reading, analyzing results, and making instructional decisions. The questions in these exercises are usually constructed-response. Once learners provide their own answers to the questions, they receive feedback in the form of model answers written by experts. • Video Examples illustrate assessment and instruction strategies in action and provide you with a clear understanding of how these strategies are used in the classroom. • Teacher Resources provide print- and download-friendly versions of documents that are needed to carry out specific assessment and instruction strategies provided in the text (e.g. flash cards, scoring sheets, etc.) Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction has gained popularity as a quick and effective reference tool for teachers of reading analogous to the Physicians’ Desk Reference that many doctors use when treating patients. Our sixth edition of Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction is a “point-of-teaching” resource that offers teachers the following new and updated content: • State Standards in the English Language Arts (K–5) clearly aligned to assessment and teaching strategies in our newly designed chapters • New If-Then Strategy Guides, our popular and time-saving charts connecting student assessment data to appropriate teaching strategies (i.e., if students need to learn X, then these are the teaching strategies I could use to help them) • New chapters containing the most up-to-date information about implementing a Response to Intervention (RTI) model to differentiate instruction in your classroom according to students’ needs • Easy to implement tools and strategies for using assessment data to plan instruction
xix
xx Preface • Video links developed especially for this book are provided to help you apply assessment and teaching strategies in your classroom • New English Learner (EL) assessment and teaching strategies in Chapters 3-10 • Assessment case study application exercises provided to assist you in applying what you learn in Chapters 3-10 • Technology applications and strategies provided throughout in Chapters 3-10 • Lesson plan examples are provided in Chapters 3-10 to help you apply new strategies in your classroom • New research-proven ideas for Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) • Fresh ideas for increasing family involvement • Successful strategies for overcoming children’s summer learning loss • Updated Background Briefings for Teachers on important literacy research and trends in such areas as oral language development, phonemic awareness, concepts about print, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, new literacies, and fluency • New chapters on assessing and teaching literature and information texts specifically referenced to the State Standards • New suggestions for teaching English language learners and learners having special needs, integrated in Chapters 3 through 10
Resources Behind This Edition The scholarly and practical resources behind the strategies in this book are many. We based the contents of this book on our direct experiences as project designers on federally and state-funded reading reform projects, most especially in high-poverty schools associated with the Reading First and Striving Readers projects funded by the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE); from practices shared by incredibly talented literacy coaches in the Dallas, Memphis, Ogden, Granite, Louisville, Wyoming, and San Juan school districts, to name just a few; from ideas published in The Reading Teacher (International Reading Association) during our respective tenures as past editors of that journal; and from our own direct experiences in the classroom. For contemporary trends in assessment, we drew on research reported in literacy professional and research journals and books along with these landmark reports: the Report of the National Reading Panel (2000), Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners; Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (2006); The National Early Literacy Panel (2008); What Works Clearinghouse; and a variety of Institute of Education Sciences Practice Guides.
For The Practicing Educator Classroom reading teachers will also discover that Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction provides an extensive and recently updated selection of evidence-based instructional practices and assessment tools that (1) inform instruction, (2) meet the needs of individual learners, (3) specifically meet the challenges of the new English Language Arts (K–5) Common Core State Standards, and (4) develop an understanding of the essentials of evidence-based reading instruction in a Response to Intervention (RTI)/multitiered systems of support (MTSS) instructional environment. Because of our emphasis on RTI/MTSS models for meeting student needs, those who teach in special education resource rooms, Title I reading programs, and university reading clinics will find that this fifth edition is particularly useful for teaching groups of students with diverse and special needs.
Preface xxi
Advantages for Preservice Teachers For preservice teachers, this sixth edition of Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction offers a practical resource for understanding past and present issues in reading instruction and assessment. It also provides an introduction to assessment purposes, types, and evidence, as well as access to information about RTI instructional models and practices. Teachers in training will also find the updated, ready-to-use instructional strategies useful in teacher education practicum experiences, classroom observations, clinical experiences, and in student teaching.
Using This Edition as a Tool for Professional Development Workshops Codistributed and published with the endorsement of the International Reading Association (IRA), now International Literacy Association (ILA), Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction is a proven tool for ongoing professional development in this age of evidence-based reading assessment and instruction. Widely used in such states as Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania as an approved inservice reference, this book contains the latest in research on assessment purposes, types, and tools, along with new information about RTI/MTSS models of classroom instruction for more effectively meeting the needs of students within the regular education classroom setting. In addition, the updated and newly revised Chapters 1, 2, and 9 through 12 provide practicing teachers access to highly effective, reliable, valid, and classroom-proven assessments and teaching strategies that address the higher demands of the ELACCS (K–5), and presenting this information in an easy-to-use format that makes the implementation of effective reading assessment and appropriately selected instruction strategies in the classroom quick and easy. In fact, each of the previous four editions of Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction has been used as the primary resource in literally thousands of professional development study groups, professional learning communities (PLCs), and workshop sessions on evidence-based, effective, and standards-based reading instruction across the United States.
Acknowledgments Our most sincere thanks go out to Barbara Strickland, who has been most helpful and patient in the production of this edition of SRAI. Thanks also to the reviewers of this edition: Leania T. Alli, Linden STEM Academy; Laurie Etzel, Bailey Middle School; Susan M. Hayward, The Ohio State University; Audrey Henry, Nova Southeastern University; Michelle Kelley, University of Central Florida; and Michael Moore, Georgia Southern University. Thank you for choosing to purchase and use this fifth edition of Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction: Helping Every Child Succeed, 6th Edition We know from long experience and many thousands of comments from previous readers that it will assist you in your efforts to develop effective, efficient reading assessment and instruction plans. Please send us your comments and observations about whether we have achieved our aim. Best wishes as you work to help every child become a successful reader and realize his or her full potential as an individual. D. Ray Reutzel [email protected] Robert B. Cooter, Jr. [email protected]
This page intentionally left blank
A01_THOM6233_05_SE_WALK.indd 9
1/13/17 6:50 PM
Chapter 1
Strategic Reading Instruction Ms. Spears, a first-year third grade teacher, felt more than a bit unsure of herself. This was especially true when it came to how literacy assessment fit in with a new emphasis on implementing the Common Core Standards and the district’s newly implemented Response to Intervention (RTI) model to differentiate instruction according to students’ developmental needs. Where to begin, and how? This came to a head for Ms. Spears when a new student, Jason, transferred into her classroom in mid-October from a distant state. Jason’s mother was not given access to his cumulative school records from his previous school, so Ms. Spears had nothing to go on in terms of understanding Jason’s current or past literacy learning needs making the formulation of an appropriate literacy instruction plan difficult. Jason’s mom also informed the principal that Jason had struggled in reading over the past year. Ms. Spears decided that she would need to pull together a set of assessments to better understand Jason’s reading ability. But which assessments should she use? What would these assessments need to assess? It seemed that she had more questions than answers.
Introduction: How this Book is Organized The opening vignette is a true story that is repeated regularly in classrooms around the globe. Teachers are asked to address the reading needs of a range of learners: those developing at a typical or even at accelerated paces and invariably some learners who struggle (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2015; Polat, Zarecky-Hodge, & Schreiber, 2016; Schulte, Stevens, Elliott, Tindal, & Nese, 2016). Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction: Helping every child succeed is a practical resource offering research proven (evidence-based) assessment and instructional strategies for teachers in real world classrooms. In chapters 3 through 10 of Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction: Helping every child succeed we organize these chapters into four critical areas that teachers in real-world classrooms need to know in order to help every child become a competent reader: • Background Briefing for Teachers – This section of each chapter explains how reading develops and provides the critical foundation skills every student must learn to become a fluent reader. With this information at your fingertips, it will be possible to make informed decisions in planning instruction for every learner. You will also have the assurance your instructional decisions are based on solid research evidence. • Assessment Strategies – Once you possess the background knowledge regarding the “must have skills,” it becomes possible to choose assessment strategies that align with each skill to be learned. In chapters 3 through 10 we have selected the
1
2 Chapter 1
Table 1.1 Classroom Profile Form: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness (A partial example) Directions: 1. Using a colored marker, fill in each box for skills each student has learned (left to right). 2. Next, identify the NEXT skill each child needs to develop. (Note: It will be the first box to the right of the last box filled in.) 3. Form groups for instruction for students needing the same NEXT skill. 4. Using the IF – THEN TEACHING STRATEGY GUIDE, determine the evidence-based teaching strategy(s) to use for each group according to the skill they need to learn. 5. Update the Classroom Profile for students as each new skill is learned. Phonological Awareness (oral lang.)
Word Awareness
Rhyme recognition
Alliteration Repetition & creation
Syllable counting
Phonemic Awareness (oral lang.)
Onset/rime manip.
Phoneme identity (beginning sound)
Phoneme isolation (last sound)
Phoneme blending
Kevin Mallory Jose Thom Iris Trevon
most effective and easy to use assessment strategies from the research. This will help you determine which of the essential skills each learner has mastered and which they yet need to learn. In most chapters we provide you with a convenient CLASSROOM PROFILE FORM for charting student progress in learning essential skills. In Table 1.1 we share a partial example on phonics and decoding skills. • IF – THEN TEACHING STRATEGY GUIDE: Analyzing Student Data To Plan Instruction – One of the more complex tasks for teachers is analyzing reading assessment data gathered for each student to decide what you should teach to meet their learning needs. Put another way, we sometimes get to be pretty good at gathering assessment evidence, but then we may have difficulty analyzing our findings and converting them into powerful classroom intervention plans. Strategic data analysis involves what we call IF - THEN THINKING. Our basic philosophy goes something like this: if we know that a child needs to an essential skill in reading based on our assessments, then we know which of many strategies are appropriate for teaching that skill. In each chapter, we provide you with an “If-Then TEACHING STRATEGY GUIDE” located between the sections on assessment and teaching strategies that will help you quickly identify evidence-based teaching strategies for each essential reading skill to be learned. In Table 1.2 we present a partial example of an IF-THEN TEACHING STRATEGY GUIDE related to reading fluency development. • Instructional Strategies – The final part of chapters 3 through 10 is a compendium of evidence-based instructional strategies for the essential reading skills identified in each chapter (e.g., phonics, fluency, vocabulary, etc.). We provide a description of the purpose, step-by-step directions for implementing each strategy as well as a list of any needed materials.
Putting It All Together: The Teaching and Learning Cycle The four sections presented in Chapters 3 through 10 – background briefing, assessment strategies, IF-THEN TEACHING STRATEGY GUIDE, and Instructional Strategies – can and should be applied in the classroom using an organizing structure. In Figure 1.1 we share our own organizational model drawn from reading research and our own classroom experiences. We call it the Teaching and Learning Cycle.
Strategic Reading Instruction 3
Table 1.2 If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide: Reading Fluency “IF” your assessment shows that a student needs to learn this skill . . .
“THEN” use this teaching strategy(s) first (and page #)
Alternate Teaching Strategy(s) That Are Appropriate (and page #)
Automaticity
Choral Reading
Repeated Readings Assisted and Partner Reading Closed-Caption Television
Reading Rate
Repeated Readings
Scaffolded Silent Reading (ScSR) Choral Reading Assisted and Partner Reading
Prosody
Explicit Fluency Instruction Fluency-Oriented Reading Instruction
Fluency-Oriented Reading Instruction Readers’ Theater Radio Reading
Phrasing/”Chunking”
Oral Recitation Lesson
Explicit Fluency Instruction Neurological Impress
Figure 1.1 The Teaching and Learning Cycle: A Continuous Process
Assessment
Teaching
IF-THEN Analysis (Instructional Strategy Selection)
Determing Student Needs
Needs-based Differentiated Grouping
As the title of Figure 1.1 suggests, teaching and learning is an ongoing, even neverending process until reading proficiency is reached. All good teaching begins with teacher knowledge of how reading develops which is why we include a background briefing for teachers in each chapter. The actual teaching and learning cycle begins with assessment to determine which essential skills students need to achieve proficient reading Next comes a review of the student assessment data, comparing each student’s progress to your knowledge of essential skills so as to determine student needs (i.e., what they need to learn next). Using the various classroom profiling documents provided in Chapters 3 through 10 you will be able to identify which essential skills students need to learn so that you can form needs-based differentiated instruction groups. Because these small instructional groups are based on assessed needs, the membership of groups will change as students make progress. Once you have your groups formed according to a common need to learn a specific skill(s), you will use the IF-THEN TEACHING STRATEGY GUIDE to select the best strategy(s) to teach the skill. Next, you will teach the skill(s) using the research-proven strategy that is most appropriate. The cycle begins anew when you assess students’ progress to determine whether skills taught have been mastered. If not, then you will need to determine another appropriate strategy to teach the same skill.
4 Chapter 1 In the balance of this chapter we dig just a bit deeper into the first two organizational areas of this book: background briefing for teachers concerning reading development, and reading assessment.
Background Briefing for Teachers: The Foundation Skills of Reading In the popular book by Steven Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (2013), he states that it is important to “begin with the end in mind.” In terms of effective reading instruction, it critical that teachers begin by having a kind of reading development roadmap so that each student arrives at the correct destination—becoming a proficient reader. In mapping a road trip from, say, Baltimore to Los Angeles, we know that a direct route might take us through some of the states including Ohio, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona. This map would not, of course, take us through states like Oregon if we wanted to get there as quickly as possible. Similarly, in mapping students’ reading skill needs we must assess the critical foundation areas such as phonics, alphabet knowledge, reading vocabulary and more. In recent decades, literacy scholars have identified essential reading foundational skills. Let’s turn our attention to a brief overview of the reading foundations established through the research.
Overview of the Evidence-Based Reading Foundations The road to proficient reading begins virtually from birth. Infants learn vast amounts of information about their world in the earliest years and begin to develop oral language to communicate what they know and what they need. Oral language is learned in these early years by listening to others around them as they communicate with the child. This is the beginning of the listening and speaking vocabularies upon which literacy skills are built (Reutzel & Cooter, 2018). Listening vocabulary consists of the words a person can hear and understand. Speaking vocabulary (a.k.a., oral language), a subset of one’s listening vocabulary, is made up of words a person understands and can use in their oral language. Generally speaking, the larger one’s listening and speaking vocabularies the easier it will be to learn reading and writing skills. Conversely, children who come to school with poorly developed oral language tend to fall behind in reading development over time unless this issue is corrected through language instruction. Later, children begin to build upon their listening and speaking vocabularies and acquire early reading or foundational reading skills with the help of siblings, adults, and educators. Evidence-based research over the decades has helped us understand the essential foundational reading skills students must learn. In reading education, we often refer to the major divisions of this research collectively as the Big Five: 1. Phonological and phonemic awareness: This involves children understanding that oral language can be broken down into smaller units such as sentences, phrases, words, syllables, and phonemes (individual sounds) (e.g., Adams, 2001; Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2001; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Phonological and phonemic awareness applied in the classroom goes beyond the simple understandings just mentioned and helps children to be able to manipulate oral language elements; for example, segmenting and blending parts of spoken words. The ability to segment and blend individual sounds in spoken words sets the stage for children learning the purpose of the alphabet (alphabetic principle), phonics, and other word identification skills 2. Phonics: Building on phonological and phonemic awareness is phonics. Phonics is actually a teaching method that helps children match spoken sounds to written symbols in systematic and predictable ways (letter–sound relationships). Phonics
Strategic Reading Instruction 5
and other word recognition skills show readers how this knowledge can be used to decode words in print (Stahl, Duffy-Hester, & Stahl, 2006). Some of the critical phonics and word recognition skills we will learn about include: segmenting and blending printed words, must-know rules concerning vowels and consonants, sight words, and structural analysis (prefixes, suffixes, root words). 3. Reading vocabulary: Reading comprehension and writing composition are dependent on word knowledge (Kame’enui & Baumann, 2012). As children become proficient at decoding words in print and texts become more complicated, growing one’s reading vocabulary is essential since reading information texts is the primary way people increase their word knowledge. Research has identified effective strategies for building oral vocabulary and word knowledge for reading and writing. You will have a collection of these at your fingertips in this chapter on vocabulary. 4. Comprehension: The National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) described reading comprehension as “a complex process . . . [that uses] intentional thinking during which meaning is constructed through interactions between text and reader. The content of meaning is influenced by the text and by the reader’s prior knowledge and experience that are brought to bear on it” (pp. 4–5). Evidence-based research has identified effective strategies for teaching children to understand on a deep level narrative and expository (nonfiction) texts. 5. Fluency: Being a fluent reader involves several factors: accurate, effortless, and automatic word identification; age- or grade-level-appropriate reading speed or rate; proper use of expression (volume, pitch, juncture, and stress); correct text phrasing or “chunking”; and simultaneous comprehension of what is read (Reutzel & Cooter, 2018). When we take a closer look at the Big Five, we see that the first two – Phonological and phonemic awareness and Phonics are directly involved in children learning to decode written language. We also come to realize that the next two – Vocabulary and Comprehension are directly related to understanding the meanings of oral and written language once it has been decoded. The final element of the Big Five is Fluency. Emerging research is providing evidence that fluency, rapid and accurate decoding of printed words, is the bridge that spans the other four elements together and can contribute to readers understanding written texts. Figure 1.2 shows the relationships between the Big Five elements
Figure 1.2 The “Big Five” Building Blocks of Reading Development Reading Fluency
(Automatic Decoding Aids Comprehension)
Phonics & Decoding
(Alphabet Knowledge, Phonics, Structural Analysis, Sight Words, & Early Writing [Encoding sounds and words into print])
Phonological & Phonemic Awareness
Reading Comprehension
(Narrative & Expository Texts)
Reading Vocabulary & Concept Development
(Oral Language Only)
THE FOUNDATION: Oral Language & Listening Development (i.e., Speaking & Listening Vocabularies)
MyLab Education Video
Example 1.1 Reading and Vocabulary Development:
In this video, you will learn about the importance of assessing students’ reading abilities early on in their reading development.
6 Chapter 1 as the key building blocks of reading development. Note that all of these building blocks are constructed upon a foundation of oral language and listening development. In Chapters 3 through 10 of this book, we present each of these Big Five areas and other essential skill areas. In these chapters you will discover the reading skills students must learn in their approximate sequence, how to assess each of those skills quickly and efficiently, and then how to translate assessment data into appropriate and effective reading instruction.
When Are The Foundation Reading Skills Taught? Not all of the foundation reading skills are taught at every grade level since some skill sets must be learned before others can be learned. For example, we have already seen that every child must have acquired a listening and speaking vocabulary of some size for formal instruction to begin. We also know from evidence-based research that phonological and phonemic awareness need to be learned before phonics and decoding skills can be fully learned, and so on. In Figure 1.3 we present the typical grade levels
Figure 1.3 Typical Grade Levels for Teaching “Big 5” Skills Plus The Foundation Skills Grade Levels Skill Areas & SRAI Chapters Reading Fluency
(Chapter 6)
Comprehension (text)
(Chapters 8 & 9)
Vocabulary (Reading)
(Chapter 7)
Phonics & Decoding
(Chapter 5)
Phonological & Phonemic Awareness
(Oral Language Only)
(Chapter 4)
THE FOUNDATION: Oral Language & Listening (Listening & Speaking Vocabularies)
(Chapter 3)
PK
K
1
2
3
Strategic Reading Instruction 7
at which the “Big 5” skills are taught as well as the foundational components of oral language and listening. For your convenience, we also indicate the chapters in this book where each of these skill areas are addressed. A logical question you may have is this: Are reading foundational skills included in the Common Core Standards used in most states? The answer is: yes and no.
About The Common Core State Standards The end-of-year benchmark skills assessed on state tests are often based on the ELACCS-- the English Language Arts (K–12) Common Core Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). The ELACCS do contain many of the evidence-based reading skills found in the Big Five, but some of the reading skills are implied in the Common Core Standards (i.e., unless you have mastered some of the Big Five skills you will not be able to pass some of the Common Core Standards). In this book, we concern ourselves primarily with the K–5 standards and link our assessment and teaching strategies to specific ELACCS standards for your record keeping convenience. The ELACCS were established as part of the Common Core State Standards Initiative with the goal that all students are college and career ready in literacy by the end of high school (Pearson, 2013; Reutzel, 2013; Shanahan, 2013). The ELACCS are organized into two major sections: K–5 and 6–12. There are four strands arranged by grade level: (1) reading, (2) writing, (3) speaking and listening, and (4) language. A complete copy can be obtained free online at www.corestandards.org.
Reading Assessment: The Basics Principles of Reading Assessment We discovered over the years that there are three important principles of classroom reading assessment that should guide your decision-making. These principles help teachers make critical diagnostic decisions that ultimately benefit children as they learn to read. PRINCIPLE 1: ASSESSMENT INFORMS INSTRUCTION The development of reading follows a clear path with precise markers along the way. Your job as a teacher is to locate where each child is in his or her developmental journey—what they are able to do so far and, therefore, which reading skill they are ready to learn next. With good reading assessment you will also be able to discover any learning gaps that may have occurred for each student. We call this the Swiss cheese effect: as with a piece of Swiss cheese on a sandwich, there may be good coverage, but there are some holes in the cheese. In reading, however, a student’s holes in learning are invisible and only detectable through focused reading assessment. This is done by carefully charting what children can do from your reading assessments, rather than what they cannot do. One begins by confirming early reading milestone skills children have mastered and moving systematically through your assessments toward the more advanced skills. This will tell you where each child is in his or her reading growth and gaps that may exist. Then you will be able to plan instruction that targets skills to be learned next. PRINCIPLE 2: BE PREPARED: GATHER YOUR ASSESSMENT MATERIALS IN ADVANCE If you decided to repaint your living room, you would decide on the color you want use and then go to the store and purchase all the necessary supplies before starting the job: a how-to book (a roadmap for painting), paint, brushes, rollers, ladder, drop cloth, and so forth. With your tools assembled you could begin work. In assessing reading development, we also have some essential tools of the trade: the end-of-year benchmark skills, class profiling documents (Reutzel & Cooter, 2018) to record students’
8 Chapter 1 strengths and needs, leveled books in the language of instruction (i.e., English and/ or Spanish in many classrooms), a recorder for student readings, carefully prepared observation checklists, and progress-monitoring assessments like those presented later in this book. PRINCIPLE 3: DOCUMENT STUDENTS’ GROWTH OVER TIME Reading assessment is not just a one-shot activity done at the beginning of the year, but an ongoing and integral part of teaching and learning. Indeed, assessment and good teaching are virtually seamless. By documenting student learning over time you create a vivid picture of each student’s ability, and this gives you the information you need to plan focused, strategic instruction. It is critical that we carry a veritable arsenal of assessment ideas in our teaching battery for each specific purpose. In the next section, we explain the four primary purposes of reading assessment for documenting student learning over time.
The Four Purposes of Reading Assessment There are four major types of assessment: (1) screening assessment, (2) diagnostic assessment, (3) progress-monitoring assessment, and (4) outcomes assessment. The assessment strategies presented in this book tend to fall into the first three types. Screening assessments are administered to all students. They are given to provide a portrait of where students are in their reading development, as well as any preexisting deficits that may put them at risk for making inadequate progress. In short, screening tests help you know to what degree students have acquired the previous grade-level reading skills and to determine whether any students are at risk for making adequate progress in their new grade level. Screening assessment data include scores from the previous year or grade level and assessments given at the beginning of the new school year. Because all students are assessed, these must be both efficient (quick to administer and score) and general (not exhaustive or comprehensive). Examples of screening tests are DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) test or the Aimsweb computer-based reading assessment. Screening tests merely sample student knowledge, ability, and skills. For example, if a student reads slowly or inaccurately on the DIBELS ORF, we only know that the student reads inaccurately and slowly; we do not know why this is the case (Scheffel, Lefly, & Houser, 2016). If we want to troubleshoot the observed disfluent oral reading of a student for planning targeted instruction, other assessments will be necessary to diagnose where the student is experiencing difficulty. However, if a student performs as expected according to grade-level benchmarks, then there is no need for additional assessment beyond the usual progress monitoring (discussed later). If some students perform below expectations on literacy screening assessments, this may signal the need for an additional diagnostic assessment to troubleshoot or pinpoint the source of the problem. The purpose of diagnostic assessments is to help teachers identify specific reading problems so they can plan appropriate instructional interventions. Diagnostic assessments can be commercially produced formal tests or informal teacher-produced tasks to determine students’ abilities to use reading skills or strategies previously taught. During the school year, all student progress in reading should be consistently monitored to determine whether the instruction provided is effective with regard to end-of-year benchmark skills. To accomplish this aim, teachers use assessments called progress-monitoring or benchmark assessments. To effectively use progress-monitoring/ benchmark assessments, teachers assess student progress at least three times during the school year at predetermined intervals. Students who are behind end-of-year benchmark or proficiency expectations are often monitored one or more times per week (McCook, 2007) to see if the instruction provided is working. If progress monitoring
Strategic Reading Instruction 9
shows acceptable literacy growth for at-risk learners, then one can conclude that the literacy instruction in use is effective and should be continued. Conversely, if progressmonitoring assessments indicate little or no student progress, then additional literacy instructional intervention may be indicated. At or near the end of the school year, state and federal mandates often require that outcome assessments be used to determine the overall effectiveness of the literacy program for all students. Typically, outcome assessments are one of two types: (1) normreferenced tests (NRT), in which students’ literacy progress is compared with other students nationally, or (2) criterion-referenced tests (CRT), in which students’ progress is judged against established literacy benchmarks or standards.
Types of Reading Assessments Found in This Book Though there are many types of educational assessment, in this book we present the four types of assessments most commonly used by classroom reading teachers: (1) formative, (2) summative, (3) criterion-referenced, and (4) norm-referenced. Let’s begin with formative assessments because they are the mainstay of day-to-day teaching and most of what we present in this book. FORMATIVE READING ASSESSMENTS The goal of formative assessments is to help teachers identify what students have learned during and after instruction and to decide who may need assistance and with which strategies and skills (McIntyre, Hulan, & Layne, 2011). Formative assessments can also provide diagnostic feedback about where a process, strategy, or concept understanding is working properly for a student or where there may be a breakdown that needs to be addressed with future instruction and guided practice (Lipson & Wixson, 2013). These are ongoing assessments that provide a framework for consistently monitoring student progress toward attaining goals, objectives, or benchmark Common Core State Standards or other specific benchmark objectives (e.g., “The learner will be able to orally read a 100-word passage with 95% accuracy in one minute in third-grade nonfiction texts”) (Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2012). Formative assessments are mostly designed and used by teachers. The results of formative assessment inform both the teacher and student about progress toward a known objective or benchmark standard. For the student, formative assessments provide feedback about accuracy, process, and effort. For the teacher, formative assessments provide feedback about lesson effectiveness, student engagement, and student responses to instruction. Formative assessments can also provide students with opportunities for peer or self-assessment (McLaughlin & Overturf, 2013). Formative assessments yield results that are most useful in providing teachers with feedback about lesson planning, student grouping or placement, materials selection, guided and independent practice activities, and classroom environmental design modifications needed to support progress in reading and literacy. In short, formative assessments are most useful for revising, modifying, differentiating, and adjusting instruction and practice to meet student needs (McKenna & Stahl, 2015). SUMMATIVE READING ASSESSMENTS Assessments found in this book can often be used as summative assessments, which are used after the fact (-post-teaching) to make decisions about the effectiveness of the teaching strategies used. More formal summative assessments, such high-stakes state reading tests, are often used to determine student growth in reading and make sweeping decisions about state initiatives, reading programs, and interventions, or to provide evidence for public accountability (Lipson & Wixson, 2013). An examination of the root of the word, sum, clarifies the purpose of summative assessment. Stahl and McKenna (2013) use a cooking analogy to contrast the formative and summative assessment types: When the cook tastes the soup to see if other
10 Chapter 1 ingredients are needed, that’s formative; when the guest tastes the soup at the dinner table, that’s summative. CRITERION REFERENCED READING ASSESSMENTS Many of the assessments used in this book are also considered criterion-referenced reading assessments, also known as criterion-referenced tests (CRTs). With CRTs, student scores are referenced against specific criteria such as reading curriculum goals, lesson objectives, or benchmark standards. We learn from CRTs the degree to which students have learned specific skills, strategies, or concepts. Let’s look at a couple of examples. Imagine you have a first-grade student who must learn to quickly and accurately recognize all 26 letters of the alphabet, both upper- and lowercase letters. If the mastery criterion is set at 100% recognition, which only makes sense, then students who achieve this objective have reached mastery. A similar benchmark criterion may be that students are able to read grade-level texts with 80% comprehension as measured by correct answers to comprehension questions. Thus, a student who answers 90% of the questions correctly has met, or actually exceeded, the mastery criterion. In summary, criterion-referenced reading assessment scores represent the degree to which mastery of a well-defined curriculum goal, lesson objective, or attainment of a standard has been met. Criterion-referenced reading assessment scores can also reflect how well a student is doing in meeting moving benchmarks over time (e.g., from grade to grade) and with a variety of tasks (e.g., text difficulty or complexity). In either case, the criterion referenced here is used to determine whether a student has met a set goal for learning a specific benchmark skill. NORM-REFERENCED READING ASSESSMENTS Criterion-referenced assessments in reading differ significantly from norm-referenced reading assessments, sometimes referred to as norm-referenced tests (NRTs). These compare an individual student’s test scores to another group of students who took the same test (Pearce & Verlann, 2012; Rathvon, 2004). Some of the assessment strategies presented in this book are normreferenced (e.g., the words correct per minute test found in Chapter 8). Producers of commercial NRTs define the characteristics of a normative group (e.g., race, gender, socioeconomics) against which others will be compared, as well as the context of test administration by which comparisons are to be made (state, national, international). This process often involves the use of complex and rather expensive population research processes such as random sampling and statistical analyses. By first administering the assessment to a randomly selected population of students, the test makers create what is called a normative or representative group that has within it the complex set of population characteristics found in the larger group from which the random sample was taken. Doing so creates a frame of reference against which your student or class of students can be compared, hence the term norm-referenced. As shown in Figure 1.4, student performance can be compared to the normal or average performance of the original normative group according to grade level, age, gender, and so forth. The normal or bell curve provides different ways of talking about the data obtained. For example, many NRTs provide grade-level equivalents (GLE), means (arithmetic average), standard deviations (SD) from the mean score, percentiles (the normal curve sliced into 100 equal pieces), or standard tens or Stens (the normal curve sliced into 10 equal pieces). Student scores can then be compared to scores of the normative group (e.g., second grade students nationally). The resultant student scores could be interpreted or compared against the norms for the group. Let’s say a student in your second-grade class at the end of the year receives a 2.7 grade-level equivalent score (translates to the equivalent performance of most second graders in their seventh month of instruction). This means that compared to the normative group of second graders nationally at the end of the school year (2.9 or second grade, ninth month), your student reads about 2 months behind the average second grade student nationally.
Strategic Reading Instruction 11
FIGURE 1.4 Normal Curve The normal distribution and associated scales
Mean and Median and Mode
2% Standard (z) Score T-Score Percentile
Grades
34%
34%
14%
2%
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
0.1
0.8
2.28
6.68
15.87
30.85
50
69.15
84.13
93.32
97.72
99.20
99.90
Stens I.Q. as a standard score (s = 16)
14%
1 52
60
2 68 E
3 76
4 84
5 92
D
6 100 C
7 108
8 116 B
Norm-referenced reading assessments accurately compare whether your particular student or group of students scores significantly above, below, or at the average compared to the normative group. It should be noted that most high-stakes state tests are not considered NRTs because they do not compare student performance to other students nationally. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) is one example of a nationally validated norm-referenced test used in many school districts that wish to make reliable comparisons of their students’ performance across state boundaries. The reading subtest scores from the ITBS, for example, can be used to compare students’ reading scores locally to other students nationally.
Characteristics of High Quality Reading Assessment There are a number of characteristics shared by high-quality reading assessments. Although published, standardized, norm- or criterion-referenced reading assessments are more likely to provide evidence of these characteristics for end users, even those assessments developed informally and locally should furnish evidence of these same characteristics if the assessments are going to be used to make decisions about student placements or the reading instruction offered to students. The amount and quality of evidence provided about these characteristics of high-quality assessments ought to be the basis on which educators make informed decisions about reading assessment selection. The two most important characteristics of high-quality reading assessments are reliability and validity.
Reliability Reliability refers to the trustworthiness or dependability of results obtained from assessment administrations given to the same set of students under similar circumstances. The
9 124
10 132 A
140
148
12 Chapter 1 more reliable an assessment is, the more confidence we can have that the results obtained from one administration of the assessment to another will remain stable or consistent. In other words, no educator would want to make decisions about student placements or instruction based on assessment results that vary wildly from one assessment occasion to another. A high-quality reading assessment must provide evidence of reliability.
Validity Validity refers to the degree to which an assessment actually measures what it is claiming to measure. For example, if we claim to measure reading ability, does the assessment we have chosen actually measure a student’s ability to read? This means that we must clearly define what we mean when we say a student can read. Do we mean that students can read increasingly difficult texts? Or, do we mean that a student has mastered specific reading subskills such as reading contractions, marking the number of syllables in words, or finding answers to detail questions in a 100-word passage? Reading assessment validity is judged by the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the interpretations made about the assessment results obtained by those who use the assessment, not on the assessment itself (Afflerbach, 2012, 2016; Lipson & Wixson, 2013).
Validity and Reliability in the Real World Many educators are sometimes a little confused about the reliability and validity of high-quality assessments (McKenna & Stahl, 2013). Perhaps an example drawn from common life experiences may illustrate how these two characteristics work in daily life and would help to clarify any potential confusion. Imagine that you are shopping for designer jeans. As you shop, you regularly see Levi-Strauss jeans on display. Although these jeans are known worldwide for consistent quality construction and durability (reliability), they are hardly considered “designer” jeans. In other words, although Levi jeans are consistently made to high-quality standards, they do not meet the standards of design and fashion associated with the concept of designer jeans. A better example of designer jeans might be Ralph Lauren, because of the optional cut, fit, and decorative trim around pockets and seams, as well as the reputed consistent high quality. It is important to note here that reliability (consistent high standards for manufacturing) is a necessary but insufficient precondition to establish validity (the cache of designer labels). In other words, jeans, whatever their label, must be consistently constructed with high-quality materials and methods, but doing so does not qualify them as designer jeans without the other characteristics associated with the idea of designer jeans also being present. It is possible for Levi jeans to be a reliable jean but not a valid jean that meets the definition of designer jeans. Similarly, a reliable assessment may not be a valid assessment, but a valid assessment should always be a reliable assessment. Assessments that produce inconsistent results (poor reliability) cannot possibly provide adequate validity evidence. Conversely, providing adequate reliability evidence does not mean that an assessment is measuring the right things or being used in appropriate ways to draw valid conclusions from the scores obtained. The highest quality assessments provide appropriate reliability evidence for the grade and age levels to be assessed. In addition, high-quality assessments provide evidence that the assessment is measuring the outcomes and behaviors deemed necessary and important. For example, if a group of students’ reading ability is to be assessed, then assessing these students’ ability to accurately and fluently reading progressively more difficult texts with adequate comprehension would be expected. On the other hand, if we wanted to know whether students have learned particular skills, strategies, or concepts to be taught in a reading program or have attained specific objectives or benchmark standards, then we may ask students to perform very particular tasks, such as dividing a word into syllables, writing the contracted form of a word, or reading a group of
Strategic Reading Instruction 13
high-frequency sight words within a specified time limit with 95% accuracy. In short, educators should be the first ones to ask this question when selecting a new assessment: What is the reliability and validity evidence provided for using the scores obtained from administering this particular assessment?
Summary Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction: Helping every child succeed (6th ed.) is an evidence-based resource providing teachers of reading and literacy specialists with: • Background briefings on the latest research into the areas of reading acquisition, and the essential developmental reading milestone skills that students must learn, • Assessment strategies aligned with the essential developmental reading milestone skills that can be used in busy real world classrooms so that the learning needs of each child can be determined,
• IF-THEN TEACHING STRATEGY GUIDE that help teachers quickly analyze student reading needs and match them to effective teaching/learning strategies, and • Instructional Strategies proven to be effective in teaching specific reading skills. In Chapter 2 we learn about Response to Intervention (RTI) and how it may be used to differentiate instruction for students when they have difficulty learning one or more reading skills.
Chapter 2
Response to Intervention (RTI): Differentiating Reading Instruction for All Readers Alfonso is a cheerful student who tries hard to please his new first-grade teacher, Ms. Bachio. He is attentive during whole-class core reading instruction, but is unable to read kindergarten-level reading selections without assistance. In addition, Alfonso is usually not able to independently use sound/letter blending strategies taught during core reading instruction, nor does he easily learn new concepts taught during vocabulary instruction. Ms. Bachio is concerned about her ability to accelerate Alfonso’s reading development. She delivers well-planned core reading program lessons, and supplements this instruction with explicit strategy, skill, and concept lessons appropriate for typically developing first-graders. What more can she do? Ms. Bachio asked her school literacy coach, Mrs. George, for assistance. Mrs. George said, “I was just in a workshop two days ago and learned about some research-proven methods for meeting the needs of students called RTI or Response to Intervention. This is a great structure for regularly monitoring the progress of your students in achieving mastery of grade-level standards. “I also learned about providing additional support for students like Alfonso,” said Mrs. George, “that uses real-time data to place them into small groups for instruction focused on their particular learning needs . . . precision teaching is the way I look at it. After you try out an intervention for a brief period and check their progress, if the tactic isn’t working, you select another intervention. If the student still doesn’t learn the skill or strategy after several attempts, you can then enlist the help of other specialized teachers.” “Sounds interesting! When will we learn more about this?” asked Ms. Bachio. “We can begin to read and discuss how RTI could be used in our school at our next grade-level PLC (professional learning community) meeting. What do you think?” “Great!” said Ms. Bachio. “Maybe RTI is just the thing I need to help Alfonso accelerate his reading progress and attain grade-level standards,” she thought to herself as she headed back to her classroom.
14
Successfully differentiating reading instruction is essential if elementary classroom teachers are to help their students succeed in learning to read well. Response to Intervention (RTI), which has become standard practice in recent years, is a model for differentiating reading instruction in order to meet the needs of all learners. In this chapter, we will learn how RTI can be used in reading/literacy instruction to assist all students to
Response to Intervention (RTI): Differentiating Reading Instruction for All Readers 15
become strong readers and by so doing make progress toward mastery of grade-level expectations and state standards. We will also see how RTI is used to fill in student learning gaps as quickly as possible in order to return students to developmental gradelevel literacy instruction.
What Is RTI? The implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) models in school districts has proceeded at breakneck speed in the last 10 years. RTI was initiated by the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) in response to the overidentification of students receiving special education services, particularly minority populations and those living in poverty. The goal was to insure that all students receive instruction appropriate for their learning needs to facilitate their progress in reading and other areas. In short, it was understood by the Department of Education that many students being identified for special education services did not actually have learning disabilities; their failure to develop as readers was often because they had not received effective instruction in the early grades. Through the RTI initiative and the professional development for teachers that would follow, the Department of Education hoped that better classroom instruction would result and the need for special education services would be reduced. In order to implement RTI models effectively in classrooms, teachers need to know the answer to several important questions, beginning with the obvious: What is RTI? Response to Intervention (RTI) is a systematic approach to collecting assessment data used to differentiate instruction to meet the learning needs of those students who struggle learning to read and then quickly return them to typical classroom reading instruction (Balu, Zhu, Doolittle, Schiller, Jenkins, & Gersten, 2015; Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2010; Gersten, Compton, Connor, Dimino, Santoro, Linan-Thompson, & Tilly, 2008; Gettinger & Stoiber, 2007; Gilbert, Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, Bouton, Barquero, and Cho, 2013; Stahl & McKenna, 2013). Said another way, if a student fails to learn an essential skill or information during normal instruction (called “Tier 1 instruction”), then the teacher should have the knowledge and skills to adapt instruction and offer alternative instruction (also a part of Tier 1 instruction). If Tier 1 instruction fails to achieve the intended results for some students over time, then and only then will students failing to learn be assessed to determine whether some sort of supplemental services may be needed. RTI is not only implemented in reading instruction but is also applied to all core areas of the curriculum and to student behavior. The Institute of Education Sciences (Gersten et al., 2008) (Gersten, Compton, Connor, Dimino, Santoro, Linan-Thompson, & Tilly, 2009) provides five recommendations for using an RTI model to assist struggling students in the primary grades: 1. Screen all students for potential reading problems at the beginning of the year and again in the middle of the year. Regularly monitor the progress of struggling students. 2. Provide time for differentiated reading instruction for all students based on assessment of students’ current reading needs. 3. Provide intensive, systematic instruction on up to three foundational reading skills in small group to students who score below the benchmark score on universal screening assessments. Typically these small groups meet between three and five times a week for 20–40 minutes. 4. Monitor the progress of Tier 2 students at least once a month. Use these data to determine whether students still require intervention. For those students still making insufficient progress, schoolwide teams should design a Tier 3 intervention plan. 5. Provide intensive instruction on a daily basis that promotes the development of the various components of reading proficiency to students who show minimal progress after a reasonable time in Tier 2 small group instruction (Tier 3).
16 Chapter 2
RTI as a Reading Safety Net As mentioned earlier, implementation of RTI is typically accomplished in most school reading programs through the use of three distinct and increasingly intensive instructional levels or tiers: primary (Tier 1), secondary (Tier 2), and tertiary (Tier 3). This threetiered system is designed to act as a safety net to catch students before they fall too far behind the achievement of their peers. At the beginning of each year of instruction, a universal screening assessment is administered to all students to determine whether they are at risk for failing to make adequate progress in meeting established literacy skills, objectives, and standards. Tier 1 literacy instruction is considered to be the primary level of education in RTI models for all students. This includes instruction using evidence-based literacy assessment and instruction models often in conjunction with commercial core reading programs in regular classroom settings (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2008; Gilbert et al., 2013). Tier 1 literacy instruction is intended to expose all grade-level students to a high-quality, evidencebased reading curriculum in the general classroom taught by a knowledgeable teacher. Tier 1 instruction is intended to develop all students’ reading abilities and thereby reduce the number of students who develop learning problems. All students in Tier 1 instruction are individually monitored for progress in their literacy growth. Those whose levels of performance or rate of literacy growth lag substantially behind their peers’ are identified to receive Tier 2 literacy instruction (Gilbert et al., 2013). Tier 2 instruction can be offered to remediate a single skill or strategy with which a student may have difficulty, or several. Tier 2 literacy instruction, considered to be the secondary level of prevention in RTI models, is intended to provide struggling readers with evidence-based reading instruction that is targeted to address a student’s area(s) of greatest need as compared to typically developing peers (Gersten, Compton, Connor, Dimino, Santoro, LinanThompson, & Tilly, 2008; Gilbert et al., 2013; Stahl & McKenna, 2013). Tier 2 literacy interventions are intended to fill in students’ literacy skill gaps as quickly as possible and return them to Tier 1 or core literacy instruction. Tier 2 interventions are typically delivered in small-group settings. Tier 2 literacy instruction does not supplant Tier 1 literacy instruction, but rather extends and supplements it. This means that Tier 2 literacy instruction is sometimes offered outside the typically scheduled core reading block timeframe. Students attend their usual core reading instruction program, and then receive additional Tier 2 instruction three or more times per week, typically 20–40 minutes each time, in the targeted skill area(s). Reading Recovery is one example of a proven Tier 2 short-term intervention strategy in reading and writing (Institute of Educational Sciences, 2013). Strategies contained in this book, when matched to identified student skill needs, are also suitable for providing supplemental Tier 2 instruction. Frequent and regular progress-monitoring assessment, usually at least monthly, is used to determine the success of Tier 2 supplemental reading instructional interventions with students. If students respond to Tier 2 instruction positively, they are returned to exclusive Tier 1 literacy instruction. If, however, students fail to respond to Tier 2 instruction, meaning that they are failing to make significant progress over time with the instructional strategies being tried, then alternative teaching strategies should be tried. If efforts continue to be unsuccessful, students might be suspected of having a learning issue that keeps them from benefitting from high-quality, generally effective literacy instruction. In such cases, these students may be considered for Tier 3 literacy instruction, but only after diagnostic testing has been conducted. With Tier 3 literacy instruction, students are provided with even more frequent, intensive instruction (Gilbert et al., 2013; Stahl & McKenna, 2013). Depending on the situation, Tier 3 instruction may be offered in addition to standard Tier 1 instruction, or in the case of pull-out special education interventions, could take the place of Tier 1 instruction. All instructional interventions and modifications are documented and must be offered for a minimum of 8 weeks. If after this time period of Tier 3 instructional interventions and modifications, the instruction fails to accelerate or positively impact
Response to Intervention (RTI): Differentiating Reading Instruction for All Readers 17
a student’s literacy learning, this may signal a reading disability that will require the attention of specially trained school personnel, such as a reading specialist or special educator. This three-tiered instructional model is shown in Figure 2.1. In summary, RTI models integrate high-quality, evidence-based reading instruction coupled with frequent use of reliable and valid screening and progress-monitoring assessments. This is done in a systematic way to address students’ literacy instructional needs in a timely and effective manner. Online tools we highly recommend for those just learning about RTI are the training modules offered by the IRIS Center at Vanderbilt University: http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu. There are several concepts that are central for teachers to understand when implementing RTI models (see Figure 2.2) (McCook, 2007). One of the key concepts for implementation of RTI models is the systematic and planned use of valid and reliable assessments (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2008). Such assessments have undergone extensive evaluation to be certain that the scores obtained actually measure what they are supposed to measure in stable, consistent, and dependable ways. Another concept central to the use of RTI models is making instructional
Figure 2.1 A Response to Intervention Model High
Consideration for Special Education Evaluation
Intensity of Treatment
Tier 3
Tier 2
Tier 1
Even More Intense Supplemental Interventions and Progress-Monitoring Assessment (In Addition to Tier 1 Instruction)
Supplemental Interventions and Progress-Monitoring Assessment (In Addition to Tier 1 Instruction)
Developmental High-Quality Instruction
Low
Monitoring Frequency/Degree of Unresponsiveness to Intervention
High
SOURCE: Adapted from Knox Country Schools (Tennesee).
Intensity of Intervention
Figure 2.2 RTI Three-Tiered Instructional Model
Tier 3 Intensive Intervention Decision Rules Tier 2 Supplemental Intervention Decision Rules Tier 1 Core Classroom Instruction
SOURCE: McCook, J.E. (2007). Implementing a response to intervention (RTI) model. Striving Readers Grantee
Annual Conference. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education.
18 Chapter 2 decisions based on systematically collected assessment data rather than on impressions, hunches, or incidental observations—what some call kid watching (Haager, Klinger, & Vaughn, 2007; Stahl & McKenna, 2013). Evidence-based core literacy instructional programs and practices in Tier 1 literacy instruction are an expected feature of effectively implemented RTI models. Teachers who effectively implement evidence-based, Tier 1 core literacy instructional programs and practices have been shown in multiple studies to endow students with consistent, replicable learning advantages over other interventions (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2010; Gilbert et al., 2013). To learn which of the many published core or Tier 1 literacy instructional programs have been found effective, we recommend consulting the What Works Clearinghouse website, available through http://ies.ed.gov/.
How Is RTI Implemented? Effectively implementing RTI models relies heavily on understanding and applying the logic of problem-solving models, based on the work of Brown-Chidsey and Steege (2010, pp. 8–11) (Figure 2.3). This model provides teachers with a step-by-step guide for effectively implementing a problem-solving process to support the use of RTI models in the school or classroom. In the remainder of this chapter, we discuss the effective implementation of an RTI model three-tiered literacy instructional program. We begin with implementing effective Tier 1 literacy instruction.
Figure 2.3 Twelve Steps for Implementing an RTI Model of Reading Instruction 1. Collect universal screening data early in the year to identify potentially at risk students. 2. Implement evidence-and standards-based core literacy instruction programs and practices in Tier 1 reading instruction. 3. Collect progress-monitoring assessment data on all students at three equally spaced benchmark intervals during the academic year. 4. Identify students who score below established literacy benchmark targets or indicators during the year for Tier 2 instruction. 5. Provide additional evidence-based and targeted literacy instruction in small groups (Tier 2) for identified students scoring below established benchmarks. 6. Frequently monitor student progress in Tier 2 small-group literacy instruction to determine students’ responses to the intervention. 7. For those students who are making progress with Tier 2 supplementary reading instruction, continue until they can be returned to Tier 1 instruction and meet established literacy benchmark targets or indicators. 8. Review Tier 2 small-group literacy instruction for revision or discontinuation based on results of frequent progress monitoring of students. 9. For those students who do not make progress with Tier 2 supplementary reading instruction, move these students into Tier 3 reading instruction. 10. In Tier 3 reading instruction, teachers revise their instruction to increase intensity, duration, or frequency of literacy instruction groups to meet students’ data-based, literacy instructional needs. 11. After making revisions to increase intensity of Tier 3 reading instruction, continue to review student response to the reading instruction or intervention using progress-monitoring assessments on a weekly, if not daily, basis. 12. If after additional revisions to Tier 3 instruction are attempted students show the need, based on progress-monitoring assessments, for even more intensive, additional instructional support, they are recommended for comprehensive literacy diagnostic evaluation to determine eligibility and need for special education, Title I, tutoring, and speech-language or English language learning programs. SOURCE: Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M W. (2010). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for
effective practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Response to Intervention (RTI): Differentiating Reading Instruction for All Readers 19
Implementing Effective Tier 1 Literacy Instruction Effective Tier 1 literacy instruction is first and foremost anchored in the findings of scientific research evidence on best practices. Scientific research evidence is derived from studies that report the results of experiments in which one or more instructional interventions are tested against a control or comparison instructional intervention ( Stanovich & Stanovich, 2003). Scientific research reports are published in blind peer-reviewed research journals such as Journal of Educational Psychology, Reading Research Quarterly, and Journal of Educational Research. Blind peer review means that the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors submitting the report for potential publication, thus protecting against reviewers selecting studies for publication based on an author’s reputation or acquaintance and not on the quality of the study. For an instructional intervention to be considered evidence based, findings or results from multiple studies must come to the same conclusion about its effectiveness. Findings from a single study or even several studies (less than a dozen or so) are usually deemed insufficient to qualify an instructional intervention as evidence based. Thus the bar for claiming an instructional practice is evidence based is extremely high, and as a result, classroom teachers would be well advised to use these practices in their literacy instruction. Teachers can familiarize themselves with evidence-based literacy instructional practices by consulting documents available on the following websites: www.nationalreadingpanel.org, the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) Report at http://lincs.ed.gov/, and www.reading.org. Next, we discuss essential components of evidence- and standards-based literacy instruction and describe characteristic teacher practices that promote highly effective literacy instructional outcomes when used with students consistently in elementary school classrooms.
Essential Components of Evidence-Based Literacy Instruction This book presents evidence-based assessment and teaching strategies for your use. We now know that high-quality, evidence-based literacy instruction programs and practices focus instruction on the following essential components of effective literacy instruction (Bursuck & Blanks, 2010): • Oral language development • Concepts of print • Letter name knowledge • Sight word recognition • Phonemic awareness • Phonics • Fluency • Vocabulary • Comprehension • Writing/spelling • Abundant reading and writing • Motivation • Explicit strategy instruction • Instructional scaffolding • Increasing background knowledge • Strategic review • Deliberate integration of skills
20 Chapter 2 • Advance organizers • Opportunities for practice • Efficient teacher talk • Brisk pacing of instruction • Systematic feedback and error correction An equally important component of evidence-based reading instruction is student access to appropriately challenging reading and writing using a variety of text types, such as books, poetry, graphic novels, and so on (Neuman, 1999; Neuman & Celano, 2001; Neuman & Celano, 2006). Printed texts and printmaking supplies or materials may include but are not limited to: • A variety of interesting and appropriately challenging reading and writing materials, including both good literature and informational books • Supportive and assistive technologies for learning to read and write • Sociodramatic, literacy-enriched play in kindergarten • A variety of paper, writing media, binding materials, stencils, etc. • A computer having word processing software and a printer Recent research suggests that key elements of evidence-based interventions typically expected in RTI literacy interventions programs including explicit instruction, cognitive strategy instruction, content enhancements, and independent practice opportunities are not frequently used in RTI school-based programs (Ciullo, Lembke, Carlisle, Thomas, Goodwin, & Judd, 2016).
Essential Components of Standards-Based Literacy Instruction Implementation of the Common Core State Standards has proceeded swiftly (CCSS; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGA Center & CCSSO], 2010). As outlined in Chapter 1, classroom teachers need to become familiar with the state-level English Language Arts (ELA K–12) Core Standards and be able to interpret those standards into effective reading instruction in elementary classrooms (Reutzel, 2013). The identified state core standards are found within the grade level–specific ELA anchor standards at the state level for elementary teachers. Within each grade-level anchor standard, there is a brief description of what a student at that grade level should be able to do to meet the standard. For example, in the grade 2 reading standard for literature, Key Ideas and Details, we read the following: 1. Ask and answer such questions as who, what, where, when, why, and how to demonstrate understanding of key details in a text. 2. Recount stories, including fables and folktales from diverse cultures, and determine their central message, lesson, or moral. 3. Describe how characters in a story respond to major events and challenges. Each of these three areas of focus within the standard can be rephrased as an individual teaching and learning objective. For example, here is an objective based on the standard’s first focus area: Students will be able to ask and answer who, what, where, when, why, and how questions with at least 80% accuracy to demonstrate understanding of key details in text. With this clear objective, teachers will then be able to plan and deliver lessons aimed at improving students’ abilities to meet this standard when reading grade 2 literature texts. Some of the most important elements of teacher preparation and professional development are gaining necessary knowledge of each of their grade-level CCSS standards; understanding how to restate the standards as measurable
Response to Intervention (RTI): Differentiating Reading Instruction for All Readers 21
teaching/learning objectives; and then planning, designing, and delivering carefully crafted lessons that help students meet the standards. Ravitch (2010) advocates putting into place a carefully developed, coherent, and rich curriculum to support the teaching of core state standards as follows: We should attend to the quality of the curriculum—that is, what is taught. Every school should have a well-conceived, coherent, sequential curriculum. A curriculum is not a script but a set of general guidelines. . . . The curriculum is the starting place for other reforms. (p. 231)
So, the fact of the matter is simply this: Standards are not curriculum! Standards are intended to serve as grade-level goals for learners. A curriculum is a comprehensive, evidence-based program of study that, if implemented correctly, will help children achieve the state-required standards. Put another way, standards are the destination, and curricula are the vehicles that get children to the learning destinations. Unfortunately, many publishers have yet to develop validated curricula for teaching the core state standards that can be used with great confidence, and for considerably greater cost, than providing teachers with the support and know-how to develop their own curriculum, objectives, and lessons to teach core state standards. A well-conceived, coherent, sequential CCSS curriculum such as Ravitch (2010) advocates will not only specify what is to be taught but also how and in what sequence skills, strategies, and concepts will be taught, from the simple to the complex. Other economically developed nations have diligently labored to develop globally competitive standards and curricula that specify what students should learn to be prepared for college and careers. U.S. teachers and teacher educators are often playing a game of catchup in comparison to teachers and teacher educators in other developed nations. For example, teachers in Japan are allowed to invest a great deal of time during the normal school day in collaborative planning with other teachers to prepare well-constructed, tried-and-true lessons that address national and international learning standards, like those necessary to master the core state ELA standards, and they arrange these lessons in a sequence to support student learning progressions from simple to complex. This process used by Japanese teachers is called lesson study (Durbin, 2010). In lesson study, teachers identify a standard to be taught, restate this standard as a measurable objective, and collaboratively write out a lesson plan to address the teaching of that standard with a set of increasingly difficult and complex texts. After writing the lesson plan and preparing the necessary materials to teach the lesson, one of the teachers teaches the lesson to a group of students in a classroom and the other teachers observe the lesson carefully as it is taught to determine ways the lesson can be revised and improved to provide optimally effective instruction. After observing the lesson, the teachers meet again as a group to revise the lesson and then make it available to all of the teachers at grade level to use in their classrooms. In this way, Japanese teachers become experts at crafting objectives, curriculum, and lessons that are standards based and classroom tested. One of the authors of this book and a group of three collaborating second-grade teachers developed a lesson using lesson study to address the following second-grade core state standard writing standard: Write opinion pieces in which [students] introduce the topic or book they are writing about, state an opinion, supply reasons that support the opinion, use linking words (e.g., because, and, also) to connect opinion and reasons, and provide a concluding statement or section.
One of this book’s authors went into one of the second-grade teachers’ classrooms to teach the lesson while the teachers observed. After the lesson was taught, the teacher observers and the author suggested revisions to the lesson. The resultant lesson plan is found in Figure 2.4. A checklist for writing opinions is found in Figure 2.5 (p. 10), along with the mentor text “Pizza, Pizza, Pizza,” and the group composition that resulted from the teaching of the lesson in Figure 2.4.
Time
Give individuals opinion texts and checklists to use. Give students an opinion text and ask them tell you the criteria for a well-written opinion and how well this text matches those criteria.
Independent Practice Now, you will do this by yourself.
Assessment Show me how you would close read an opinion text by telling me what criteria you are looking for during your close read. Next, tell me how well the author meets the criteria you are using during your close read.
Continue guided practice over several days using at least two opinion model texts per day, gradually releasing to the students the steps of close reading of an opinion text with the whole and smaller groups. Move this process into small groups. Work together for several more days before asking individual students to do it on their own.
Point to the steps in the chart as you do them.
• Checklist for three major parts of a well-written opinion (see Figure 2.5) • Mentor text, “Pizza, Pizza, Pizza!” on a chart paper • Highlighter
Students are to a ttend to the teacher’s demonstration during this modeling part of the lesson.
Modeling Today, I will model for you how to close read an opinion text using a checklist with three criteria. (Show them the checklist). First, I will share with you this opinion writing checklist. The circles in the checklist represent the three criteria. The first criterion for a well-written opinion is the topic; a topic is what the opinion is about. The first criterion in the checklist is the topic. The second criterion for a well-written opinion is a statement of an opinion. An opinion is what you think about something. Opinions are statements that express a personal way of thinking that others may not agree with. The second criterion in the checklist is the statement of an opinion. The reasons are the third criterion for a well-written opinion. The third criterion in the checklist is at least three reasons to support an opinion. We will be using this checklist to do some close readings of sample written opinions. Close readings are when a reader reads a text, looking carefully to see if the author uses the criteria for a well-written text. When we close read an opinion, we will look specifically to see if the author has used the three major criteria for a well-written opinion: topic, statement of an opinion, and at least three supporting reasons, as we have in our checklist. Here is an opinion text titled, “Pizza, Pizza, Pizza!” I am going to model a close reading of this opinion text by thinking aloud and using our opinion writing checklist. I begin by reading the title. Then I look at my checklist and ask myself, does the author state a topic? I think to myself, yes! The author states the topic: Pizza! So, I put a checkmark in the first circle on the opinion writing checklist. (Put a checkmark in the circle). Then I write the topic on the line: Pizza. I keep reading the pizza opinion to see if the author states an opinion, or what they think or feel about the topic. (Read more of the opinion text.) As I read this next part, I noticed that the author states an opinion by saying “Pizza is the best food in the world!” So, I put a checkmark in the second circle on the opinion writing checklist. (Put a checkmark in the second circle). Then I write the statement of opinion on the line: “Pizza is the best food in the world!” I continue reading the Pizza opinion looking for the last criteria in the opinion writing checklist: three supporting reasons for the opinion. (Read Pizza to the end.) Now, I ask myself, does the author state three supporting reasons for the opinion? So I reread the last part to see if there are at least three reasons for the opinion. I notice that three reasons are included. The three reasons are: 1) it comes in so many flavors; 2) you can put on it whatever you want; 3) it is good anytime, hot or cold. So, I put a checkmark in the third circle on the opinion writing checklist. (Put a checkmark in the third circle). Then I write the three reasons on the three numbered lines on the checklist.
Guided Practice Now let’s practice a close reading of another opinion text together. Here is another opinion text titled, “Avengers: The Movie!” I am going to model a close reading of this opinion text by thinking aloud and using our opinion writing checklist. I will ask you to help me as I go along. Let’s read the title together. Next, we look at the checklist and ask, does the author state a topic? I think to myself, yes! The author states the topic of Avengers: The Movie. So, I put a checkmark in the first circle on the opinion writing checklist. (Put a checkmark in the circle). [Student name], can you please write the topic on the first line on the opinion writing checklist? Next, I will continue reading the “Avengers: The Movie!” opinion to see if the author states an opinion, or what they think or feel about the topic. (Read more of the opinion text.) As I read this next part, I noticed that the author states an opinion by saying “Avengers is the coolest movie ever!” So, I put a checkmark in the second circle on the opinion writing checklist. (Put a checkmark in the second circle). Then I write the statement of opinion on the line: “Avengers is the coolest movie ever!” I continue reading the “Avengers: The Movie!” opinion looking for the last criteria in the opinion writing checklist: three supporting reasons for the opinion. (Read “Avengers” to the end.) Now, I ask myself, does the author state three supporting reasons for the opinion? So I reread the last part to see if there are at least three reasons for the opinion. I notice that three reasons are included. The three reasons are: (1) All the best superheroes are in it; (2) The Hulk does a smack down on Loki; (3) Iron Man saves the world by flying an atom bomb into space where it explodes. So, I put a checkmark in the third circle on the opinion writing checklist. (Put a checkmark in the third circle). Then I write the three reasons on the three numbered lines on the checklist.
• Write objective on the board. Objective: Students will be able to identify the three major parts of a well-written opinion using a checklist and close reading.
Materials Needed
Attend and listen.
Expected Student Response
Explanation Today, boys and girls, we will be learning how to find three major parts of a well-written opinion using a checklist. Everybody has their own opinions about different things. Because everybody has opinions, they need to be able to express their opinions clearly and well. Opinions can be expressed inboth speaking and writing.
Lesson Sequence
Figure 2.4 Lesson Study Example: Writing Lesson for Common Core State Writing Standard #1a, “Identifying Major Elements of Mentor/Model Opinion Texts”
22 Chapter 2
Response to Intervention (RTI): Differentiating Reading Instruction for All Readers 23
Figure 2.5 Opinion Writing Checklist Name _____________________________ • Does the author state the topic? What is the topic? Write it here: ________________________________________________________________________________ • Does the author state his/her opinion? What is the opinion? Write it here: ________________________________________________________________________________ • Does the author state at least three reasons for the opinion? What are the reasons? Write them here: 1. _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. _____________________________________________________________________________ Close Read Mentor Opinion Writing Text Pizza! Pizza! Pizza! I think pizza is the best food in the world because it comes in so many flavors! Also, you can put whatever you want on it. Finally, it tastes good anytime, hot or cold. Resulting Group Composition by 2nd Graders Avengers: The Movie! Avengers is the coolest movie ever! It is so cool because all the best super heroes are in it. The Hulk does a smack down on Loki. At the end, Iron Man saves the world by flying a bomb into space where it explodes.
Teacher-developed and teacher-validated lessons resulting from lesson studies in Japan are accorded such high value that national bookstores routinely stock and sell these lessons to other teachers and the public. Think about how lesson study could be used to build the capacity of all U.S. teachers to design effective, evidence- and standards-based reading lessons and curricula. For more information about lesson study, we have found http://tdtrust.org/what-is-lesson-study to contain valuable information as a part of their professional learning community (PLC) activities. After locating this site, search for “What is lesson study?” The lessons resulting from the process of lesson study are validated in the context of the classroom and have been demonstrated to be effective. They are to educators what treatment protocols are to medical practitioners. No serious effort to reform medical practice would leave to chance something as valuable and effective as treatment protocols. Yet in U.S. educational reform efforts such as English Language Arts Common Core Standards (ELACCS) implementation, effective, clinically validated lessons that routinely and effectively employ evidence-based practices that help students master established standards are habitually overlooked by policy makers and are not yet available from commercial publishers.
Leading and Managing a Classroom Effectively It is critical that teachers feel competent and confident in orchestrating students, space, time and materials in a classroom. Here we think of classrooms having flexible but orderly routines that support students’ increasing independence as learners. When teachers are able to manage a classroom where more than one thing at a time takes place students’ opportunities to learn in appropriate ways and at appropriate levels are substantially increased (Pianta, LaParo, & Hamre, 2007; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2013). This allows the teacher time to work with small groups and individuals so that student work is targeted to meet varied learning needs. There is a strong relationship between a teacher’s confidence in managing the classroom and his or her capacity to teach intellectually rich content. McNeil (2000) explains
24 Chapter 2 that teachers who value tight control in the classroom and favor orderly classrooms often create and deliver lower level student outcomes. The goal is to offer learning tasks that encourage student discussion, use of varied materials, and higher-level thinking. It appears from past research that successful teachers approach classroom management as creating positive and effective learning environments. These classrooms embody such attributes as acceptance, trust, relationships, respect, flexibility, and student selfdetermination instead of an overemphasis on teacher authority (Agne, Greenwood, & Miller, 1994; Brophy, 1998; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2013).
Establishing Classroom Routines Children develop a sense of security when the events of the school day revolve around a predictable sequence of literacy learning events and activities. Students find comfort in familiar instructional routines and daily classroom schedules in a well-organized and managed classroom (Morrow, Reutzel, & Casey, 2006). There are any number of ways to organize activities and instruction for Tier 1 literacy instruction. However, one of the most critical considerations for the teacher is time allocation and scheduling. There seems to be a fairly wide range as to the duration of literacy instruction in elementary school classrooms, but many schools require 120 to 180 minutes of instruction each day in reading and writing. Shanahan (2004) also recommends the allocation of at least 120 minutes per day for Tier 1 literacy instruction. As shown in Figure 2.6, this total time allocation of 120 minutes of Tier 1 literacy instruction is further subdivided into four 30-minute literacy instructional blocks focused on the essential elements of evidence-based literacy instruction: word work, fluency, writing, and comprehension strategies. The purpose of the 30-minute word work instructional block is to develop students’ phonological and phonemic awareness, concepts about print, letter name knowledge, decoding and word recognition, and spelling concepts, skills, and strategies. During these 30 minutes, the effective literacy teacher provides the whole class with explicit instruction on each of these word-related skills, strategies, and concepts. Students receive clear verbal explanations, or “think- alouds,” coupled with expert modeling of reading and writing concepts, skills, and strategies. Having clearly modeled reading and writing word work concepts, skills, and strategies, teachers then provide students with guided or supervised practice. The purpose of the daily 30-minute fluency instructional block is twofold. First, students are given brief, explicit lessons that help them understand the elements of fluent oral reading: accuracy, rate, and expression. Students also see and hear the teacher model the elements of fluent oral reading. Modeling is followed with the teacher involving students in reading practice to develop oral reading fluency. Effective Tier 1 literacy teachers use various formats for oral reading fluency practice, such as choral reading including such variations as echoic (echo chamber), unison (all together), antiphonal (one group of students reading against another), mumble reading (whisper), a line per
Figure 2.6 Example of a 120-Minute Tier 1 Literacy Instruction Block Word Work 30 Minutes
Comprehension Strategy Instruction 30 Minutes
Can use whole-group and small-group differentiated
Fluency
Writing and Spelling
instruction
30 Minutes
30 Minutes
here
Response to Intervention (RTI): Differentiating Reading Instruction for All Readers 25
child, and so on. For those who are unfamiliar with these choral reading variations, we recommend Opitz and Rasinski’s (2008) Good-Bye Round Robin or Rasinski’s (2010) The Fluent Reader. Students can also read in pairs, with same-age peers or older peers from higher grade–level classrooms. Each pair alternates the roles of reader and listener. After each oral reading, the listener provides feedback. Students can also prepare oral reading performances, for which effective Tier 1 literacy teachers can select one of three well-known oral reading performance approaches: readers’ theater, radio reading, or recitation. The purpose of the writing instructional block in Tier 1 literacy instruction is to develop students’ composition skills, spelling, writing mechanics, and grammatical understandings. Effective instructional practices used within this time allocation include modeled writing by the teacher; a writer’s workshop including drafting, conferencing, revising, editing, publishing, and disseminating; and direct, explicit, whole-class instruction on each of these writing skills, strategies, and concepts. We also strongly recommend that daily lessons provide a time allocation for sharing children’s writing in an “author’s chair” or some other method. The purpose of the comprehension strategies 30-minute instructional block is to develop students’ vocabulary and comprehension strategies. Effective instructional practices used within this time segment include explicit instruction on vocabulary concepts using a variety of methods and requiring a variety of responses, such as word play and word awareness (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Johnson, 2001; McKenna, 2002). As for comprehension instruction, effective Tier 1 literacy teachers focus attention on explicitly teaching evidence-based reading comprehension strategies, including question answering, question asking, story and text structure, graphic organizers, monitoring, summarizing, and activating/building background knowledge. Effective Tier 1 literacy teachers also teach students to use a set or family of multiple comprehension strategies such as reciprocal teaching (Palincsar, 2003), concept-oriented reading instruction (Guthrie, 2003; Swan, 2003), and transactional strategies (Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996) to be used strategically while interacting with a variety of texts over long periods of time (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Reutzel, Smith, & Fawson, 2005).
Systematic Instruction Systematic instruction means that classroom teachers teach each grade level’s identified scope or range of literacy concepts, skills, and strategies using a school’s or district’s adopted reading curriculum, or for many new teachers, the school’s adopted core reading program. Systematic instruction also means that teachers teach this planned range of reading concepts, skills, and strategies in a predetermined sequence or order as spelled out in the core reading program or district-adopted reading curriculum. The range and order of literacy concepts, skills, or strategies to be taught in core reading instruction are typically found in the scope and sequence chart usually located in each grade-level core reading program’s teachers’ manual or edition or in a similar chart in a school- or district-adopted reading curriculum. It is important to note that systematic does not mean that teachers pace the instruction of information as prescribed in many core reading program teachers’ editions or district/school curriculum guides. To provide appropriate instructional pacing, teachers need to observe student responses to the current pace of instruction and then make needed adjustments.
Explicit Instruction Explicit instruction is described as instruction in which teachers state clear, concise, and measurable instructional objectives to be taught. It also implies a carefully structured approach to introduce new knowledge and show multiple examples of the new knowledge in action, ample practice of the skill by the learners, and a final demonstration of
26 Chapter 2 their mastery of the new knowledge. This model for explicit instruction is what is often termed gradual release of responsibility. A clear, concise, and measurable instructional objective describes a specific literacy concept, skill, or strategy to be taught along with the cognitive thinking processes needed, the assigned tasks to be completed, and the level of acceptable performance. An example might be: Students will learn to blend letter sounds in consonant-vowelconsonant (CVC) words containing a short /a/ vowel sound to pronounce at least 20 words per minute with 95% accuracy. Next, teachers provide students with explanations about why it is important to learn the identified literacy concept, skill, or strategy, as well as when and where it will be useful in literacy (Duffy, 2009). Next comes teacher modeling and thinking aloud about how to consciously perform the thinking process steps needed to effectively use a literacy strategy independently (Duffy, 2009; Hancock, 1999). After modeling, the teacher “scaffolds” or closely guides and coaches students’ use of the concept or strategy with a gradual release of responsibility for using the associated thinking processes during subsequent lessons over many days, weeks, or months (see Figure 2.7) (Duffy, 2009; Hancock, 1999; Raphael, George, Weber, & Nies, 2009). We repeat with emphasis: Tier 1 literacy instruction provides all students with increased, targeted, intense instruction and practice to meet individual literacy learning needs. For some students, Tier 1 literacy instruction offers much needed time for double doses (or more) of teacher-directed explicit instruction and guided practice to learn a previously taught but not yet mastered literacy skill, concept, or strategy. For other students, Tier 1 literacy instruction offers the opportunity to extend and accelerate the acquisition of advanced literacy skills, strategies, and concepts in literature circle groups or book club discussions beyond those typically taught at grade level. Tier 1 literacy instruction is not intended to address all individual or specific literacy learning needs, but rather to provide all students grade-level, developmental, evidence-based literacy instruction. High-quality Tier 1 literacy instruction is systematically and explicitly taught to the whole class of students and in small groups using either a commercially published or locally developed literacy instructional program. Evidence-based Tier 1 literacy instruction requires that teachers allocate at least 120 minutes for daily instruction. As previously noted, this allocated
Figure 2.7 Gradual Release of Responsibility Model of Instruction Gradual Release of Responsibility
Explicit Explanation Modeling High Teacher Control Low Student Activity
Guided Practice Coaching Independent Application Self-Assessment and Goal-Setting Low Teacher Control High Student Activity
Response to Intervention (RTI): Differentiating Reading Instruction for All Readers 27
instructional time is often distributed across four essential components of effective literacy instruction: word work, fluency work, comprehension strategy instruction, and writing. Shanahan (2004) has reported increased student achievement when high-quality, evidence-based Tier 1 literacy instruction is provided to all students, as described here.
Implementing Effective Tier 2 Literacy Instruction: Triage in Classrooms The concept of triage is well known in medical circles, but is not as familiar in educational settings. Triage in medicine is the process of determining the patient’s needs and the priority of medical treatment options based on the severity of the condition. Similarly, in RTI models, Tier 2 literacy instruction is a bit like educational triage in elementary classrooms. When children are placed into Tier 2 literacy instruction, their instruction is targeted to known gaps or weaknesses in their current literacy performance as determined in Tier 1 instruction and assessment. During an initial period of time, usually about 8 weeks, teachers match evidence-based literacy instruction to the area of a student’s greatest need. They frequently monitor the effectiveness of the instruction, modify instruction where necessary, and finally determine other teaching options if the student does not respond to the instruction provided. According to the RTI Network (2009) and others, Tier 2 literacy instruction is intended to assist students not making adequate progress in the regular classroom in Tier 1 literacy instruction. Tier 2 literacy instruction is typically taught by the classroom teacher, although other educators and service providers, such as reading specialists, tutors, or aides, can be asked to assist. Nevertheless, the responsibility for designing, documenting, and coordinating effective Tier 2 literacy instruction rests with the classroom teacher. Struggling students are provided additional targeted and intensive reading instruction in small-group settings matched to their needs on the basis of levels of performance and rates of progress (Gregory & Chapman, 2002; Tyner, 2009; Wilkinson & Townsend, 2000; Wonder-McDowell, Reutzel, & Smith, 2011). Depending on the severity of learning issues, students who continue to struggle after receiving Tier 2 literacy instruction may be considered for more intensive Tier 3 interventions. Another concept central to the success of Tier 2 literacy instruction is “curricular alignment.” Teacher-directed Tier 2 literacy instruction must make sure that students receive supplemental instruction aligned with Tier 1 core classroom literacy instruction, especially when someone other than the classroom teacher is working with students (Allington, 1994; Davis & Wilson, 1999). Alignment of Tier 1 and Tier 2 literacy instructional programs has been shown to significantly and positively affect literacy growth among at-risk students (Wonder-McDowell, Reutzel, & Smith, 2011). Because the classroom teacher typically provides both Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction, problems of curricular alignment are usually avoided.
Small-Group Tier 2 Reading Instruction Small-group Tier 2 literacy instructional planning begins with student screening and progress-monitoring assessments. If a previous year’s assessment data are available, teachers should study these data in addition to those universal screening data obtained in the early fall, in order to determine the degree of summer literacy loss (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2013). Small-group Tier 2 reading instruction should not proceed without conducting a universal screening assessment of all students within the first week or two of a new school year.
28 Chapter 2 From their review of student assessment data, teachers can begin to see which students are potentially at risk for literacy problems early in the year. The teacher should then place these potentially at-risk students on their watch list during the first few weeks of literacy instruction. When the past year’s and the current year’s data are taken in combination, teachers can then determine which students need to be monitored more closely. The next step is to observe and monitor the progress of these potentially at-risk students’ performance in Tier 1 reading instruction for 6 to 8 weeks before making a decision about providing additional Tier 2 literacy instruction. If these or other students are not making progress in Tier 1 literacy instruction similar to their peers, they should be further assessed to determine areas of greatest literacy need using a component-based reading assessment model such as those discussed in Chapter 1 and in later chapters of this book. Once a student’s area of greatest literacy instruction need is clearly identified, these students can be placed into Tier 2 small-group instruction where they receive targeted, intensive instruction intended to fill their literacy learning need. Figure 2.8 depicts an iterative process teachers might employ when creating and managing RTI Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction groups. Once Tier 2 small literacy instruction groups have been established, teachers need to turn their attention to preparing all students in the classroom to function successfully in the multiple literacy activities in the daily classroom schedule. The first few weeks of school are an ideal time to train students in classroom management, including the many activities and expected procedures for transitioning between instructional group settings during periods of small-group and independent literacy learning activities.
Figure 2.8 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Literacy Instruction in the RTI Decision-Making Process
Start Here Review previous year’s reading assessment data
Conduct fall screening assessment to determine student performance
Examine gradelevel scope and sequence of skills
If YES, then repeat cycle with the next identified skill in the scope and sequence
Have grade-level skills, strategies, and concepts been learned by every learner?
Provide high-quality, evidence-based reading instruction (whole and small group)
If NO, then repeat cycle with those learners needing additional instruction
Additional instruction is offered in small, needsbased groups
Identify grade-level skills, strategies, and concepts to be taught
Response to Intervention (RTI): Differentiating Reading Instruction for All Readers 29
Managing a Classroom When Implementing Tier 2 Instruction Teachers must plan productive work for those students who are not participating in Tier 2 small-group literacy instruction and who are not under the direct supervision of the classroom teacher. Teachers often ask us what they should do with the other children who are not in their Tier 2 groups. Many elementary classroom teachers use learning centers, stations, or independent work activities. When planning such formats to support or accompany Tier 2 small-group literacy instruction, there are several important decisions to be made. Teachers need to consider how many learning centers they can reasonably manage while simultaneously providing a small group of students with Tier 2 supplemental literacy instruction. For an inexperienced teacher, managing the complexities of multiple literacy learning centers may seem too much. Literacy learning centers are not the only effective way to give students meaningful practice in reading and writing. Pairing students with peers or buddies can provide them with effective reading practice when not participating in small-group literacy instruction. Involving other educators in Tier 2 classroom literacy instruction—such as reading recovery teachers with differentiated assignments, aides, tutors, or reading specialists—can provide additional personnel and supervision for other small groups in a classroom. For more experienced teachers, the question is not whether to use literacy learning centers or stations but rather how to design effective centers that promote literacy learning. Unsupervised literacy learning centers are established primarily to give students independent or peer-assisted practice in applying literacy concepts, skills, or strategies previously taught by the classroom teacher. Therefore, if an educator is not supervising centers, then the activities and tasks to be completed independently should never represent new or novel learning experiences. Several key features are associated with effectively designed literacy learning centers. Literacy learning centers should provide students with practice in the essential components of evidence-based reading instruction—fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, and word recognition. Literacy learning centers that focus on low-level completion of seatwork activities or participation in easy, repetitious games to keep students occupied are not the most effective use of classroom or practice time. Students need well-defined and structured assignments requiring them to demonstrate task completion. Procedures for using literacy learning centers need to be explicitly taught, modeled, and practiced under the guidance of the teacher prior to allowing students to engage in the independent use of literacy learning centers. Likewise, procedures for transitioning among a variety of literacy learning centers should be explicitly taught, modeled, and practiced to reduce transition times. Teachers who design effective literacy learning centers clearly display the literacy learning objectives, standards, or benchmarks, as well as the rules or behavior expected in literacy learning centers and the directions for completing assignments, tasks, or work in the centers. Training students to make efficient movements between literacy centers and into and out of various classroom activities is essential for minimizing transition times and maximizing literacy practice and instructional time. Experience has taught us the value of using timers or stopwatches to motivate students to accomplish transitions briskly and without dallying. A worthwhile goal is to reduce transition times to a single minute. We recommend a quick four-step process to make this happen, as shown in Figure 2.9. An excellent resource for more information about designing and implementing effective literacy centers is found in Morrow’s The Literacy Center: Contexts for Reading and Writing (2002).
30 Chapter 2
Figure 2.9 Making Efficient Transitions When Using Literacy Centers 1. Signal students to freeze and listen for directions using a hotel registration bell, turning off the lights, or similar method. 2. Provide brief, well-sequenced, and repetitive oral directions coupled with displayed written directions. For example, say and display something like: (1) put materials away and (2) line up. Children must listen or read to get the directions for what is to be done. 3. Signal using your hotel bell, lights, or similar method for students to follow the oral and written displayed directions. 4. Signal students to move to the next classroom literacy center or return to their regularly assigned classroom seats.
Implementing Effective Tier 3 Literacy Instruction As classroom teachers continue to monitor students’ progress and responses to Tier 2 small-group literacy instruction, they systematically determine whether students are responding to the instruction offered. This determination will lead to one of four possible decisions or outcomes: • Option 1: Tier 2 instruction has met the student’s greatest literacy learning needs, and he or she can be returned to Tier 1 literacy instruction without the need for continued Tier 2 support. • Option 2: Tier 2 literacy instruction is working well, but the student has not yet closed the gap between the current level and where the student needs to be in order to be returned to Tier 1 instruction without Tier 2 support. As a consequence, the student continues in Tier 2 support for a time and then he or she is returned to Tier 1 core literacy instruction. • Option 3: If, after at least 8 weeks of Tier 2 literacy support focused on the at-risk student’s areas of greatest literacy learning need, the student is not making progress according to ongoing progress-monitoring assessments, then a conference should be held with other consulting teachers to choose alternative approaches to meet the student’s needs. These new interventions should be tried for at least another 8 weeks, accompanied by ongoing progress-monitoring assessment. After these interventions have been tried, another conference is scheduled by the classroom teacher with other consulting teachers to discuss the student’s progress and possible next steps. For those students having persistent reading difficulties, there is a fourth option. • Option 4: For students not making adequate progress after at least 16 weeks of documented Tier 2 support, a conference should be scheduled to discuss possible educational options. The conference is typically attended by the classroom teacher (required), other consulting teachers (e.g., Title I reading specialist, reading recovery teacher, the school intervention teacher), a special education teacher, the principal, and a certified diagnostician. The purpose of the meeting is to examine records assembled by the classroom teacher detailing Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction provided to the student. From this discussion there are several possible outcomes. First, alternative literacy instruction strategies, or possibly research-proven commercial programs, may be suggested for further Tier 2 instruction targeted to the student’s learning needs. If this is the case, the intervention will be put in place along with continuous progress-monitoring assessments for at least 8 weeks, followed by another conference to determine effects.
Response to Intervention (RTI): Differentiating Reading Instruction for All Readers 31
A second possibility is that the student may be considered for Tier 3 literacy instruction in which he or she receives even more intense literacy instructional support. Tier 3 literacy instruction and ongoing assessment is usually provided by the classroom teacher and/or other specialized educational providers such as reading specialists, Title I teachers, or special education teachers as consultants (McCook, 2007). For students to be formally placed into a special education classroom, a licensed diagnostician must first conduct a full assessment and the results must confirm a learning disability. It is estimated that only 1% to 5% of children will require special education assistance. Students who are not responsive to Tier 2 classroom literacy instruction require additional diagnostic assessment and often more specific and intensive literacy interventions. Tier 3 literacy instruction and assessment is provided by the classroom teacher and/or other specialized educational providers such as reading specialists, Title I teachers, or special education teachers as consultants (McCook, 2007). The intensity of interventions can be increased in one of three ways in Tier 3 interventions. First, the size of the group for the Tier 3 literacy instruction can be reduced. Supplemental Tier 3 instruction should be offered in smaller groups (1:2 or 1:3) or individually, in addition to core literacy instruction. Second, the frequency of the Tier 3 instruction can be increased from say, three times a week to daily instruction. Third, the duration of the instruction in Tier 3 can be increased from, say, 20 minutes to 40 minutes. Finally, the length of the Tier 3 reading intervention time period can be extended from a low of 8 weeks to 24 weeks (Vaughn, Denton, & Fletcher, 2010). We recommend that Tier 3 literacy instruction occur at a minimum of five 30-minute sessions per week, or longer if possible. Progress-monitoring assessment on targeted literacy skills should occur as often as twice a week or, at a minimum, weekly, to ensure adequate progress and learning are occurring (McCook, 2007). As previously noted, in the rare cases where Tier 3 supplemental instruction is not successful, the student may then be referred for further diagnostic testing to determine whether he or she may qualify for special education services, as illustrated previously in Figure 2.1, which shows a model for three-tier RTI instruction along with a fourth step, consideration for special education evaluation and services. Special educators are becoming more and more informed about how to use RTI procedures in making eligibility decisions for students requiring special education services. For those special educators seeking more information about how to use RTI processes to provide effective Tier 3 assessment and instructional services, we recommend Response to Intervention: Principles and Strategies for Effective Practice (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2010).
“Outsourcing” Is Out In the past, when students failed to make adequate progress in reading and writing they were often referred for out-of-the-classroom special services. This “outsourcing” of teaching interventions was due to federal regulations regarding how struggling students were to have access to such special programs as Title I and special education under Public Law 94-142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act. These regulations tended to lead to special service providers working outside of the regular classroom instead of as team members with the classroom teacher. Today, many classroom teachers are working harder than ever to differentiate literacy instruction in their classrooms. They are now able to work with other educators as a team to offer the best learning experiences possible within the context of the regular classroom. School leaders and policy makers have positively viewed shifts in practice associated with the use of RTI models. This is so much the case that the use of RTI models has been made part of the law in the reauthorization of two federal educational programs: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education
32 Chapter 2 Act (IDEA). In so doing, educational leaders and policy makers at the federal level have set up an expectation that RTI methods will become a common feature of literacy instruction and assessment in today’s classrooms. However, at this juncture, RTI is still not a federal mandate for the states, but that day is probably coming.
Recommended Resources Brown-Chidsey, R. & Steege, M W. (2010). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., and Tilly, W.D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practice guides/. Marinak, B. A., Gambrell, L. B., & Mazonni, S. A. (2013). Maximizing motivation for literacy learning, Grades K-6. New York: Guilford Press. Rathvon, N. (2004). Early reading assessment: A practitioner’s handbook. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Reutzel, D. R. & Jones, C. D. (2013). Designing and managing effective learning environments. In D. R. Reutzel (Ed.), Handbook of research-based practice in early education (pp. 81–99). New York: Guilford Press. Stahl, K. A. D. & McKenna, M. C. (2013). Reading assessment in an RTI framework. New York: Guilford Press.
Chapter 3
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy Life is good this year in fifth grade. Janet was able to move into a vacant classroom on the corner of the school with lots of windows, and her students seem eager to learn. So far, so good! The first challenges on Janet’s horizon are Molly and Roberto. They both seem to have limited abilities in speaking English, but for very different reasons. Molly is one of four children and has a single mother. Molly’s mom, Theresa, works hard as a waitress, but simply does not earn enough to make ends meet. Molly’s family moves around a lot for financial reasons, which has taken its toll on her language learning. When Janet asked Theresa how things were going, her eyes welled up as she explained their situation. Here’s the pattern: The rent comes due and Theresa rarely has sufficient resources to pay the bill. After 2 or 3 months of nonpayment, eviction is threatened, so she gathers up her children and moves to another apartment complex offering a $99 move-in special. This state of affairs is repeated time and again because Theresa’s income remains in the poverty range. In the end, she is working two minimum wage jobs and has very little time to spend with Molly, who stays at home tending her younger siblings while her mom is working. Roberto’s situation is quite different. His family recently immigrated to the United States from Chile when his father, a civil engineer, was transferred with his company. Roberto studied English at a private Catholic school in Chile and can read and understand English fairly well. His main problem seems to be oral communication. It seems obvious that both Molly and Roberto need to build their English vocabulary and develop oral speaking fluency. The questions in Janet’s mind are: (1) How can I find out what they already know? and (2) When I know that, where should I begin oral language instruction for each of these students?
Background Briefing for Teachers Scientific research has confirmed that there is a strong relationship between oral language development and learning to read (Gillam & Reutzel, 2013; National Center for Education Statistics, 2012; Tosto, Harlaar, Dale, Hayiou-Thomas, Prom-Wormley, & Plomin, 2017). Almost all humans use oral language as a tool for getting their needs met, for learning, for thinking, for problem solving, and for sharing ideas and feelings. Language is both expressive (speaking and writing) and receptive (reading and listening). Expressive language requires the sender of a message to “encode” or to put his or her thoughts into symbolic form. Expressive language most often takes the form
33
34 Chapter 3 of spoken or written words, but may also be represented visually through gestures, art, pictures, video, or dramatization. Thus, the size and breadth of one’s speaking vocabulary and the complexity of one’s language structures and usage can directly affect listening comprehension, verbal expression, reading comprehension, and writing composition abilities (Pelatti, Schmitt, & Justice, 2013). Receptive language involves the skills of listening and reading and requires the receiver of a message to “decode” or unlock the code of the spoken or written communication used by the sender in order to understand the message. Lonigan and Milburn (2017) studied the assessment of some 19-20 factors in language learning., They found that most of these elements could be accounted for with just two factors: vocabulary knowledge and syntax (i.e., knowledge of the grammar rules by which words are arranged in English). This important finding underscores the tremendous value of helping children develop robust vocabulary knowledge as well as an understanding as to how words are properly strung together when listening and speaking. In this chapter, we focus on ways of assessing and enhancing children’s oral language (expressive language) and listening abilities (receptive language). We begin with a background briefing for teachers on these two foundational language abilities.
Speaking and Listening in the Common Core State Standards The English Language Arts (K–12) Common Core Standards (ELACCS) have specific benchmarks for grades K through 12. They provide a focus for instruction each year to help students develop mastery of a range of skills and applications. Students are expected to meet each year’s grade-specific standards and further develop skills learned in preceding grades. At each grade level, the ELACCS expect teachers to help students develop comprehension and collaboration skills in conversations with peers and others. These skills include, but are not limited to: • Following agreed upon rules for discussions • Listening and attending to others in conversations • Ability to continue a conversation over multiple exchanges • Asking and answering questions to seek assistance, obtain information, and clarify that which is not fully understood There are also skills to be developed related to presentation of knowledge and ideas, such as use of appropriate visual displays, proper expressiveness in one’s oral discussion, use of complete sentences and ideas, and so forth. In the Teaching Strategies section of this chapter we alert you to the range of ELACCS for which each strategy may be considered.
Expressive Language: Speaking and Oral Language Development Speaking, or oral language development, paves the way for learning such reading skills as phonemic awareness, alphabetic principles, phonics, decoding abilities, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2009; Shanahan & Lonigan, 2013). In fact, oral language ability is the bedrock foundation on which all of students’ future literacy learning is built (Hogan, Cain, & Bridges, 2013). How oral language begins is the subject of ongoing research and provides teachers with valuable insights. THEORIES OF ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT There are essentially four major views of how children acquire oral language: (1) behaviorist, (2) innatist,
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 35
(3) constructivist, and (4) social interactionist. We have found that each of these views helps to explain one or more aspects of how children acquire and use oral language. We include a very brief summary of each in this section. Behaviorists believe that oral language is learned through a process of conditioning and shaping based on response to stimulus, reward, or punishment. Human role models in an infant’s social and cultural environment provide the stimuli, rewards, or punishments that shape or condition the acquisition of certain features of oral language. Thus, the behaviorist theory of language development states that infants learn oral language from other human role models through a process involving stimulation, imitation, rewards, punishment, and practice. However, behaviorist theories of language development fail to explain a number of important questions associated with children’s language acquisition. A second view of oral language development is called the innatist theory, which holds that language learning is natural for human beings. In short, babies enter the world with a biological propensity—an inborn inclination, as it were—to learn language, something Lenneberg (1964) refers to as the language acquisition device (LAD). Thus, the innatist theory explains to some degree how children can generate or invent language they have never heard before. Although the innatist theory provides what appears to be a believable explanation for some aspects of oral language acquisition, researchers have failed to discover supporting evidence. Constructivist theories of oral language development spring from the work of Jean Piaget (1959), who believed that language development is linked to cognitive development. Even though he believed that cognition and language operate independently of each other, Piaget contended that language development was deeply rooted in the development of cognition or thinking and that concept or cognitive development preceded the development of language ability (Cox, 2002). Put another way, Piaget believed that a certain cognitive stage of development, or “readiness,” must take place in the child before he or she is ready to learn words. This notion is very much at odds with the social interactionist perspective. The environment, or most importantly, the people in the environment, plays a critical role in the development of language according to social interactionist explanations of oral language development. Social interactionist theory assumes that language development is greatly influenced by physical, social, and linguistic factors (Cox, 2002). Lev Vygotsky (1986, 1990), a Russian scholar who arguably conducted the seminal work in this area, believed that adult interactions with children assist in language development and set the pace of language learning (a point Piaget embraced in his later years). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) explains how teachers can help students move from where they are developmentally into new frontiers of learning. ZPD is at the heart of the social interactionist view. The ZPD notion explains the means by which teachers are able to create a kind of linguistic scaffolding (Bruner, 1978; Roy, 2011)—structures that help students develop new language built on what they have previously learned. In summary, we agree with the behaviorists that providing positive reinforcement in learning situations helps create an environment conducive to learning. We also agree with constructivists that oral language is strongly connected to cognitive learning. Likewise, we agree that children move through very predictable stages of language learning with observable traits. However, we particularly agree with Vygotsky and social interactionists that oral language learning can be positively affected and accelerated by a skillful teacher who scaffolds instruction in the student’s zone of proximal development. THE BIRTH OF ORAL LANGUAGE Deb Roy is a research professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who studies ways children absorb language and then designs machines that learn to communicate in human-like ways. In a landmark linguistics study (Roy, 2011) somewhat reminiscent of Piaget’s studies of
36 Chapter 3 his own children, Roy and his colleagues analyzed some 90,000 hours of video footage gathered over a three-year period of his son’s early years as he learned to speak and understand words. His goal was to use these longitudinal data to understand the process of how a child learns language. Using sophisticated audio and video examination tools, they were able to use motion analysis to follow his son through space and time to discover when and where certain words were learned in his environment. In this way, the researchers were able to discover why certain words were “born” before others. The conditions under which certain words are added, or born, in young children are quite interesting. It appears from Roy’s (2011) research that the length of caregivers’ utterances (i.e., number of words in their spoken sentences) during language learning is an important factor relating to when a word is learned. For example, they found that caregivers’ (mother, father, childcare providers, etc.) speech would usually dip to a minimum (i.e., short spoken sentences) to make language as simple as possible when they were trying to teach a new word, such as “Want some water?” Then, as the new word was understood, the caregivers would gradually increase sentence length to more complex levels, such as “Let’s go to the kitchen for some water.” The researchers realized through their analyses that this dip in language complexity happened when words were first introduced to the child and coincided almost perfectly with when each new word was born and became a working part of a child’s listening and speaking vocabulary. This linguistic scaffolding provided by caregivers in tight feedback loops (i.e., restructuring their oral language to introduce new words using short, simple utterances, then using the same word in more complex sentences) had not been previously recorded in research. Another language learning condition noticed by Roy (2011) and his colleagues was where new words are most likely to be learned. Using motion analysis and video analytics software, the researchers discovered “social hot spots” that seem to affect the way language is learned. For example, in learning words like water, the child was usually in or near the kitchen where water was to be had, thus providing important social and physical context for learning. Likewise, in learning the word bye, the social hot spot was near the front door of the home. In summary, when and where new words are encountered has an impact on the ease of learning for children and ensures a degree of repetition in hearing and using the new word. As teachers, we must consider the conditions needed for optimal language learning in our classrooms. This should include: • introducing new words and concepts in a meaningful context • providing linguistic scaffolding so that new words are introduced using simple, concrete sentences, and then increasing the complexity of context and sentences and applying new words over time THE PHASES OF ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT Whether you work with slow learners, gifted students who are English language learners (ELLs), or children living in the suburbs, oral language among young children develops along a fairly predictable continuum. These five phases of oral language—(1) preproduction, (2) early production, (3) emergent speech, (4) developing fluency, and (5) advanced fluency—are readily observable and can be used to help decide just where a student is along the path of development, and what he or she is ready to learn next (i.e., his or her zone of proximal development). The five phases of oral language development, based on the work of Cox (2002), are shown in Figure 3.1. INFUSE ACADEMIC VOCABULARY INTO ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT Children need to have a robust speaking and listening vocabulary at their command to be fully successful in school and life. In the early years there continues to be a preponderance of storybooks and similar texts in the curriculum. However, it is nonfiction and expository texts and subjects that tend to carry the most new and rich academic vocabulary.
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 37
Figure 3.1 Phases of Oral Language Development (Cox, 2002) Phase
Description
Preproduction
This is a short period in which the learner is silent but is actively listening to the more capable language users in his environment.
Early production
This phase can last up to a year or more. The learner begins using single words and short phrases.
Emergent speech
Learner is capable of sentences and short narratives.
Developing fluency
Learner becomes capable of longer narratives/conversations, begins reading and writing, and uses invented spellings in his writing.
Advanced fluency
Learner uses conventions of speaking, reading, and writing.
Cox, C. (2002). Teaching language arts (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Academic vocabulary, as described in the Common Core State Standards, is made up of “words that appear in a variety of content areas and have different meanings in different academic contexts” (Conley, 2014, p. 9). According to Luna (2017), academic language often includes: (a) a good bit of information packed into a small number of words (concept load) (b) unusual syntax as compared to story structures; (c) complex and abstract ideas with limited contextual support; and (d) content-specific and complex vocabulary. Thus, teachers at every level must infuse their language learning curriculum with academic vocabulary experiences to insure student’ literacy growth. EFFECTS OF POVERTY ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT Poverty is highly correlated with poorly developed oral language. As E.D. Hirsch (2013) has noted, in terms of “ . . . vocabulary acquisition, a small early advantage grows into a much bigger one unless we intervene very intelligently to help the disadvantaged student learn words at an accelerated rate . . . Overcoming this initial disadvantage is a huge challenge. To do so, we need to engage in the best, most enabling kinds of vocabulary building. As we will see, that means explicit vocabulary instruction done in the best possible way and providing an environment that accelerates the incidental acquisition of vocabulary, which is how most vocabulary growth takes place.” (p. 16).
Children living in poverty are often denied exposure to many language-rich experiences common to children from more affluent families, such as participating in youth clubs or going on summer vacations. In groundbreaking research, Hart and Risley (1995, 2002) recorded every word spoken at home between parents and children in 42 families from various socioeconomic backgrounds for 2½ years. Results showed that children from professional families had experiences with 42 million words, children from working-class families had experience with 26 million words, and children from families living in poverty had experience with only 13 million words. In professional families, the extraordinary amount of talk and exposure to many different words— greater richness of nouns, modifiers, and past-tense verbs—suggest a language culture focusing on symbols and analytic problem solving. In poverty-level families, language tended to be more about teaching socially acceptable behavior; obedience, politeness, and conformity were more likely to be the focus of language. A report published by the National Center for Education Statistics (2012) gives us important insights on vocabulary development in the United States. Based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading assessments given in 2009 and 2011, we learned that 73% of fourth grade children scoring below the 25th percentile were eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch (a key indicator of poverty). These children with low vocabulary knowledge were pretty much evenly distributed across racial and ethnic lines, so the common factor was poverty. This same trend continued through the eighth grade level, where 68% of students having low vocabulary knowledge were from poverty circumstances.
MyLab Education Video Example 3.1:
Oral Language Development In this video, you will learn from an expert how teachers set up experiences that help students increase their academic vocabulary. When you are finished, describe how students can work together in building their academic vocabulary knowledge.
38 Chapter 3 The solution for overcoming low vocabulary knowledge seems clear. We must: • Provide robust oral language development as early as possible in the lives of children from poverty circumstances via high quality language development preschool and kindergarten programs (Neuman, 2006). • Provide rich language learning opportunities throughout the P–12 experience with linguistic scaffolding (Roy, 2011). In the next section, we discuss other ways we can close the language gap for students. CREATE LANGUAGE-RICH CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENTS There are several ways teachers can effectively stimulate language growth in children from poverty circumstances, English learners, as well as those from more affluent situations (Cooter, 2005; Moses, Ogden, & Kelly, 2015; Whorrall & Cabell, 2016). In essence, teachers should:
• Engage children in extended conversations through discussion groups and other activities about subjects in the curriculum • Encourage students’ use of first and second languages in instructional activities • Listen to students talk about familiar topics, such as home and community, encouraging children to tell and retell stories and events • Discuss a wide range of topics while responding to students’ talk and questions and make “inflight” changes during conversation that directly relate to students’ comments • Discuss word meanings and model use of new and unusual words, encouraging students to use content vocabulary (e.g., mathematics, science) to express their understanding • Interact with students in ways that respect students’ preferences for speaking that may be different from the teacher’s, such as wait time, eye contact, turn-taking, or spotlighting • Ask open-ended questions (e.g., higher order thinking/discussion with more than one possible solution) • Connect student language with literacy and content-area knowledge through speaking, listening, reading, and writing activities • Assist written and oral language development through modeling, eliciting, probing, restating, clarifying, questioning, and praising in purposeful conversation and writing • Challenge children to justify their thinking and express ideas • Provide frequent opportunities for students to interact with each other and the teacher during instructional activities Given the significance of oral language development in the early years of a child’s life at home and at school, teachers need to know how to assess the extent to which children have acquired a rich oral language base for extending their learning in school. They need to know which features of oral language children yet need to experience through language and print-rich learning experiences.
Receptive Language: Listening It has been estimated that people spend between 45% and 70% of their days listening to others ((Johnson, 1996; Fedesco, 2015). Listening is a form of active auditory communication that includes hearing, interpreting, and constructing meaning from another person (Jalongo, 2010). Doubtless a critical part of human communications, listening is believed to have cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements (Bodie, 2013). Listening ability is, of
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 39
course, critical for children as they build vocabulary knowledge. Although listening is arguably the skill children use most in school, it seems to receive the least attention in the teaching curriculum. Listening has sometimes been called the “Cinderella skill” that is eclipsed by its sister skills: reading, writing, and even speaking (Jalongo, 2010). From an educational standpoint, we think of three aspects of listening: auditory acuity, auditory discrimination, and auditory processing. Auditory acuity has to do with the physical ability to hear sounds easily across a normal vocal range. Auditory discrimination is the ability to distinguish one sound from another, an essential ability directly related to early reading development (i.e., phonemic awareness). Auditory perception in listening is the ability to mentally process and understand the spoken word. In fact, speech perception has been measured as early as six months of age and predicted listening perception at age two. An even more amazing recent finding is that playing music to babies still in the womb, like “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star,” can have long-term effects on the baby’s developing brain and positively affect listening and speech development (Partanen et al., 2013). In this chapter, we share easy strategies for informally assessing listening in your classroom. Children thought to possibly have hearing issues would need to be referred for more specialized assessments, but the teacher is often the first person to spot listening issues, whether they involve acuity, discrimination, or perception. We also include teaching strategies that can help students increase listening comprehension, a close cousin to reading comprehension.
Assessing Oral Language Development Because oral language knowledge is arguably the foundation of all reading and writing development, its assessment is critical. The purpose of all literacy assessments is to help the teacher understand a student’s abilities and needs so that instruction may be planned that uses their strengths to overcome any weaknesses. As noted earlier, research by Lonigan and Milburn (2017) that as many as 19-20 oral language elements we would want to assess may be accounted in just two factors: vocabulary knowledge and syntax (i.e., knowledge of the grammar rules by which words are arranged in English). In this section of the chapter, we examine several ways to assess children’s oral language development that address those two factors as well as several others. The first strategy we discuss is the Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) assessment.
Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) Assessment Using Technology Age Range: 3–10 PURPOSE One of the best-researched methods for measuring language development in children is to determine the average number of words used in unplanned spoken sentences. We call this measurement the mean length of utterance or MLU. As early as 1925, researcher Margaret Morse Nice concluded that determining a child’s average sentence length in oral language is “the most important single criterion for judging a child’s progress in the attainment of adult language” (p. 378). Given that learning to read and write is built upon a child’s oral language knowledge, determining children’s MLU is an important predictor or literacy success and whether additional oral language development is warranted. MATERIALS
• A digital voice recorder and/or a speech-to-text conversion programs (e.g., Google CLOUD SPEECH API, Way With Words, Dragon Apps, YouTube Captions, etc.) • Picture book (alternative method only)
MyLab Education Application Exercise 3.1: Oral Language Case Study
40 Chapter 3 PROCEDURE The key to obtaining reliable measures of students’ mean length of utterance (MLU) is to record their unplanned spoken language. Here’s how to go about doing just that:
1. Using a digital voice recorder, obtain your speech samples of students during normal classroom activities in which a good bit of conversation is going on such as small-group work, play, recess, lunch, or other interactive times of the day. Try to make sure that each time you make an observation the situational context is similar for each student. Limit the length of your observations for each student to about 5 minutes, but be sure to make multiple observations to ensure greater reliability and generalizability of your conclusions. 2. Count the number of sentences in your first five-minute sample. 3. Count the total number of words from the first five-minute sample. 4. Divide the total number of words (from Step 3) by the number of sentences in the five-minute sample (from Step 2). This is the MLU for the first sample. 5. Repeat this process until you have at least two or three samples and the resulting MLU. 6. Determine the average MLU for all samples, and then refer to the MLU Chart in Table 3.1 to determine if a student’s oral language is developing as expected according to their age. As you can see in Table 3.1, a typically developing threeyear old will speak in three-word sentences on average, a four year old uses an average of four word utterances, children from ages 5 through 7 average four and one-half words per utterance, and children ages 8 to 9 speak in five word utterances on average. AUTHORS’ ALTERNATIVE TIPS
1. Calculating students’ MLUs is much easier if you have a written transcript of their recorded unplanned spoken language. There are a number of speech-to-text conversion programs that can save teachers valuable time by converting recorded speech to text (e.g., Google CLOUD SPEECH API, Way With Words, Dragon Apps, YouTube Captions, etc.). The procedure is the same, but is made easier when you can quickly count sentences in the transcript, use the “word count” feature in your word processing program, then calculate MLUs. 2. If gathering unplanned spoken language is difficult in a busy classroom, try gathering speech samples using picture books and the dialogic reading activity found later in this chapter for a slightly more structured process. This method has been used effectively in research for determining MLUs (e.g., Rice, Smolik, Perpich, Thompson, Rytting, & Blosson, 2010)
Table 3.1 MLU Chart Age
Mean Length of Utterance (MLU)* (Range of average words in spoken sentences)
3
3 words
4
4 words
5
4 ½ words
6
4 ½ words
7
4 ½ words
8
5 words
9
5 words
* Extrapolated from the research of Rice, M.L., Smolik, F., Perpich, D., Thompson, T., Rytting, N., & Blosson, M. (2010). Mean length of utterance levels in 6-month intervals for children 3 to 9 years with and without language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(2), 333-349.
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 41
Informal Language Inventory Age Range: 4–16 PURPOSE The informal language inventory (ILI) is a simple and quick way to measure students’ growth in conversational oral language development. The ILI uses a very traditional approach first described by Melear (1974) and Burns (1980). As an informal inventory or assessment approach, it is up to you, the teacher, to look for patterns in the results and compare these with your own classroom observations before coming to conclusions about a particular student’s needs. You may want to refer to Figure 3.1 to help judge each student’s progress and needs through the five phases of oral language development. MATERIALS
• One or two pictures that have been drawn by the student either just before you conduct the interview or preselected by the student from past school assignments • For older learners, a photograph of a favorite friend or experience • A digital voice recorder PROCEDURE Begin by turning on the recorder and asking the student to tell you about the picture(s). Transcribe the recording; then analyze the student’s language as follows:
1. Number of sentences 2. Number of grammatically correct sentences 3. Number of descriptive terms 4. Number of modifying phrases 5. Number of morphemes (meaning-bearing language units such as prefixes, suffixes, and root words) 6. Number of “mazes” in the student’s language (i.e., confused or tangled groups of words such as uh, mmm, you know, like) We have constructed a coding sheet that you may want to use while administering and analyzing the ILI (see Figure 3.2).
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Informal Language Inventory Worksheet
The Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) (Appropriate For English Learners) Age Range: 3–16 PURPOSE Teacher judgment is one of the most important and accurate measures of English learners’ oral language development (Peregoy & Boyle, 2001, p. 131). An observational tool created by the California State Department of Education is the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM), which is shown in Figure 3.3. Designed to be used in everyday classroom activities, it is organized as a rubric to focus your attention on general oral language traits. The SOLOM was developed for use in English as a second language (ESL) classrooms, but it has also been found to be useful with native English speakers evidencing limited oral language development. MATERIALS
• A copy of the SOLOM for each student in a file folder PROCEDURE
1. Conduct your observations of students during normal classroom activities in which a good bit of language is going on, such as small-group work, play, recess,
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Student Oral Language Observation Matrix
42 Chapter 3
Figure 3.2 Informal Language Inventory Worksheet Transcription of Oral Discussion
Number of Sentences
Number of Correct Sentences
Number of Descriptive Terms
Number of Modifying Phrases
Number of Morphemes
Number of Mazes
lunch, or other interactive times of the day. Try to make sure that each time you make an observation the situational context is similar. Limit the length of your observations for each student to about 5 minutes, but be sure to make multiple observations to ensure greater reliability and generalizability of your conclusions. 2. For each trait, place an X in the box that best describes what the student is able to do and note the point value (1 to 5). For example, a student who understands nearly everything spoken at normal speed would receive a score of 4 for comprehension. 3. After you have marked the box that best describes the student’s language use in each trait category, add up the point values to determine his or her stage of development in English proficiency. A key for scoring your observations is found at the bottom of the SOLOM in Figure 3.3. As an example, say that you have rated Jaime’s oral language performance using the SOLOM traits and come up with the following rating: MyLab Education Application Exercise 3.2:
Comprehension
4
Fluency
4
SOLOM with Alejandro
Vocabulary
4
Pronunciation
3
Grammar
4
Total
19
MyLab Education Application Exercise 3.3: SOLOM with Yousuf
A total score of 19 would indicate that Jaime’s oral language development is at Stage III, Limited English Proficient.
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 43
Figure 3.3 Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) 1
2
3
4
5
Comprehension
Cannot understand simple conversation
Only understands conversational language spoken slowly
Can understand most conversations if the speech is slow and includes repetitions
Understands almost everything at normal speed, but may require some repetitions
Understands class conversations and discussions without difficulty
Fluency
Speech is halting and fragmentary; makes it extremely difficult to initiate a conversation
Usually silent or hesitant due to language limitations
Often speech is interrupted while the student searches for the right word or expression
Generally fluent in class discussions, but may lapse sometimes into word searches
Fluent and effortless conversation
Vocabulary
Very little vocabulary makes conversation nearly impossible
Limited vocabulary and often misuses words
Frequently uses incorrect words, and speech is limited by insufficient vocabulary
Sometimes uses inappropriate terms or must rephrase due to limited vocabulary
Fully capable in using vocabulary and idioms
Pronunciation
Difficult to understand due to severe pronunciation problems
Pronunciation problems make it necessary to repeat a great deal
Pronunciation problems cause listeners to have to listen closely; some misunderstandings
Always intelligible, but may have heavy accent or inappropriate intonation patterns
Normal pronunciation and intonation
Grammar
Acute problems with grammar and syntax making speech nearly unintelligible
Grammar and syntax problems often force repetition or overreliance on simple or familiar patterns
Frequent errors with grammar and syntax that sometimes alters meanings
Sometimes makes grammar or syntax errors
Appropriate grammar and syntax usage
Stages of Development Stage I: Score of 5—11 = Not Proficient in English Stage II: Score of 12—18 = Limited English Proficiency (Emergent) Stage III: Score of 19—24 = Limited English Proficient (Developing) Stage IV: Score of 25 = Fully English Proficient SOURCE: Adapted from an instrument developed by the California State Department of Education.
Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy Age Range: 3–12 PURPOSE To be able to read and write effectively, children must develop strong oral language skills. According to Dickinson, McCabe, and Sprague (2003), the Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL) system measures speaking and listening skills critical to meeting new standards in today’s classrooms. The TROLL can be used to track children’s progress in language and literacy development, to inform curriculum, and to stimulate focused communication between parents and teachers. Oral language skills relevant to later literacy development include the development of the ability to tell stories, use of talk while pretending in play, and varied vocabulary usage (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). Although oral language skills flourish during the preschool years, they are also very susceptible to stimulation and intervention in the early years of preschool, kindergarten, and primary-grade education. Examination of the TROLL assessment has shown Cronbach’s alpha estimates of internal consistency ranging from .77 to .92 for separate subscales. For the total TROLL scores, alphas exceeded .89 for each age (Dickinson et al., 2003). The TROLL has also been shown to compare favorably to formal assessments such as the well-established Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT III), which is a measure of receptive vocabulary (see the discussion later in this section). According to Dickinson et al. (2003), teacher ratings of children’s language and literacy development on the TROLL show moderate associations with children’s scores on all three areas (oral language, reading, and writing) of those direct assessments. According to Dickinson et al. (2003), in about 5 minutes, and with no special training on the TROLL, teachers themselves can index what trained researchers would spend roughly 25 to 30 minutes on per child they are assessing. MATERIALS
• One copy of the TROLL for each student you observe (see Figure 3.4) PROCEDURE No formal training is required to use the TROLL instrument, according to its authors. However, the TROLL is most effective if teachers know a bit about
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy
44 Chapter 3
Figure 3.4 Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL) Language Use 1. How would you describe this child’s willingness to start a conversation with adults and peers and continue trying to communicate when he or she is not understood on the first attempt? Select the statement that best describes how hard the child works to be understood by others. 1
2
3
4
Child almost never begins a conversation with peers or the teacher and never keeps trying if unsuccessful at first.
Child sometimes begins a conversation with either peers or the teacher. If initial efforts fail, he or she often gives up quickly.
Child begins conversations with both peers and teachers on occasion. If initial efforts fail, he or she will sometimes keep trying.
Child begins conversations with both peers and teachers. If initial efforts fail, he or she will work hard to be understood.
2. How well does the child communicate personal experiences in a clear and logical way? Assign the score that best describes this child when he or she is attempting to tell an adult about events that happened at home or some other place where you were not present. 1 Child is very tentative, only offers a few words, requires you to ask questions, has difficulty responding to questions you ask.
2 Child offers some information, but information needed to really understand the event is missing (e.g., where or when it happened, who was present, the sequence of what happened).
3 Child offers information and sometimes includes the necessary information to understand the event fully.
4 Child freely offers information and tells experiences in a way that is nearly always complete, well sequenced, and comprehensible.
3. How would you describe this child’s pattern of asking questions about topics that interest him or her (e.g., why things happen, why people act the way they do)? Assign the score that best describes the child’s approach to displaying curiosity by asking adults questions. 1 To your knowledge, the child has never asked an adult a question reflecting curiosity about why things happen or why people do things.
2 On a few occasions, the child has asked adults some questions. The discussion that resulted was brief and limited in depth.
3 On several occasions, the child has asked interesting questions. On occasion these have led to an interesting conversation.
4 Child often asks adults questions reflecting curiosity. These often lead to interesting, extended conversations.
4. How would you describe this child’s use of talk while pretending in the house area or when playing with blocks? Consider the child’s use of talk with peers to start pretending and to carry it out. Assign the score that best applies. 1
2
Child rarely or never engages in pretend play or else never talks while pretending.
On occasion the child engages in pretending that includes some talk. Talk is brief, may only be used when starting the play, and is of limited importance to the ongoing play activity.
3 Child engages in pretending often, and conversation are sometimes important to the play. On occasion child engages in some back-and-forth pretend dialogue with another child.
4 Child often talks in elaborate ways while pretending. Conversations that are carried out “in role” are common and are an important part of the play. Child sometimes steps out of pretend play to give directions to another.
5. How would you describe the child’s ability to recognize and produce rhymes? 1
2
3
4
Child cannot ever say if two words rhyme and cannot produce a rhyme when given examples (e.g., rat, cat).
Child occasionally produces or identifies rhymes when given help.
Child spontaneously produces rhymes and can sometimes tell when word pairs rhyme.
Child spontaneously rhymes words of more than one syllable and always identifies whether words rhyme.
6. How often does child use a varied vocabulary or try out new words (e.g., heard in stories or from teacher)? 1
2
3
4
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
7. When child speaks to adults other than you or the teaching assistant, is he or she understandable? 1
2
3
4
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
8. How often does child express curiosity about how and why things happen? 1
2
3
4
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Language Use Subtotal ( ) Reading 9. How often does child like to hear books read in the full group? 1
2
3
4
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
(continued)
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 45
Figure 3.4 (Continued) 10. How often does child attend to stories read in the full group or small groups and react in a way that indicates comprehension? 1
2
3
4
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
11. Is child able to read storybooks on his or her own? 1
2
Does not pretend to read books
Pretends to read
3
4
Pretends to read and reads some words
Reads the written words
12. How often does child remember the storyline or characters in books that he or she heard before either at home or in class? 1
2
3
4
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
13. How often does child look at or read books alone or with friends? 1
2
3
4
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
14. Can child recognize letters? (Choose one answer.) 1
2
3
4
None of the letters of the alphabet
Some of them (up to 10)
Most of them (up to 20)
All of them
15. Does child recognize his or her own first name in print? 1
2
No
Yes
16. Does child recognize other names? 1
2
3
4
No
One or two
A few (up to four or five)
Several (six or more)
1
2
3
4
No
One or two
A few (up to four or five)
Several (six or more)
17. Can child read any other words?
18. Does child have a beginning understanding of the relationship between sounds and letters (e.g., the letter B makes a “buh” sound) 1
2
3
4
No
One or two
A few (up to four or five)
Several (six or more)
19. Can child sound out words that he or she has not read before? 1
2
3
4
No
One or two
One-syllable words often
Many words
1
2
3
4
Only draws or scribbles
Some letterlike marks
Many conventional letters
Conventional letters and words
Reading Subtotal ( ) Writing 20. What does child’s writing look like?
21. How often does child like to write or pretend to write? 1
2
3
4
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
22. Can child write his or her first name, even if some of the letters are backward? 1
2
3
4
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
1
2
3
4
No
One or two
A few (up to four or five)
Several (six or more)
23. Does child write other names or real words?
46 Chapter 3
Figure 3.4 (Continued) 24. How often does child write signs or labels? 1
2
3
4
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
25. Does child write stories, songs, poems, or lists? 1
2
3
4
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Writing Subtotal ( ) Writing Subtotal
( ) (Out of 24 Possible)
Reading Subtotal
( ) (Out of 42 Possible)
Oral Language Subtotal)
( ) (Out of 32 Possible)
Total TROLL Score
( ) (Out of 98 Possible)
SOURCE: Copyright ©1997 Education Development Center, Inc. www.edc.org. Reprinted by permission.
language and literacy development. The TROLL requires only 5 to 10 minutes for each child you observe and it can be used without disrupting classroom activities. You can use the TROLL to inform your teaching by identifying children who are displaying evidence of serious oral language developmental delays and may need formal assessment by speech professionals or children who are showing high levels of literacy development and may benefit from additional challenges. By completing the TROLL several times over the course of a year, you can track the progress of all your students’ oral language development. Finally, you can combine results for all your students to determine whether the class needs additional oral language experiences or more systematic instruction. For example, if all of your students score relatively low on asking questions, you will want to begin providing numerous opportunities to listen to and ask questions during the daily routine in your classroom.
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Word Use Fluency Test Age Range: 5–7 PURPOSE The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, 6th Edition (DIBELS) is a set of seven standardized, individually administered measures of early literacy development. The DIBELS was specifically designed to assess the National Reading Panel’s (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) five essential components of reading development: phonological awareness, alphabetic principle and phonics, comprehension, oral reading fluency, and vocabulary. Oral language for children in grades K-3 is also assessed to some degree with vocabulary knowledge in the subtest called Word Use Fluency or WUF. MATERIALS
• The Word Use Fluency (WUF) subtest can be access by going to the DIBELS home page at https://dibels.uoregon.edu. Under the Assessment banner on the righthand side, click on Download Testing Materials. Agree to the terms, and then under Progress Monitoring Materials, click on the WUF pdfs for K–3. • Stopwatch or timer • Examiner probe • Pencil or pen • Clipboard PROCEDURE The WUF Test assesses a child’s oral language expression ability by asking him or her to use a list of words in sentences. Once the WUF Test procedure has been downloaded you will discover clear instructions for administration involving the
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 47
child listening to a word and then using it in a sentence. For analysis, a DIBELS data and reporting service is available on the Internet for a fee of $1 per year per child tested. Using this Internet-based system, teachers can enter assessment data directly into the DIBELS database on the Web and receive a nearly instantaneous report as often as desired. More recently, DIBELS measures have become available in Spanish; however, such measures have not yet been validated or proven reliable among Spanish-speaking populations.
Picture Naming Test Age Range: 3–5 PURPOSE The Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDI) are a set of standardized, individually administered measures of early language and literacy development. The Picture Naming (PN) Test is a part of the IGDI specifically designed to assess language development for children ages 3 to 5 and is also available in Spanish. The measure assesses oral language expression ability by asking a child to look at picture cards drawn from typical home, classroom, and community environments, such as the one in Figure 3.5. Next, the child is asked to name the object(s) in the pictures. The PN Test, administration guidelines, and scoring forms, along with stimulus materials and the pictures to be named, are available through My IGDIs at http:// earlylearninglabs.umn.edu. A Get It Got It Go! data and reporting service is also available on the Internet for free, but users must enter their own data. By using this Internet-based system, teachers can enter assessment data directly into the Get It Got It Go! database on the Web and generate class-level reports as often as desired. The PN Test is now also available in Spanish. See Missal and McConnell (2004) for a report of reliability and validity data for the IGDI Picture Naming Test. MATERIALS
• The Picture Naming Test • Stopwatch or timer • Pencil or pen • Picture naming cards • Form for recording scores • Administration instructions • Clipboard
Figure 3.5 Sample Picture Naming Stimulus Card
Front
fish Back SOURCE: Reprinted with permission of the University of Minnesota. Available online at http://ggg.umn.edu.
48 Chapter 3 PROCEDURE Directions for the Sample Administration of the Picture Naming Test.
1. Prepare a copy of the instructions to read from while administering tests. 2. Sit with the child in a quiet area; a distraction-free spot is best. 3. Select these four cards from the stack to use as sample items: baby, bear, car, cat. Do not choose different sample cards, even if you are readministering the test. 4. Say, “I’m going to look at these cards and name these pictures. Watch what I do.” 5. Look at and clearly name the four sample cards while the child observes. 6. Say, “Now you name these pictures.” 7. Show the four sample cards to the child in the same order as you named them, and give the child an opportunity to name each picture. 8. Praise the child for naming the picture correctly; otherwise, provide the correct picture name. If the child responds in a different language, say, “This is a [picture name]. Call it a [picture name].” 9. Continue on to Test Administration only if the child names all four pictures correctly. Write NA on the recording form if you do not continue administration. Directions for the Test Administration of the Picture Naming Test 1. Shuffle cards prior to each administration. 2. Say, “Now we are going to look at some other pictures. This time, name them as fast as you can!” 3. Start the stopwatch and immediately show the first card to the child. 4. If the child does not respond within 3 seconds, point to the picture and say, “Do you know what that is?” or “What is that?” 5. If the child still does not respond within an additional 2 seconds, show the next card. 6. As soon as the child names a picture, show the next card. 7. Separate correctly named pictures into one pile and incorrectly named or skipped pictures into another pile. 8. After 1 minute, stop showing cards to the child. Record the total number of correctly named pictures on the recording form.
Oral Language Checklist Age Range: 5–8 PURPOSE Many times, teachers are able to learn a great deal by simply making anecdotal records of students they wish to observe and then transferring that information to a checklist (Figure 3.6). MATERIALS
• Copy of the oral language checklist found in Figure 3.6 for each student whose oral language development you wish to study MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
• A clipboard with a legal pad or peel-off sticky labels for making anecdotal notes during observations
Oral Language Checklist for Teachers
• Folder for each child observed PROCEDURE
1. First, carefully review the oral language checklist found in Figure 3.6 for key points to observe. 2. Then, identify one or two children per day whose language development you wish to study.
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 49
Figure 3.6 Oral Language Checklist for Teachers As you normally interact with your students in the classroom, have you noted any of the following difficulties? Check each item below. Yes
No
1. Hearing or perceiving spoken words.
□
□
2. Understanding specific vocabulary terms.
□
□
3. Following specific directions or series of instructions when given.
□
□
4. Listening to and comprehending books read aloud.
□
□
5. Carrying on a conversation with peers or teachers.
□
□
6. Comprehending complex or lengthy sentences.
□
□
7. Naming objects or pictures rapidly.
□
□
8. Pronunciation of lengthy words.
□
□
9. Making grammatical and usage errors in speech.
□
□
10. Using and responding to nonverbal cues.
□
□
11. Articulating specific sounds in oral language.
□
□
12. Retelling events from personal experiences.
□
□
13. Describing attributes of common objects.
□
□
14. Using age-appropriate sentence length when asked to do so (chronological age = number of words in spoken sentences)
□
□
15. Demonstrating similar weaknesses in reading comprehension and writing.
□
□
3. During the school day, keep your clipboard handy and make anecdotal notes on each child according to the criteria represented in the questions on the oral language checklist. 4. At the end of each observation day, transfer your notes to a folder for each child and answer all questions that apply. 5. Observations should be repeated about once every 6 weeks in order to identify growth trends and determine educational (i.e., language development) needs.
Assessing Listening Ability The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test/Expressive Vocabulary Test (English & Spanish versions) Age Range: 2–6 PURPOSE The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III) was developed primarily to assess younger children’s (ages 2 to 6) listening (i.e., receptive) language vocabulary using a series of word prompts and pictures (Dunn & Dunn, 2007). The PPVT-III takes about 10 to 15 minutes to administer to an individual student. It comes in two parallel forms (A and B) for testing, and in a new Spanish-language version called the Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody. Even though the test was developed originally for English-speaking children, more recently the PPVT-III has found renewed use among teachers who want to assess ELs for understanding of oral English words. The PPVT-III has also been used in the past as one measure of a young child’s verbal intelligence quotient (IQ) to determine discrepancies between current and potential
50 Chapter 3 functioning that qualify for federally supported special services. It has been approved for use in federally funded Early Reading First and Reading First projects. Norms have been extended in the PPVT III for ages 2.5 to 90 years. Test items have increased to 204 for each of the two forms, A and B. There are newer illustrations for better gender and ethnic balance. The Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT) was developed primarily to assess younger children’s (ages 2 to 6) expressive oral language vocabulary using a series of word prompts and pictures (Dunn & Dunn, 2007). The EVT is co-normed with the PPVT III. The test takes about 15 minutes to administer to an individual student. For the labeling items (38), the examiner points to a picture or a part of the body and asks the child to respond to a question. On the 152 synonym items, the examiner presents a picture and stimulus word(s) within a phrase. The child responds to each item with a one-word answer. All pictures are in color and balanced for gender and ethnic representation. The EVT reliability analyses indicate a high degree of internal consistency. Split-half reliabilities range from .83 to .97 with a median of .91. Alphas range from .90 to .98 with a median of .95. Test–retest studies with four separate age samples resulted in reliability coefficients ranging from .77 to .90, indicating a strong degree of test stability. MATERIALS
• PPVT III/EVT administration manual • PPVT III/EVT scoring records • PPVT III/EVT picture flip chart • PPVT III/EVT scoring software Materials needed for administering the PPVT III or EVT available for purchase online at www.agsnet.com. PROCEDURE Specific standardized procedures for administering the PPVT III/EVT are found in the published administration manuals. A recent addition is a training DVD for the PPVT III that can be purchased to prepare for administering, scoring, and interpreting the results of the PPVT III. The PPVT III and EVT are quick and easy to administer and score and are excellent screening assessments for examining children’s receptive and expressive oral language development.
Story Retelling Evaluation Guide: A Listening Comprehension Assessment Age Range: 4–16 PURPOSE Listening comprehension is generally thought to be a good predictor of students’ future success in reading comprehension. Having students retell what they recall from a story or other text read aloud to them has been used in research as a reliable way to measure listening comprehension (Robinson, 2012). With this assessment strategy, students read texts taken directly from the curriculum and are then asked to retell what they remember. One of the more common tools for evaluating listening comprehension via oral retelling is the “Story Retelling Evaluation Guide” created by L. M. Morrow (1997).
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Story Retelling Evaluation Guide
MATERIALS Consistent with the tenets of curriculum-based assessment (CBA), you should assess your students with a narrative taken from the instructional materials in your curriculum. Administration of the assessment should last for about 5 minutes per student, so select the story or story excerpt accordingly. Once you have read the passage to your student, you will follow the following procedures using the Story Retelling Evaluation Guide presented in Figure 3.7.
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 51
Figure 3.7 Story Retelling Evaluation Guide Student’s Name _______________________________________________________________ Title of Story __________________________________________________________________ Directions: Give one point for each element included as well as for the main idea. Give one point for each character named as well as for such words as boy, girl, or dog. Credit plurals (e.g., friends) with two points under character. Sense of Story Structure Setting (a) Begins story with an introduction ________________________________________________________________________ (b) Names main character ________________________________________________________________________ (c) Number of other characters named ________________________________________________________________________ (d) Actual number of other characters ________________________________________________________________________ (e) Score for other characters (c + d) ________________________________________________________________________ (f) Includes statement about time or place ________________________________________________________________________
Theme (a) Refers to main character’s primary goal or problem to be solved ________________________________________________________________________
Plot Episodes (a) Number of episodes recalled ________________________________________________________________________ (b) Number of episodes in story ________________________________________________________________________ (c) Score for plot episodes (a + b) ________________________________________________________________________
Resolution (d) Names problem solution/goal attainment ________________________________________________________________________ (e) Ends story ________________________________________________________________________
Sequence Retells story in structural order: setting, theme, plot episodes, resolution (score = 2 for proper sequence; 1 for partial; 0 for no evident sequence) ______________________________________________________________________________
Highest score possible: ___________________ Student’s score: __________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Morrow, L. M. (1997). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
PROCEDURE
1. Begin by seating the student at a small table across from you. 2. Tell the student that you are now going to read a story, and then ask the student to retell everything he or she can remember from the passage afterward.
52 Chapter 3 3. Read aloud the passage you have selected from your curriculum. Be sure to use appropriate intonation (expression) as you do so, as this may affect the student’s listening comprehension (Mira, Schwanenflugel, Nippold, & Gray, 2013). 4. When you finish reading the passage, ask the student to retell everything he or she can remember from the reading. As the student retells, note the important story elements the student recalls using the Story Retelling Evaluation Guide (Morrow, 1997). The guide will help you to identify story elements the child includes or omits, how well the child recalled the sequences of events, and thereby the potential areas of instructional need (Robinson, 2012).
Summary of Oral Language and Listening Assessment Strategies To pull everything together thus far, in Table 3.2 we present a brief summary of the oral language and listening assessment strategies described in this chapter linked to the important skills and abilities children must acquire. Also shown is the validity and reliability evidence for each assessment strategy we support. In the section that follows we present for your classroom use a classroom profile form and the IF–THEN Strategy Guide for oral language and listening.
Table 3.2 Summary of Oral Language & Listening Development Indicators and Their Assessments
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT INDICATOR
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT PURPOSE(S): SCREENING (S), DIAGNOSTIC (D), PROGRESS MONITORING (M), OUTCOMES (O)
RELIABILITY (R) VALIDITY (V) EVIDENCE
Expressive Language Production
Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) Assessment
S, D, M
R* = Test-retest r > .90, and strong for longitudinal growth patterns from 3 to 8 years of age V* = Concurrent
Expressive Language Fluency • Rate • Prosody/Expression
Informal Language Inventory (ILI)
S, M
Reliability and validity estimates unavailable
Oral & Listening Vocabulary • Grammar/Syntax • Descriptive terms • Modifying phrases
Informal Language Inventory (ILI)
S, M
Oral Language Traits English Learners (EL) • Comprehension • Oral language fluency (rate & prosody) • Vocabulary • Grammar constructions
Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM)
S
Reliability and validity estimates unavailable
General oral language performance in a classroom setting
Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL)
S
R = .77 - .92 for subtests and .89 for total scores at each age level. V = Moderate concurrent correlations with PPVT-III (see below)
Identification of children at-risk for poor language and reading outcomes
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) – WUF
S, M
R = Alternate form reliability estimates from .65 to .71 for grades kindergarten through second grade. V = Criterion-related validity with Test of Language DevelopmentPrimary (TOLD-P:3) ranges from .44 to .48.
Oral language expression ability (children ages 3-5)
Picture Naming Test
S, M
R = Alternate form .44 to .78; Test-retest is .67. V = Concurrent with PPVT-III is .57 - .75
(continued)
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 53
Table 3.2 (Continued)
ORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT INDICATOR
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT PURPOSE(S): SCREENING (S), DIAGNOSTIC (D), PROGRESS MONITORING (M), OUTCOMES (O)
RELIABILITY (R) VALIDITY (V) EVIDENCE
Informal observations of oral language use in the classroom
Oral Language Checklist
R = Not available V = Not available
Listening vocabulary & Comprehension (English & Spanish)
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III); Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody
D
R= • Internal alpha range .92 to .98 • Split half: alternate form range .86 to .97 • Test–retest range .88 to .96 V =.91 correlation with verbal ability on the WISC III VIQ, .89 on the KAIT Crystallized IQ, and .81 with the KBIT Vocabulary test.
Listening comprehension (Logical organization and sequencing of ideas)
Story Retelling Evaluation Guide
S, M, O
R = Not available V = Not available
* MLU reliability and validity estimates derived from the work of Gavin and Giles (1996); Rice, Redmond & Hoffman (2006); and Rice, Smolik, Perpich, Thompson, Rytting, & Blosson, M. (2010).
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile and an If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide Effective instruction in oral language and listening focuses on the appropriate skills to be learned by each child according to where they are in their development. There are four steps in translating assessment data into effective instruction: • Step 1: Record assessment findings for each child on a classroom profile document. This is done by using a colored marker to fill in each box corresponding to skills learned by each student. The classroom profile document for oral language and listening in shown in Table 3.3. This may be duplicated for your use. • Step 2: After reviewing the skills each child CAN DO (i.e., skills they have learned according to your assessments), choose the next skill in oral language and listening development you feel they need to learn next. • Step 3: Once completed, check the classroom profile document to identify children needing the same “next skill” in oral language and/or listening so that you can form small groups for instruction based on their learning needs. • Step 4: Using the IF–THEN TEACHING STRATEGY GUIDE: ORAL LANGUAGE AND LISTENING (Table 3.4), determine the evidence-based teaching strategy(s) to use for each group according to the skill you have chosen for them to learn. In the next section we provide myriad teaching strategies for oral language and listening development in your classroom.
Teaching Strategies for Developing Oral Language and Listening Children’s oral language and listening comprehension are improved when teachers and family members provide high quality language models and numerous opportunities to practice these skills in authentic situations. Supportive feedback for their attempts at approximating proficient English usage is also important
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Classroom Profile Form – Oral Language and Listening
54 Chapter 3
Table 3.3 Classroom Profile Form: Oral Language and Listening
Expressive Language Production (MLU)
Expressive Language Fluency (i.e., rate, prosody/ expression)
Grammar/ Syntax
Descriptive terms (i.e., rich vocabulary)
Academic Vocabulary
Word Pronunciation
Word Usage
Comprehension (Listening)
Listening Vocabulary
STUDENT
Table 3.4 If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide: Oral Language & Listening Skills “IF” your assessment show that a student needs to develop this skill . . .
“THEN” use this/these teaching strategy(s) first
Expressive Language Production (i.e., increase Mean Length of Utterances)
Rule of Five
Let’s Talk! Poetry Potpourri (Unison Reading; Repeated Lines & Refrains, etc.)
Expressive Language Fluency (i.e., rate, prosody/expression)
Let’s Talk! Storytelling
Poetry Potpourri (Unison Reading; Repeated Lines & Refrains; Poetry Reponse) Let’s Talk! Critical dialogues
Grammar/Syntax
One Looks, One Doesn’t
Alphaboxes Let’s Talk! Critical dialogues Poetry Potpourri (Teacher Modeling; Unison Rreading; Repeated Lines & Refrains)
Descriptive terms (i.e., rich vocabulary)
Alphaboxes
Text Talk Dialogic Reading (Teacher led)
Academic Vocabulary
Text Talk
Let’s Talk! Alphaboxes One Looks, One Doesn’t
Word Pronunciation
Poetry Potpourri (Teacher Modeling)
Alphaboxes Text Talk One Looks, One Doesn’t Critical dialogues
Word Usage
Text Talk Alphaboxes
Text Talk One Looks, One Doesn’t
Comprehension (Listening)
Critical dialogues
Storytelling Dialogic Reading (Teacher led)
Listening Vocabulary
Dialogic Reading Text Talk
Let’s Talk! Alphaboxes One Looks, One Doesn’t
Alternate Teaching Strategy(s)
(Morrow, 1999, 2005). Whether teaching English as a second language or working to shore up the language and listening abilities of native speakers, good learning activities help children improve their receptive (listening/reading) and expressive
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 55
(speaking/writing) language skills. In this section, we provide a menu of teaching strategies that have helped teachers develop speaking and listening skills.
Alphaboxes Age Range: 5–12 Standard: ELA Literacy.SL.1 through CCSS.ELA Literacy.SL.1112: Speaking and Listening. PURPOSE Alphaboxes (Hoyt, 1999; Morrison & Wlodarczyk, 2009) is a read aloud activity that encourages student interactions with texts. It is well established that read aloud activities help children increase their listening and speaking abilities as well as their oral language development (Barrentine, 1996; Klesius & Griffith, 1996; Lane & Wright, 2007). The Alphaboxes strategy moves students from simple literal recall of information to rich discussion activities that can expand language. It begins with students writing key words from a story or informational text in a box having the same beginning letter (e.g., the word stone would be written in the S box). These words are then used for expansion activities such as posing questions, linking to larger concepts, making connections, and so forth. This can be done as a center activity, a teacher-led activity, or for students working in pairs. MATERIALS For the Alphaboxes activity you will need the following:
• Informational books or passages for reading aloud • Alphabox grid (see Figure 3.8) PROCEDURE
1. The Alphaboxes activity begins with the teacher reading aloud the book or passage. An alternative is to record the read-aloud passage for use in a learning center activity.
Figure 3.8 Alphabox Grid Example: Clouds A
B
Atmosphere Aerosols Ammonia
C
D
Cloud Crystals Cumulus Cirrus Cold front
Divergence Distribution
E
F
G
H
Exosphere
Families Formation
Genus-types Global brightening
Heterosphere Homosphere
I
J
K
L Layer Liquid droplets
M
N
O
P
Meteorology Mesosphere Methane
Nimbus
Observed
Particles Precipitation
Q
R
S
T
Rainmaking bacteria
Stratus Sulfuric acid Saturated Symbols
T Thermosphere Troposphere
V
W
XYZ
Vapor Virga
Weather observations
U
MyLab Education Video Example 3.2:
Building Word Knowledge In this video, you will learn from an expert why simply looking up the meaning of new words in a dictionary is an inadequate teaching strategy. When you are finished, describe steps you might go through to help your students learn words more deeply and increase their listening, speaking, reading, and writing vocabularies.
56 Chapter 3 2. Be sure to read the passage with appropriate expression because this can have an effect on listening comprehension. 3. Once read, provide the students with a copy of the passage, as well as a blank Alphaboxes grid (these can be easily made using Word or a similar program on a computer). 4. The first task is for students to find as many words for each Alphabox letter as they can that directly relate to the subject. This factually based activity sets the stage for other higher-level extension activities that build oral language. These extension activities could include: • Schema maps linking concepts • Word sorts (open and closed) • Discussion of unfamiliar words • Discussing new definitions for words already known (e.g., family, formation, front) • Constructing questions to try to stump other groups • Writing child friendly definitions
Text Talk: Building Academic Vocabulary Using Online Resources Age Range: 5–17 Standard: ELA-Literacy.SL.1 through ELA-Literacy.SL.6: Speaking and Listening. PURPOSE Academic vocabulary, as described the Common Core State Standards, is made up of “words that appear in a variety of content areas and have different meanings in different academic contexts” (Conley, 2014, p. 9). Academic vocabulary is usually specific to a domain such as math, science, or the English language arts (Barnes, Grifenhagen, & Dickinson, 2016). Direct, explicit instruction using nonfiction texts is often the most effective way of teaching academic vocabulary. Using nonfiction texts provides the opportunity for teachers to introduce new vocabulary around a topic or theme in an almost seamless way, such as reading aloud and discussing books on insects and their habitats (Byington & Kim, 2017). Text Talk is a read-aloud strategy proposed by Beck and McKeown colleagues (Beck & McKeown, 2001; Beck et al., 2002; Lane & Wright, 2007) that is potent for increasing academic vocabulary. It is a dialogic teaching strategy involving children in meaningful conversations about topics in books. The teacher targets several words each time for focused conversations that ultimately expand both oral language and listening comprehension. MATERIALS
• Engaging informational texts (print, online resources, etc.) on a topic from your academic curriculum. PROCEDURE The following steps for implementing Text Talk are adapted from Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002).
1. Begin by reading aloud and discuss the book or passage you have selected. As you read the book or passage each time (we recommend rereading the targeted passage/book on at least three different occasions so that children can “overlearn” new vocabulary), pause from time to time to ask students to retell what they remember and pose follow up questions. Try to have a balance of factual recall and application-level questions that link new information to that which is already known to challenge their thinking.
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 57
2. We recommend that you focus on three to five Tier 2 words each session. According to Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002), there are three levels of vocabulary children should learn to understand, use in their speech, and comprehend when reading. Tier 1 words are the most basic words that occur frequently in our language (e.g., clock, dog, farm). Tier 2 words are fairly high frequency in adult language users and are found across a variety of knowledge domains (e.g., spectacular, coincidence, politician). Tier 3 words are lowfrequency words usually found in specific knowledge domains such as science and mathematics (e.g., isotope, lathe, fulcrum). In order to expand children’s oral language and listening comprehension, you should identify several Tier 2 words to discuss each time the passage is read. 3. Introduce these new words using child-friendly language. 4. Make sure that children verbally pronounce the target words and use them in discussions in order to move the words from short-term memory to more permanent learning. Using new words and concepts at least 10 to 12 times in context is a good rule of thumb as to how many meaningful repetitions should be embedded in your instruction. 5. Where possible, share different uses of the word(s) in contexts that are different than that found in the book or passage. Many words have multiple meanings. Once you feel that the students “own” a target word in the context of the passage, expand their use of the word to its other most common contexts. For example, in a passage on architecture, one might come across the Tier 2 word organic used in the Tier 3 context of organic architecture (i.e., a kind of architecture seeking harmony between human living structures and nature, such as Frank Lloyd Wright’s “Fallingwater”). The discussion could begin with the introduction and definitions of the words organic and architecture and child friendly definitions. Then, you might discuss what the combined terms might imply followed by a read aloud of the passage and a follow-up text talk to see which assumptions turned out to be correct. 6. Finally, repeat the above steps each time a new target word is introduced. This establishes a kind of routine for the students.
Rule of Five: Improving Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) Age Range: 4–12 Standard: ELA Literacy.SL.K through ELA Literacy.SL.3: Speaking and Listening. PURPOSE There is a plethora of scientific research showing that helping children increase the length of spoken and added written sentences can have a very positive effect on learning to read (e.g., Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The Rule of Five strategy (Cooter, 2005) is an adaptation of research findings by Dickinson and Tabors (2001) intended to increase verbal sentence length, also known as mean length of utterance (MLU), by simply requiring students (and teachers) to always speak in complete sentences in their conversations using at least five words. These researchers concluded that children need opportunities to be part of conversations that use “extended discourse”—talk that requires students to develop complete sentences in explanations, narratives, or even “pretend” talk. MATERIALS
• A laminated copy of a drawing of a small hand, similar to the one shown in Figure 3.9, for each student • A small self adhesive magnet for each laminated copy so the children can put their individual copies on their refrigerators at home to remind themselves and their parents that our goal is to speak in complete sentences
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Rule of Five Hand
58 Chapter 3
Figure 3.9 Rule of Five Hand I speak The Rule of Five!
in
complete se
nt
en
ce
s.
• A letter to parents explaining what the Rule of Five is, encouraging them to practice this strategy at home in their family interactions PROCEDURE
1. Distribute the Rule of Five hands to each of your students. 2. Explain that it is a fun strategy that is easy to do, and that both students and teachers must use at least five words in all spoken interactions. 3. As ever, the best way to introduce this activity is with teacher modeling. You may begin by saying, for instance: Girls and boys, instead of me saying something to you like “Line up!” I should say a complete sentence like “Students, it is time for us to line up for lunch.” 4. You should explain that you expect students to express themselves in at least five or more words. For instance, If I should ask your classmate Molly a question like, “How was your weekend, Molly?” I would not accept an answer like “Good.” No, the Rule of Five would require Molly to give me a complete sentence of five or more words such as “This weekend I played baseball and I had a great time.” 5. For best results, introduce the Rule of Five idea to parents at your first open house of the year and ask for their support at home. You will be amazed at the positive results that will occur in reading and writing instruction as a result.
Let’s Talk! Age Range: 4–12 Standard: ELA Literacy.SL.K and ELA Literacy.SL.1: Speaking and Listening. PURPOSE As teachers of language, we must always have a wide range of exercises of varying complexity, interest level, and difficulty available to reach children where they are in their oral language development (Avery & Bryan, 2001). For young learners, this can be as simple and basic as describing familiar things in their environment. Recognizing that oral language is the starting point for later literacy growth and a key predictor in children’s acquisition of early reading ability, Woodward, Haskins, Schaefer, and Smolen (2004) describe an oral language development project called Let’s Talk! that is designed to address a “nearly two-year long lag in oral language development” (p. 92). Results from implementing the Let’s Talk! project for just
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 59
10 weeks revealed statistically significant improvements in pre-K and kindergarten students’ verbal fluency and grammatical complexity. MATERIALS
• A Let’s Talk! box for the dramatic toys in five different categories • 10 family figures (representing diverse ethnicities) • 12 pieces of furniture • 2 trucks • 11 farm animals • A folding fence • 11 wild animals PROCEDURE The idea of Let’s Talk! is to have pairs of students work at a “talk table” using the “talk box” for at least 15 minutes per week of uninterrupted talk and play.
1. Select pairs of students such that in each pair, a verbally fluent speaker is paired with a less verbally fluent speaker. 2. Introduce the Let’s Talk! project by telling students that they need to be good talkers and listeners so that one day they can also be good readers and writers (Woodward, Haskins, Schaefer, & Smolen, 2004). 3. Instruct students that the Let’s Talk! table is designed to give them opportunities to talk more. 4. Place a “talk box” containing special toys on a table. Don’t place all of the toys in the box initially. 5. When it is their turn, each pair of students goes to the table and talks about what they are doing with the special toys in the box. Teachers in the Let’s Talk! project established the following rules: • Only two children at a time can work at the Let’s Talk! table. • Students at the table should not be interrupted. • Table toys must stay at the table. • The last pair of students at the table needs to put the toys back into the talk box. 6. Schedule four pairs of students to have a daily turn at the Let’s Talk! table. 7. Introduce each category of toys as additions to the talk box over several weeks to avoid the distraction of too many new toys at once. 8. Show students the new toys within a category while using new vocabulary to describe the new category of toys. 9. Model how to use and talk about the toys and connect other events during the day in drawing and writing to the new category of toys. The Let’s Talk! table can be used for a center in many classrooms at different levels depending on the toys or objects placed into the talk box. Intermediate-grade classroom adaptations involve placing more sophisticated objects related to science, math, or social science content for students to use and discuss to develop their academic language proficiencies.
One Looks, One Doesn’t Age Range: 4–12 Standard: ELA Literacy.SL.K through ELA Literacy.SL.4: Speaking and Listening.
60 Chapter 3 PURPOSE It is important for us to help students expand their oral communications abilities because, as “producers” (speakers) of language, they will also become better “receivers” (readers) of language; these are reciprocal processes. In One Looks, One Doesn’t (Peregoy & Boyle, 2001), students are able to take turns practicing their oral communications with a peer as they describe a picture or object selected by the teacher. MATERIALS
• Stimulus objects for students to describe, which can include interesting pictures from magazines or books, pictures on transparencies shown on the overhead projector for all groups to see and describe, objects that can be held, and so forth • A blindfold for each group (one only for each group) for adding a little spice to this activity (optional) • An egg timer or other timing device PROCEDURE
1. First, place students in pairs. If possible, arrange it so that in each pair you have a more capable speaker of English, such as pairing a native English speaker with an ELL, or perhaps a sixth-grade student paired with a third grader. 2. If using a transparency of a picture, place the transparency on the overhead projector after explaining that one student will look at the transparency while the other turns away (or wears a blindfold). 3. The student who looks at the picture describes it to his or her partner and the listener attempts to guess what the partner is describing. 4. A variation is for the listener to try to draw what his or her partner is describing. After about 5 minutes (use an egg timer to keep it fair for all), the one drawing the picture can turn around and compare his or her drawing with what his or her partner was describing. Areas that could be stressed in teacher-led minilessons for this activity include: • Expressing ideas clearly and with variety • Organizing ideas effectively before speaking • Word usage appropriate for the situation • Appropriate articulation • Listening to questions carefully from your partner and asking for clarification as necessary • Politely asking the speaker to repeat or explain
Poetry Potpourri (Appropriate for English Learners) Age Range: 3–12 Standard: ELA Literacy. SL.K through ELA Literacy. SL.6: Speaking and Listening. PURPOSE Nancy Hadaway and her colleagues (Hadaway, Vardell, & Young, 2001) have assembled a wonderful collection of classroom activities that use poetry to stimulate oral language development, particularly for students learning English as a second language. They point out that reading and rereading poetry through readaloud and choral reading activities promote fluency, develop concept knowledge and vocabulary, and serve as splendid springboards into writing. In this section, we highlight several of the poetry activities that Hadaway and colleagues have recommended.
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 61
MATERIALS For this activity you will need a variety of poetry books for languagedevelopment activities. The following list shows the selections cited by Hadaway et al. (2001), many of which are found in school libraries:
Ada, A. F., Harris, V., & Hopkins, L. B. (1993). A chorus of cultures anthology. Carmel, CA: Hampton Brown. Fleischman, P. (1985). I am phoenix. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Fleischman, P. (1988). Joyful noise. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Fleischman, P. (2000). Big talk: Poems for four voices. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick Press. Florian, D. (1994). Bing bang boing. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace. Greenfield, E. (1978). Honey, I love. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Herrera, J. F. (1998). Laughing out loud, I fly: Poems in English and Spanish. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Holbrook, S. (1996). The dog ate my homework. Honesdale, PA: Boyds Mills Press. Holbrook, S. (1997). Which way to the dragon!: Poems for the comingonstrong. Honesdale, PA: Boyds Mills Press. Hughes, L. (1932/1994). The dreamkeeper and other poems. New York, NY: Knopf. Johnston, T. (1996). My Mexico—Mexico mio. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam. Kuskin, K. (1975). Near the window tree. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Kuskin, K. (1980). Dogs and dragons, trees and dreams. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Mora, P. (1999). Confetti: Poems for children. New York, NY: Lee & Low. Nye, N. S. (1995). The tree is older than you are. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Pappas, T. (1991). Math talk: Mathematical ideas in poems for two voices. San Carlos, CA: Wide World/Tetra. Prelutsky, J. (1984). The new kid on the block. New York, NY: Greenwillow. Shields, C. D. (1995). Lunch money. New York, NY: Dutton. Silverstein, S. (1974). Where the sidewalk ends. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Silverstein, S. (1981). A light in the attic. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Soto, G. (1992). Neighborhood odes. San Diego, CA: Harcourt. Soto, G. (1995). Canto familiar. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace. Wong, J. (1996). A suitcase of seaweed. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. PROCEDURE Following are brief descriptions of oral language development activities that have been recommended using poetry as the primary catalyst. (Citations in this section are from the books listed in the Materials section.)
• Teacher modeling. It is hard to promote something you do not love yourself, so begin with poems that you particularly like. Introduce key words and phrases at the chalkboard so that students can see and hear new vocabulary and concepts. If you need help with this, try “Three Wishes” by Karla Kuskin (1975). All of us “kids” have made wishes and can relate to this poem. For those of us with, shall we say, wacky relatives, Gary Soto’s (1992) “Ode to Family Photographs” can be great fun with older students. • Unison reading. After the previous activity, students will usually be loosened up a bit and ready to take on more of the performance role. Choose shorter poems with repeating lines, and read the poem aloud first yourself to help students get the feel. When we each taught first grade, we found that children could hardly be stopped from joining in on the second reading of a fun poem. “My Monster” (Florian, 1994) is very popular in grades 1 through 4, for example.
62 Chapter 3 • Repeated lines and refrains. Another great choral activity has students learn about timing and coming in just when their assigned line comes up or as a group when a refrain appears. Sometimes a key word is said extra loud for emphasis, such as with the poem “Louder” by Jack Prelutsky (1984). • Antiphonal: call and response. Teachers divide the class into two groups, and one side repeats the lines first spoken by the other. This is a form of antiphonal reading, an ancient tradition begun by monks in monasteries during medieval times. Try out the call and response method using “Copycat” by Sara Holbrook (1997). • Singing poems. Children love to put poetry to song, matching poems and songs having the same meter. It works best when using tunes that are familiar to all, such as “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” or “Mary Had a Little Lamb.” If you give students a copy of the poem, they will end up reading and singing the poem over and over, providing them with needed repetition of high-frequency words and a chance to develop language fluency. Try “The Dog Ate My Homework” by Sara Holbrook (1996) sung to “On Top of Old Smokey” or the poem “School Cafeteria” (Florian, 1996) sung to the tune of “Ninety-Nine Bottles of Pop.” • Poetry response. A good language development exercise should elicit a great deal of oral language in an authentic discussion situation for student practice and teacher coaching. Draw students into discussions about interesting poems using such questions as What did this poem make you think? What did you like about this poem? What do you think the poet was trying to say? Does this remind you of anything you know about? Let’s talk about what is going on here. What is this poem about?
Storytelling Age Range: 3–17 Standard: ELA Literacy.SL.K through ELA Literacy.SL.6: Speaking and Listening. PURPOSE Many cultures have strong oral traditions to describe their religious beliefs, politics, triumphs, and family stories (McHenry & Heath, 1994). Storytelling can be a powerful tool for language development (Cooper, 2005; Strickland & Morrow, 1989). As an art form, storytelling has certain aspects that should be respected for the storyteller to be effective in his or her communications. The following teacherdirected method for bringing storytelling to the table can be a valuable tool in your teaching arsenal. MATERIALS MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Storyteller’s Planning Guide
• Several stories that would be appropriate for retelling, from which students can choose one (what we term limited choice) • A copy of the Storyteller’s Planning Guide (Figure 3.10) for each student PROCEDURE
1. It is best to begin a storytelling experience for the students by model telling one of your favorite stories from memory. 2. Next, introduce the Storyteller’s Planning Guide (Figure 3.10) and explain each of its key points. Walk through a planning session in which you model (i.e., think
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 63
Figure 3.10 Storyteller’s Planning Guide Storyteller: ____________________________________________________________________ Story: ________________________________________________________________________ Source: _______________________________________________________________________ Motivation: I want to tell this story because... Props: What kinds of props (“properties”), if any, would I need to tell this story? (Clothing, sound-making devices, other?) Introduction: How will I begin the story? What are the exact words I should use? Setting: How do I describe the setting? How can I make the listener feel like she is there? Is time and place important to the story? Characters: How can I best describe each character? What makes the main character “tick”? How should I present each character to the audience? Should I use different voices for the different characters? If not, how can I make the audience understand who is talking? Sequence of Events: What are the key events I will describe in my story? What is the correct order for each “scene”? Conclusion: How will I bring my story to a successful end? What are my final words? (Exact words, please) How do I want my audience to feel at the conclusion? Rehearsal: Have I practiced telling my story alone at least three times, and before a friend at least once?
aloud) how you went about planning to share the story they witnessed you sharing earlier. Be sure to include discussion about any props, voices, and other points that add drama to the telling. 3. Place students into groups of two and have them select one of the stories you have available for them to use in storytelling. 4. Have them account for each step in the planning process using the Storyteller’s Planning Guide. 5. When each group of two feels they are ready, have them take turns practicing storytelling with each other. 6. The final “act” will be for each student to perform his or her favorite part of the story to you (or the entire group, if the student is not too nervous). 7. Follow up the performance with questioning, such as “Why did you choose that part of the story to tell?” or “Why was that your favorite part of the story?” This draws students into even more dialogue. An alternative storytelling approach was offered by Vivian Paley’s (Cooper, 2005). 1. Paley (1981) invited young students to begin by dictating a story the teacher would write down. 2. Next, they were invited to act out or dramatize their story. 3. Finally, they were asked to retell their story. In the case of both younger and older students, the story to be told should be easy to read and in concert with the students’ interests and background.
64 Chapter 3
Dialogic Reading Age Range: 3–12 Standard: ELA Literacy.SL.K through ELA Literacy.SL.3: Speaking and Listening. PURPOSE Dialogic reading, originally described by Whitehurst and colleagues (1988), involves the shared reading of a book as teachers ask students to respond to strategic questions while reading the book. The dialogic reading technique involves multiple readings of the same book and multiple conversations about books with students individually or in small groups. Some teachers recommend dialogic reading activities to parents for in-home oral language development. Over the course of the repeated readings, students are encouraged to become the storytellers. The teacher prompts students with questions and well-planned responses that encourage students to say more. Dialogic reading has been systematically studied for more than a decade in a variety of populations of children from 2 to 6 years old, and it has demonstrated uniformly positive effects on students’ oral language development, particularly children from low-income households (What Works Clearinghouse, 2007). Although the relationships among phonemic awareness, emergent writing, concepts about print, letter name and sound knowledge, and phonics weaken during first and second grade, the importance of oral language facility reemerges in intermediate grades as a strong, direct influence on reading development (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). Dialogic reading appears to be most effective when used in small groups (Doyle & Bramwell, 2006). MATERIALS
• Engaging children’s story or book having pictures that tell the story • Highlighter or highlighter tape • Sticky notes of different sizes and colors PROCEDURE After carefully selecting an engaging children’s story for dialogic reading, teachers study the story before reading to locate and highlight interesting elements and vocabulary that can be discussed during the reading. The following structure for executing dialogic reading sessions has been found to be effective in educational research (What Works Clearinghouse, 2007, pp. 2–3).
1. While reading books with the child, the adult uses five prompting strategies (CROWD): • Completion: Child fills in blank at the end of a sentence. • Recall: Adult asks questions about a book the child has read. • Open-ended: Adult encourages child to tell what is happening in a picture. • Wh: Adult asks “wh” questions about the pictures in books (e.g., who, what, when, where, why). • Distancing: Adult relates pictures and words in the book to children’s own experiences outside of the book. 2. These CROWD prompts are further enhanced with a reading technique known as PEER: P: Adult prompts the child to say something about the book. E: Adult evaluates the response. E: Adult expands the child’s response. R: Adult repeats the prompt.
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 65
3. The selected book is read aloud several times to promote student questioning and dialogue. During dialogic reading, teacher-selected vocabulary words are taught using the context to help students develop a student-friendly definition of the words. We have found that asking wh questions about the elements of story, setting, characters, problems, goals, events, and resolution helps students develop an internal framework for remembering, telling, and retelling stories. Thus, listening comprehension is developed. Story structure questions also help them to recall events of stories in the correct sequence and to remember to use well-known phrases in their retellings, such as “once upon a time” or “they lived happily ever after.” Examples of story structure questions might include “Where did the story of The Cat Who Wore a Pot on Her Head take place?” and “Who was the main character in this story?” 4. In addition to story structure, we recommend that teachers write questions that probe complex relationships between and among the elements of the story, the vocabulary, and students’ lives. For example, “What problems were caused by the cat wearing a pot on her head?” Dialogic reading provides a setting for rich concept, oral language, and listening comprehension to develop.
Critical Dialogues Age Range: 8–17 Standard: ELA Literacy.SL.K through ELA Literacy.SL.1112: Speaking and Listening. PURPOSE Critical dialogues are structured conversations between teachers and children around stories, information texts, and other media sources such as DVDs, videos, and websites. Students link their own experiences, feelings, and knowledge to learn content knowledge in science, social studies, mathematics, art, music, and so on. Gentile and McMillan (1992, 1995) based the critical dialogue strategy on the work of the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, who used dialogues as a method to help free Brazilian peasants from the oppression of illiteracy and poverty. Gentile (2003) states that using critical dialogues helps to create “a threshold level of language proficiency” necessary to build the higher order cognition children need to process information for academic purposes and become literate (p. 38). MATERIALS
• Critical Dialogue Planning and Lesson Guide (see Figure 3.11) • One narrative or story text • One or more short information texts • One or more media-related resources, for example, videos, websites, DVDs, CDROMs, audio recordings, and so on PROCEDURE A critical dialogue is planned and executed using a sequential fourstage approach.
1. The teacher organizes and frames the dialogue. This is accomplished by setting the parameters for a successful conversation: turn-taking, active listening, not interrupting a person speaking, participation, and so on. Next, the teacher introduces the topic or theme of the text and media materials (for example, plants) by assessing, activating, and building students’ background knowledge and previous life experiences. 2. The teacher guides students to identify a significant purpose, formulate a set of questions, or engage in “I wonder” brainstorming for listening to, reading, or viewing the texts or media selected on the topic. Next, the teacher highlights new
MyLab Education Video Example 3.3:
Dialogic Reading with Lillie In this video, Mr. Aaron Wamsley conducts a dialogic reading with Lillie (age 7). At the end of the video, Mr. Wamsley provides an analysis of Lillie’s performance on this task.
66 Chapter 3
Figure 3.11 Critical Dialogue Planning and Lesson Guide Stage 1: Organizing and Framing the Critical Dialogue Selected Topic or Theme: Plants Necessary Materials: Story Text: Krauss, R. (1945). The Carrot Seed. New York, NY: Scholastic. Information Texts: McEvoy, P. (2002). Plants. New York, NY: Newbridge. Roberts, C. (2004). Where Plants Live. Northborough, MA: Sundance Publishing. New Dimension Media (Producer). How do plants grow and change? (DVD). (Available from 307 N Michigan Ave Ste 500, Chicago, IL, US, 60601) Website: Plants for Kids—www.kathimitchell.com/plants.html Assessing/Activating Background Knowledge: • List of key vocabulary concepts Stage 2: Guiding the Critical Dialogue Purpose for Learning: Ask children what they want to learn about the topic or theme. Active Processing: • Read the story text. • Read the information texts. • View the media selections. • Visit the websites. • Discuss what was read, viewed, or listened to. Stage 3: Developing and Expanding the Critical Dialogue • Ask children what they want to learn about the topic or theme. Active Processing: • Read the story text. • Read the information texts. • View the media selections. • Visit the websites. • Discuss what was read, viewed, or listened to. Stage 4: Closing the Dialogue • Invite children to write a response to several questions posed by the teacher; for example, • What is the most important thing you learned about plants from the selections and our dialogues? • What is the most important question you have about plants from the selections and our dialogues? • What difference does any of this make to you?
vocabulary, concepts, or information and clearly identifies the main idea, important facts, problems, or story sequence and elements for the students, such as stem, pistol, pollen, ovules, flowering, and so on. At this point, children view, read, or listen to the story or information texts or the media resources selected by the teacher. Afterward, children are invited to talk about what they were thinking or feeling as they watched, read, or listened. 3. The teacher develops and expands the dialogue. After their initial conversations about the materials read, listened to, or watched, the teacher asks the children to perform two tasks: (1) Identify the most important thing they learned, and
Oral Language and Listening: The Foundation of Literacy 67
(2) think of the most important question they could ask about the materials they have viewed, heard, or read. Next, the children and teachers summarize and clarify the major ideas of the selection and their dialogues. Finally, the teacher may model how to pose questions of differing types and how one goes about answering these questions. 4. The teacher helps children to close the dialogue. This is accomplished by asking children to write a response to several questions posed by the teacher: • What is the most important thing you learned from the selections and our dialogues? • What is the most important question you have about the selections and our dialogues? • What difference does any of this make to you? For younger children, the teacher can ask children to respond to these questions orally and write down what the children say on a large chart paper or wall display. This helps to validate the importance of what the children learned and said about what they learned. The questions the children dictate may very well lead to future dialogues, reading, listening, and viewing.
Adapting Instruction for Those Who Struggle How can teachers effectively respond to the variability of children’s oral language development and usage in classrooms? Even with the plethora of previously recommended assessments and strategies, we want to offer a few parting suggestions about how oral language instruction can be differentiated to meet the needs of those students who struggle. • Remember to be a high quality model of conventional English usage. • Partner less capable children with more capable and supportive children. • Use wordless picture books and the dialogic reading activity presented earlier to unlock English oral language (Wolber, 2017). • Pair pictures and objects with oral language use in the classroom. • When asking questions or expecting a response, remember to extend the “wait time” before you rephrase or redirect your question or request. When questioning, ask open-ended questions so that children can express themselves more fully than just giving a correct response. • Provide explicit instruction in oral language vocabulary development, how sentences work, and word pronunciations. • Encourage language play, extended conversations, and telling and retelling stories with struggling learners. Do not be afraid to use rare words or engage in discussions of a wide range of topics.
Chapter 4
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print Mr. Sinclair begins his kindergarten class every day with a game. Today’s game is a version of the “I Spy” memory game. Beneath a large poster sign at the front of the room that reads “Start It!” two dozen picture cards are placed facing away from the children in a pocket chart. Excitedly, the children gather on the carpeted square at the front of the room to start the day. Mr. Sinclair explains that today’s game is called “Start It!” as he points to the sign above the pocket chart. He tells the children he will choose someone to start the game and each one will have a turn until all the cards are picked. Joshua is picked first and told to choose two picture cards from the pocket chart. If the pictures on the cards begin with the same sound, then he can keep the picture cards until the end of the game. If the word sounds aren’t a match, the cards are flipped back over and returned to their pockets. Everyone is told to watch carefully and remember where each unmatched card is located. The game progresses until all 24 picture cards have been picked and matched by beginning sounds. After the game, the children with picture card pairs place these on the wall underneath the beginning alphabet letter for their picture pair. Following this activity, Mr. Sinclair reads the children a new book about the alphabet. Today’s book is Animalia. Following read-aloud time, the children sing different alphabet songs together with Mr. Sinclair. Today is a special day for Nigel. Why? Because Nigel has made an important discovery! At the end of the period, he raises his hand and anxiously waits to be called on. In front of all the other children, Nigel shares his new insight. “Mr. Sinclair,” he blurts out. “I get it, I get it! The alphabet is just like the ABCs!”
The Foundations of Early Literacy
68
Primary grade teachers like Mr. Sinclair know how to assess and teach the foundational skills of early reading as outlined in core state standards. As we saw in Chapter 3, literacy begins with the development of oral language. Next, young children must acquire early literacy skills in three foundational areas: phonological and phonemic awareness, letter name knowledge, and concepts about print. In the next section we provide background
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 69
briefings for each of these three foundational areas. After that, we provide assessment strategies for determining whether a child has learned these critical skills.
Background Briefing for Teachers – Part I: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness Research shows that young children must develop both phonological awareness and phonemic awareness if they are to succeed in learning to read (e.g., Adams, 2001; Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2001; Mesmer & Willliams, 2014; NELP, 2008; NRP, 2000; Reutzel, 2105). Phonological and phonemic awareness involve helping children understand that spoken language may be broken down from larger units into smaller units such as sentences, phrases, words, syllables, onsets, rimes, and phonemes (individual speech sounds). Phonological awareness is an overarching umbrella term that includes identifying and manipulating the larger parts of spoken language such as sentences, phrases, and individual words (Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2001; NRP, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Phonemic awareness, the final developmental subset of phonological awareness, refers to the ability to focus on and manipulate individual sounds in spoken words or phonemes (individual sounds) (NRP, 2000). Phonological Awareness General Skills Progression (Spoken Language) The phonological skills to be learned and their approximate order of development are as follows: • Word awareness. Sample test: Move a token forward for each word you hear in these sentences: The girl runs. (3) Where is your dog? (4) I like to drink sodas. (5) • Rhyme recognition during word play. Sample test: Say yes if the words I say have the same last sound. Rock/dock (yes), red/said (yes), town/chair (no). • Repetition and creation of alliteration during word play. Examples: Teddy’s tiny toes; chewy chocolate cherries. • Syllable counting or identification. A spoken syllable is a unit of speech involving a vowel and another sound(s). Sample test: Clap each sound you hear in the words I say: care (1), cradle (2), motorcycle (4). • Onset and rime manipulation. In a single-syllable word, a rime is the vowel in the syllable and the other letter(s) that go with it. An onset is the consonant sound that comes before a rime. Sample test: Say the two parts you hear in each word I say, then blend them back together. Tool
onset: /t/
rime: /ool/
Car
onset: /k/
rime: /ar/
Trace
onset: /tr/
rime: /ace/
Following word awareness, children develop an awareness of the syllables within words. Next, they become aware that syllables are made up of onsets (all the sounds in the syllable before the vowel) and rimes (the vowel and everything following it). Research suggests that children may be able to orally blend body and coda chunks (for the word hat, the body is /ha/ and the coda is /t/) more readily than onsets and rimes (Murray, Brabham, Villaume, & Veal, 2008). Then children become aware of individual sounds, or phonemes, in spoken language. Finally, children develop the ability to manipulate (by substitution and deletion) individual sounds in language. From these findings, the teacher of reading realizes that children’s awareness of spoken language progresses from the whole (an idea shared through speech) to the part (individual word, syllable, onset and rime, body and coda, and then phoneme). Phonemic awareness, as we stated above, is the final developmental subset of phonological awareness and is defined as an understanding that spoken words are
70 Chapter 4 made up of individual sounds. When children have learned phonemic awareness they can identify and manipulate sounds in spoken words. So, when speaking of phonemic awareness, simple awareness is not enough since children also must be able to to manipulate sounds in spoken words and syllables. Let’s take a closer look at phonemic awareness skills and the approximate order in which they develop. Note that the first three phonemic awareness skills in blue type are the most critical for children to learn. Phonemic Awareness General Progression (Spoken Language) • Phoneme identity. The ability to identify the beginning sound of a spoken word. Sample test: Say the sound you hear at the beginning of these words: South, sing, saw (/s/); think, thank, thick (/th/); milk, mother, mouth (/m/) • Phoneme isolation. The ability to identify the final sound in a spoken word. Sample test: Say the last sound you hear in the words I say: Shirt /t/, voice /ss/, cake /k/, every /e/ • Phoneme blending. The ability to blend several speech sounds to make a word. Sample test: Blend the sounds I say to make a word: /pl/ /ay/ = play; /sh/ /out/ = shout; /st/ /ing/ = sting, /w/ /ay/ = way • Phoneme segmentation. The ability to identify all of the individual sounds in a spoken word. Sample test: Say each sound you hear in the word I say and move a token into the box for each sound (Note: See our Elkonin or word boxes activity later in the chapter). • Phoneme addition. The ability to add a speech sound to other sounds to create a word. Sample test: If you added /th/ to the beginning of ank, what word would you have? (thank) If you added /d/ to the end of the word close, what word would you have? (closed) If you added /z/ sound to the end of the word frog, what word would you have? (frogs) • Phoneme substitution. The ability to change one sound in a spoken word to create a different word. Sample test: Say the word mope. Change /m/ sound to /r/. What would the word be now? (rope) Say the word drum. Change /dr/ to /cr/. What would the word be now? (crumb) Say the word sit. Change /t/ to /ng/. What word would you get? (sing) • Phoneme deletion. The ability to take away one sound to create a different word. Sample test: Say the word mark. Now say mark without the /m/ sound. (ark) Say the word more. Now say more without /m/. (or) After students become aware of the concept of individual spoken words (Gately, 2004) and their subsequent discrimination of individual sounds in spoken words (phonemic awareness) they are prepared to move on to the next major developmental milestone, letter name knowledge.
MyLab Education Application Exercise 4.1: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness Case Study
Background Briefing for Teachers – Part II: Letter Name Knowledge Learning that specific sounds in spoken words can be represented by certain letters or graphemes is the next critical milestone achievement for beginning readers (Adams, 2001). For exqample, the rrrr speech sound is represented by the alphabet letter, “R.” Learning letter names and for the sounds they represent is one of the strongest predictors of early reading success (Blaiklock, 2004; Burgess & Lonigan, 1998; Foy & Mann, 2006; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; Paris, 2005; Wagner et al., 1997). How hard can it be to learn a letter? The average person on the street would most likely say that it is not that hard at all. But is it really that easy? Let’s examine what a 4- or 5-year-old student must learn about a letter to know a letter well.
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 71
Gibson and Levin (1975) explain that letters have a smaller set of critical features such as horizontal lines, vertical lines, diagonal lines, dots, and open and closed curves. Gibson and Levin’s (1975) theory predicts two outcomes: (1) letter recognition time is a function of the number of critical features used to create a letter shape, and (2) letter shapes that share the same critical features would most likely be easy to confuse or more difficult to discriminate. Research on this theory confirms that letters are indeed recognized by students trying to recognize critical features of letters (Reutzel, Mohr, & Jones, 2017). It also explains why letters like p and q, d, and b, or m and w, and n and u are easily confused when children first learn to recognize letters. The potential for these “reversals” (i.e., confusing similar letters like b and d) is not necessarily an indication of dyslexia, as some might suppose, but rather indicates that the child has yet to be able to consistently discriminate these similar symbols.
Should We Teach a Letter a Week? No. Teachers have long debated whether introducing one letter per week and the sound(s) they represent to children is best, or are students able to learn letters much quicker. Well, the research is in . . . alphabet and letter name knowledge instruction that focuses on one letter a week simply does not meet the needs of young students (Bowman & Treiman 2004; Piasta & Wagner 2010). Research has shown that young students learn alphabet and letter name knowledge best through frequent exposure and repetition of the letters taught over time (Justice et al., 2006; McBride-Chang, 1999; Treiman et al., 2007). What is an effective pacing for teaching alphabet and letter name knowledge? Research on mastery of such things as names of states, colors, days of week, and so forth has shown that instructional review cycles should take place between 10% and 20% of the total time period for which an item is to be remembered (Cepeda et al., 2009; Rohrer & Pashler, 2010). Thus, during a 180-day school year, instruction of the alphabet and letter names should take place every 18 to 36 days, or a pacing that teaches approximately one letter per day, rather than a letter per week. At a letter-a-day pace, it would take approximately 5 weeks to present all 26 alphabet letters, allowing for up to seven instructional review cycles during a single school year. There is now evidence that this system works well. In a two-group, nonrandomized study with 329 kindergarten students and 13 kindergarten teachers, Jones and Reutzel (2012) conducted a test of the letter-a-week versus the –letter-a-day pacing hypotheses. Teaching letters one per day resulted in significant increases in alphabet and letter name learning over the traditional letter-a-week instruction. Kindergarten teachers in this study also noted that fewer than seven instructional review cycles were needed for most kindergarten students to master alphabet and letter name knowledge. Finally, we know now that students who learn letter names and sounds more quickly make greater progress in reading (Blaiklock 2004). In fact, the letter-a-day kindergarten students in the Jones and Reutzel (2012) study also demonstrated greater reading achievement than in previous years when teachers used letter-a-week alphabet and letter name knowledge instruction with only a single instructional cycle of teaching the alphabet.
Not All Letters Are Created Equal! (Or Require The Same Amount of Instruction) Learning letter names and sounds is affected by factors related to the letter itself, to the student, and to the instructional environment. Consequently, some letters are more difficult to learn than others (Treiman, Weatherston, & Berch, 1994). For example, students frequently have difficulty with the letter w because the name (double-u) does not reflect the sound of the letter. Some letters may have double or even triple deficits due to phonological structure, onset of oral acquisition, place in the alphabet, relationship between letter name and sound, and frequency in print. Therefore, it makes no sense to spend the same amount of instructional time on each alphabet letter (Treiman et al., 1998). Consequently, those letters that present less difficulty may receive less instructional
72 Chapter 4 time, perhaps teaching up to two of these letters per day, and those that present students great difficulty may receive as much as two days of instructional time. The point here is that the difficulty of learning specific letter names and sounds should govern how much time is allocated for instruction, remembering that distributed practice is superior to massed practice, as previously noted.
Allocated Instruction Time: Short is Sweet Alphabet and letter name knowledge lessons should be brief. In an article titled “N Is for Nonsensical,” Neuman (2006) graphically describes a 55-minute letter name lesson conducted with young students: And what’s our letter of the week? Yes, it’s N and n. . . . Over the next 55 minutes, these children learned to point, circle, and underline the letter N. They recited it, drew it, and looked around the room for it. They heard it, saw it, even felt it, having it traced on their backs by their peers. And after sitting for what seemed to be an interminable amount of time in the circle, they were allowed the choice of tracing it, cutting it, or rolling modeling clay into the shape of it. (p. 28)
Lessons of this nature are questionable not only as to age-appropriateness, but also as to the amount of instructional time dedicated to experiencing a single letter on any given day in the classroom. Although alphabet and letter name instruction is essential, the purpose is for learning to read and write and not an end in itself. Spending too much daily time on a single alphabet letter steals instructional time from other meaningful literacy experiences, such as learning from and talking and writing about narrative stories and informational texts. Alphabet knowledge is a constrained literacy skill, and as such, lessons should be appropriately brief, no more than 10 to 15 minutes in length per day.
Explicit Instruction is Key Explicit instruction is among the most useful and powerful methods for teaching a variety of literacy skills, including alphabet and letter name knowledge (Reutzel, Childs, Jones, & Clark, 2014). Explicit instruction includes a clearly stated objective, teacher modeling, and guided practice. When teaching alphabet and letter name lessons, teachers should, at a minimum: (1) identify the letter name, upper- and lowercase letter forms, and sound to be taught; (2) help students classify and discriminate the letter forms in written text, and (3) write the upper- and lowercase letter taught. Later in this chapter, we will present an explicit alphabet and letter name lesson template.
MyLab Education Application Exercise 4.2: Letter Name Knowledge Case Study
Background Briefing for Teachers – Part III: Concepts about Print Many children enter school already knowing a great deal about how books work and how to carefully look at the printed (or digital) page, whereas others do not (McGee & Richgels, 2012; Yaden & Templeton, 1986). Insuring that all students have learned important print concepts in the early years is imperative so that children who come to school without prior learning opportunities– access to books and print, or guided experiences with printed language, can be helped to develop these necessary concepts (Clay, 2000a; Durkin, 1989; Nichols, Rupley, Rickelman, & Algozzine, 2004; Reutzel, 2015; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). We define print concepts, also known as concepts about print, as the knowledge associated with functions of printed language such as directionality (reading left to right, top to bottom), knowing the concepts of word and letter, proper book handling, voice–print matching, and punctuation (Reutzel & Cooter, 2018). For teaching and learning purposes, concepts about print may be divided into three distinct print aspects (Clay, 2000a; Taylor, 1986): (1) the functions of print, (2) mapping speech onto print, and (3) the technical aspects of print.
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 73
Functions of Print Children learn early that written language is useful for a variety of purposes. Halliday’s (1975) landmark research describes how oral and written language functions in our daily lives. The purposes children and adults have for using language can be divided into three parts: (1) ideational, or expressing one’s thoughts; (2) interpersonal, or intimate social language; and (3) textual, or informational language. Smith (1977) expanded Halliday’s teachings to purposes for which language can be used. Each of the 10 purposes, or functions of language (p. 640), is detailed here with related examples:* • Instrumental. “I want.” Language is used as a means of getting things and satisfying material needs. Examples in written language: Classified advertisements, notes, signup sheets, applications, bills, invoices, and so on. • Regulatory. “Do as I tell you.” Language is used to control the attitudes, behaviors, and feelings of others. Examples in written language: Traffic signs, procedures, policies, traffic tickets, prompts, and so on. • Interactional. “Me and you.” Language is used as a means of getting along with others and establishing relative status. Also, “Me against you.” Language is used for establishing separateness. Examples in written language: Love notes, invitations, dialogue journals, friendly letters, and so on. • Personal. “Here I come.” Language is used to express individuality, awareness of self, and pride. Examples in written language: Opinion papers, letters to the editor, and so on. • Heuristic. “Tell me why.” Language is used to seek and test world knowledge. Examples in written language: Letters of inquiry, requests, registration forms, and so on. • Imaginative. “Let’s pretend.” Language is used as a means of creating new worlds and making up stories and poems. Examples in written language: Stories, tall tales and yarns, and so on. • Representational. “I have something to tell you.” Language is used for communicating information, providing descriptions, and expressing propositions. Examples in written language: Arguments, lists, problem solving, and so on. • Divertive. “Enjoy this.” Language is used for humor and fun. Examples in written language: Puns, jokes, and riddles. • Authoritative/contractual. “This is how it must be.” Language is used to communicate rules. Examples in written language: Statutes, laws and regulations, and so on. • Perpetuating. “How it was.” (Records) Examples in written language: Personal histories, diaries, journals, scrapbooks, and so on. Children make varied use of oral language in their own lives, at least in a subconscious way. As you help students become aware of these oral language functions, they will readily apply this knowledge in their written language use as well.
Mapping Speech onto Print The ability to match or map speech sounds onto printed symbols (letters) develops rather slowly. Some researchers believe that the ability to map speech sounds onto printed language and knowledge of the sound–symbol code, or phonics knowledge,
74 Chapter 4 may develop simultaneously (Lomax & McGee, 1987). Mapping involves several important skills that the student learns: • Understanding that speech can be written down and read, and that what is written down can be spoken • Awareness of print in the environment and ability to read at least some signs and logos • Understanding that the message of the text is constructed more from the print than the pictures • Knowledge that written language uses different structures (Halliday, 1975; Smith, 1977) from spoken language • Comprehension that the length of a spoken word is usually related to the length of the written word • Insight that one written word equals one spoken word • Identification of correspondences between spoken sounds and written symbols • Ability to use context and other language-related clues to construct meaning and identify words Mapping speech onto print helps students become successful readers and benefit from further experiences with written language (Johnston, 1992; Reutzel, Oda, & Moore, 1989). For some readers, failing to acquire an understanding of mapping principles can slow their progress in reading and writing development (Clay, 2000a; Ehri & Sweet, 1991; Johns, 1980).
Technical Aspects of Print Technical aspects of print refer to the rules, also called conventions that govern written language. Examples include directionality (left to right/top to bottom progression on the page in reading), spatial orientation, and instructional terms used in classrooms to refer to written language elements. Because many of these technical concepts are commonsense matters for adults, it is little wonder that sometimes teachers and parents mistakenly assume that children already understand them. However, ample evidence exists that this knowledge of the technical aspects of written language, shown in the following list, develops slowly for many learners (Clay, 1979; Day & Day, 1979; Downing & Oliver, 1973; Johns, 1980; Meltzer & Himse, 1969). Levels of Language Concepts Ordinal • First, second, third, and so on • Beginning • Last • Book • Paragraph • Sentence • Word • Letter Visual Clues Embedded in Books and Print • Cover, spine, pages • Margins, indentations • Spacing • Print size • Punctuation Location Concepts
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 75
• Top • Bottom • Left • Right • Beginning (front, start, initial) • Middle (center, medial, in between) • End (back, final) It is very important that teachers assess what young children know about the technical aspects of printed language. As an extension of print concepts, Duke, Martin, Norman, Knight, Roberts, Morsink, & Calkins (2013) examined younger students concepts of graphics and found considerable variation within any given grade level in children’s acquisition of concepts of graphics. These researchers describe 8 different concepts of graphical device awareness. These include: • Action – a static graphic device that can be interpreted as an action. • Extension – a graphic device that provides additional information not found in the text. • Importance – ability to determine the relative importance of information portrayed in a graphic. • Intentionality – graphic device is intentionally placed into the text to accomplish a communicative purpose, e.g., show examples of a concept described in the text – say a photo of a cumulus cloud formation. • Partiality – graphics are added to a text to provide partial demonstrations of the words in a text, e.g. a shopper with a cart when the text says shoppers use carts and baskets. • Permanence – graphics provide information that can be used to facilitate a retelling of the text, concepts and order. • Relevance – graphics are clearly related to the content of the written text, e.g. a canary is described with a picture of a canary. • Representation – graphics represent objects but do not have the same physical properties as those objects, e.g., fish are described by a photo of rainbow trout or swordfish are shown as representations of different fish. These researchers found that at higher-grade levels, in general more young children demonstrated acquisition of given graphic concepts. Nearly all children demonstrated full acquisition of the graphic concept of Action—by the end of pre-K and by the end of third grade, Intentionality. By the end of 2nd grade, young children demonstrated acquisition of Permanence and Relevance and Representation and Partiality by the end of grade 3. Less than half demonstrated full acquisition of the concepts of Extension and Importance even at the end of grade 3.
Assessing Early Literacy Skills So far in this chapter we have learned the approximate order of early literacy development. Effective teachers assess the extent to which each student can demonstrate mastery of these early literacy skills (i.e., identifying skills each child knows, and skills that need to be learned next in the progression). In this section we provide assessment strategies for your use in the classroom to determine student knowledge of each of the early literacy skills described earlier. For your convenience, in Table 4.1 we preview the assessment strategies presented in this chapter matched to each of the essential early literacy skills.
76 Chapter 4
Table 4.1 Early Literacy Skills Matched to Assessment Strategies
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY (WITH PAGE #)
ASSESSMENT PURPOSE(S): SCREENING (S), DIAGNOSTIC (D), PROGRESS MONITORING (M), OUTCOMES (O)
Word awareness
Same–Different Word Pair Task
S, D, M, O
R = No V = Yes
Syllable counting or identification
Syllable and Sound Counting Task
S, D, M, O
R = No V = Yes
Onset and rime manipulation
1. Auditory Sound Blending Task 2. Segmenting Sounds 3. Dictation
1. S, D, M, O 2. S, D, M, O 3. S, D
1. R = No, V = Yes 2. R = No, V = Yes 3. R = No, V = No
Phoneme identity
Initial Consonant Sounds Assessment
S, D, M, O
R = No V = Yes
Phoneme isolation
Initial Consonant Sounds Assessment
S, D, M, O
R = No V = Yes
Phoneme blending
Blending Sounds Assessment
S, D, M, O
R = No V = Yes
Phoneme segmentation
Phonemic Segmentation Assessment
S, D, M, O
R = No V = Yes
Letter Identification – all upper case letters
1. Letter Identification 2. DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) 3. Alphabet Knowledge Test (AKT)
1. S, D, M, O 2. S, M, O 3. S, D, M, O
1. R = Yes, V = Yes 2. R = Yes, V = Yes 3. R = Yes, V = Yes
Letter Identification – all lower case letters
1. Letter Identification 2. DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) 3. Alphabet Knowledge Test (AKT)
1. S, D, M, O 2. S, M, O 3. S, D, M, O
1. R = Yes, V = Yes 2. R = Yes, V = Yes 3. R = Yes, V = Yes
Writes all upper and lower case letters
Letter Production Task
S, D, M, O
R = No V = Yes
Front and back of a book
Concepts about Print Test
S, D, O
R = Yes V = Yes
Where story begins
Concepts about Print Test
S, D, O
R = Yes V = Yes
Picture identification
Concepts about Print Test
S, D, O
R = Yes V = Yes
Word identification (one word)
1. Concepts about Print Test 2. Mow Motorcycle Task
1. S, D, O 2. S, O
1. R = Yes, V = Yes 2. R = No, V = No
Letter identification (one letter)
Concepts about Print Test
S, D, O
R = Yes V = Yes
First and last letters of word
Concepts about Print Test
S, D, O
R = Yes V = Yes
Left to right word progression, return sweep, top to bottom of page
Concepts about Print Test
S, D, O
R = Yes V = Yes
Where to go next at the end of a page
Concepts about Print Test
S, D, O
R = Yes V = Yes
Points to words read
Concepts about Print Test
S, D, O
R = Yes V = Yes
Meaning of punctuation
Concepts about Print Test
S, D, O
R = Yes V = Yes
EARLY LITERACY SKILL
RELIABILITY (R), VALIDITY (V) EVIDENCE
Phonological Awareness
Phonemic Awareness (Critical skills)
Letter Name Knowledge*
Concepts About Print
* Note: Reliability evidence for alphabet and letter naming assessments are typically low for several reasons. First, many of these tests are subject to ceiling effects where students get most if not all of the items correct. Second, these tests typically do not typically have sufficient numbers and varieties of item responses to provide sufficient variability to establish high levels of reliability.
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 77
Assessing Phonological Awareness Same–Different Word Pair Task Age Range: 4 years to 6 years Standard: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.2 Demonstrate understanding of spoken words, syllables, and sounds (phonemes). PURPOSE Treiman and Zukowski (1991) designed the same–different task to measure children’s development of syllable, onset and rime, and phoneme awareness. Same– different tasks require that students say whether two words or two pictures share the same beginning syllable or sound. Typically, children listen to (or say from pictures) a pair of spoken words and then say whether the word pair is the same or different. MATERIALS
• A list of 10 word pairs or a collection of 10 picture pairs; use the word set found in Figure 4.1 for the beginning syllable same–different task • A puppet PROCEDURE
1. Seat the child across from you at a table. 2. Place the list in your lap so that you can see the words. 3. Using a puppet, demonstrate how the puppet listens and says whether the word pair is the same or different. For example, say, “Peter the bunny is going to listen to two words I will say, or he will look at two pictures I put on the table.” 4. Next, say the word pair, partly and partition. Then let the puppet say whether the two words are the same or different. 5. Demonstrate this again with the words dandy and dislike, if necessary. 6. Have the puppet pronounce the words in Figure 4.1 slowly and clearly, and ask the child to tell the puppet if the word pairs are the same or different. 7. Make a record of how well the child does directly on a copy of the word list. Children should be able to indicate whether the word or picture pairs have the same syllable or sound with at least 50% accuracy. For mastery, the student should be able to correctly identify 8 out of 10 odd words out.
Syllable and Sound Counting Task Age Range: 4 years to 6 years Standard: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.2.B Count, pronounce, blend, and segment syllables in spoken words. PURPOSE The counting task, which is a variation of the tapping task developed by Liberman and colleagues (1977), is designed to measure children’s development of syllable and phoneme awareness. Counting tasks require that students count the number
Figure 4.1 Beginning Syllable Same–Different Task List hammer
hammock
donkey
dinky
little
local
camera
camshaft
window
winner
twinkle
twinkie
single
sickle
belly
balloon
maple
motor
fabric
furnish
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Beginning Syllable SameDifferent Task List
78 Chapter 4 of syllables or sounds in a word that is spoken or shown in a picture. Typically, children listen to (or say from a picture) a word and then they count the number of syllables or sounds. Counting tasks can focus on beginning, ending, and middle syllables and sounds of words. The picture set found in Figure 4.2 demonstrates a sound counting task. MATERIALS
• The collection of 10 pictures found in Figure 4.2. PROCEDURE MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Picture Sound Counting Task
1. Seat the child next to you at a table. 2. Place the pictures in Figure 4.2 on the tabletop so that you and the child can see them. 3. Demonstrate how to count the sounds in samples A and B. For example, say, “I am looking at this picture” [point]. 4. Next, say the word aloud and count the sounds you hear with your fingers. 5. Tell the child the number of sounds in sample A is four—f-r-o-g. Demonstrate this again with the picture in sample B if necessary. 6. Have the child look at picture number 1 in Figure 4.2 carefully. 7. Ask the child to say what the picture is and count the sounds with his or her fingers. 8. Then ask the child to tell you the number of sounds in the word. 9. Repeat steps 6 - 8 for each picture. Make a record of how well the child does on a copy of the word list. Children should be able to accurately count the number of sounds or syllables within the words or pictures with at least 50% accuracy.
Auditory Sound Blending Task Age Range: 4 years to 6 years Standard: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.2.C Blend and segment onsets and rimes of single-syllable spoken words.
Figure 4.2 Picture Sound Counting Task Sample A
3.
2.
1.
7. 4.
5. 6.
Sample B 9. 8.
10.
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 79
PURPOSE Students are asked to recognize words by blending the sounds in words that teachers stretch out into segmented units, for example, m-an or sh-i-p (we call this word rubber banding). According to Griffith and Olson (1992), the ability to guess what the word is from its blended form demonstrates a slightly higher level of phonemic awareness than recognizing rhyming sounds. MATERIALS
• A list of 30 words divided into three sets of 10 each (as shown in Figure 4.3) • A first set of 10 words composed of two-phoneme words • A second set of 10 words composed of three- or four-phoneme words divided before the vowel, demonstrating the onset and rime, for example, c (onset) ap (rime) • A third set of 10 words composed of three- or four-phoneme words that are segmented completely, for example, ch-i-p PROCEDURE
1. Tell the child that you will be stretching words out like a rubber band, saying each sound. 2. Model several of these stretched words for the child and then say the word you have stretched. For example, stretch the word s-i-t. Then say the word sit. 3. Next, stretch a word and ask the child to tell you the word. 4. Once this has been accomplished, tell the child you are going to play a game in which you say a word stretched out and the student will answer the question “What am I saying?” (See Figure 4.3). According to Yopp’s (1988) research, kindergarten children achieve a mean score of 20 out of the 30 target words identified correctly. If students score poorly on this task, defined as fewer than 18 words correct, provide reading and writing experiences that help children hear sounds in words. Creating invented spellings for writing new words or using word rubber banding to sound out new words found in trade books are just two examples.
Segmenting Sounds Age Range: 4 years to 7 years Standard: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.2.C Blend and segment onsets and rimes of single-syllable spoken words. PURPOSE Students are asked to listen to and isolate sounds in the initial, medial, and final positions in a word. A child’s ability to isolate sounds in words is an excellent indication of whether he or she can profit from decoding instruction.
Figure 4.3 Word Lists for Blending at
l‑ap
l‑o‑ck
two
t‑ip
s‑t‑e‑m
in
m‑an
b‑ea‑k
if
st‑ate
h‑i‑de
be
b‑ox
c‑a‑sh
as
sc‑ab
m‑i‑c‑e
sea
r‑ug
sh‑ee‑t
now
m‑ind
f‑r‑o‑g
go
th‑ink
j‑u‑m‑p
sew
p‑ig
t‑ur‑key
MyLab Education
Video Example 4.1: Nora’s Auditory Sound Blending Task. In this video, Ms. Dee Swanson uses the Auditory Sound Blending task with Nora (age 6). At the end of the video Ms. Swanson provides an analysis of Nora’s performance on this task.
80 Chapter 4 MATERIALS MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Word List for Segmenting Sounds
• The list of 15 words shown in Figure 4.4, consisting of three phonemes each, with target sounds in the beginnings, middles, and ends of the words PROCEDURE
1. Model how phonemes can be pronounced by showing how sit starts with the /s/ sound, hike has the /i/ sound in the middle, and look ends with the /k/ sound. 2. Next, say that you are going to play a quick game together. You will say a word and then ask the child to tell you the sound he or she hears in a specific place in the word, such as beginning, middle, or end. For example you may say, “Slam. Say the sound at the end of the word slam.” The child responds correctly by articulating the sound /m/. 3. Now begin the list of words shown in Figure 4.4. Record each response on a copy of the word list. According to Yopp’s (1988) research study, kindergarten children typically achieve a mean score of one to two words correct out of 15 target words. If some of your students score poorly, say less than one word correct on this task, provide reading and writing experiences focusing on hearing sounds in specific locations within words.
MyLab Education
Video Example 4.2: Bridgette’s Segmenting Sounds Task. In this video, Ms. Dee Swanson uses the Segmenting Sounds task with Bridgette (age 6). At the end of the video, Ms. Swanson provides an analysis of Bridgette’s performance on this task.
Dictation Age Range: 5 years to 7 years Standard: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.2.C Blend and segment onsets and rimes of single-syllable spoken words. PURPOSE Students are asked to listen to several words that are stretched out or rubber banded. Next, students are asked to rubber band the word(s) as the teacher dictates them and write the sounds heard in each word. Calkins (1986) relates how word rubber banding is used in her Teacher’s College Writing Project to help children learn how to listen for sounds. Carnine, Silbert, and Kameenui (1990) refer to a similar approach for stretching words called auditory telescoping. Yopp (1992) indicates that the ability to speak the phonemes within a word is a very difficult level of phonemic awareness to achieve. The ability to both speak and write phonemes in words indicates an advanced level of phonemic awareness that can be used effectively in reading and writing instruction. MATERIALS
• A list of 22 teacher-compiled words of two or three phonemes each in length, including words with varying consonant and vowel patterns (i.e., some that begin with consonants, others that begin with vowel sounds), as in the example list shown in Figure 4.5. PROCEDURE
1. Demonstrate how several words can be stretched or rubber banded into sounds—both orally and in writing. 2. Invite the child to rubber band and write the words in your list as you did.
Figure 4.4 Word List for Segmenting Sounds d ime
clock
l oo p
yard
raft
hush
cu t
r ode
k i ss
b ike
fi ve
f ool
h ome
get
mu g
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 81
Figure 4.5 Dictation Word List page
me
my
now
live
can
this
but
big
get
have
come
sat
on
some
tile
men
at
back
no
did
say
This task assesses whether children have developed an ability to hear and “map” sounds through writing and using invented spellings (See Figure 4.5). Yopp (1988) found that the mean response rate to this task by kindergartners was 12 out of 22, or about 55% correct. Griffith and Olson (1992) indicate that the word rubber-banding task has been shown to be a highly reliable, authentic measure of phonemic awareness and a good indication as to whether a child is ready for decoding instruction.
Assesing Phonemic Awareness In this section we present several assessment tasks useful in determining whether students have attained phonemic awarness using spoken language. In each case we aim for 100 percent success (or something very close to that) since this is a critical early literacy skill area. In instances where students are less than, say, 75 percent sucessful with each test, then explicit instruction is needed.
Initial Consonant Sounds Assessment Age Range: 5 years to 7 years Standard: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.2.C PURPOSE One of the subtests in The Phonemic Awareness Assessment System* (K.S. Cooter & R.B. Cooter, 2017), The Initial Consonant Sounds Assessment (ICSA) is a measure of a student’s awareness of beginning sounds in spoken words. It is an “oddity task” in that this type of assessment asks the child to identify the word that is not like the others (i.e., the word that begins with a different sound/phoneme). MATERIALS
• Make or print out a copy of the following ICSA for each child to be assessed for your records.
INITIAL CONSONANT SOUNDS ASSESSMENT (ICSA) Soak
Sip
Dig
Cab
Mat
Moon
Dump
Fine
Doll
Pick
Patch
Fat
Fill
Fun
Leap
Net
Nurse
Well
Camp
Cage
Night
Treat
Sunk
Time
Cloth
Bead
Back
Song
Feed
Fit
* Cooter, K.S., & Cooter, R.B. (2017). The Phonemic Awareness Assessment System (PAAS). Louisville, KY: Unpublished manuscript. Used with permission of the authors.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Initial Consonant Sounds Assessment
82 Chapter 4 PROCEDURE
1. Sit across the table or desk from the child. 2. Say, “We are going to play a listening game. I am going to say three words slowly. You listen for the word that does not start with the same sound. Let me show you what I mean.” 3. Say the words “PAT, PIG, CAT” slowly, emphasizing the beginning sound/phoneme of each word more than other sounds in the word. 4. Then repeat the words, saying, “I will say the words one more time to see if I can listen and hear a different sound at the beginning—“PAT, PIG, CAT. When I listen, I hear that the words PAT and PIG have the same starting or beginning sound, but CAT has a different beginning sound.” 5. “I want to do one more example for you. This time listen to see which word has a different beginning sound – CAP, BIT, BALL. Did you notice that CAP has a different sound at the beginning than BIT and BALL?” 6. “Your turn. Which of these words has a different beginning sound? RIP, ROAR, CAB. Which word has a different sound at the beginning?” If the child has difficulty, you may repeat the words again. 7. Say, “Nice work. Let’s try some other words now and see if you can hear the different beginning sounds.” and continue to administer the assessment using the Initial Consonant Sounds Assessment form. Note that you may say each row of words twice for the student.
Blending Sounds Assessment Age Range: 5 years to 7 years Standard: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.2.C PURPOSE The Blending Sounds Assessment (BSA) is one of the subtests of The Phonemic Awareness Assessment System* (K.S. Cooter & R.B. Cooter, 2017). In the BSA, children are asked to listen to a word wherein the phonemes are separated orally, and then combine the phonemes together to make a word. The Blending Sounds Assessment (BSA) is divided into two parts. The BSA - Part 1: Onset & Rime is the simpler task and has students blend onsets and rimes. In the BSA – Part 2: Blending Individual Sounds the child performs a more difficult phonemic awareness task; the child blends several individual sounds to form words. Children may be asked to blend the sounds /b/ /ă/ /n/ /d/ into the whole word band. MATERIALS
• Make or print out copies of each of the forms that follow to use as protocols/student records for each child. The first is BSA Part 1: Onset and Rime, and the second form is BSA Part 2: Blending Individual Sounds. BSA Part 1: Onset and Rime
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Blending Sounds Assessment Part 1 and 2
Word/Sounds
Blended Word
R -ain
Rain
M –ate
Mate
F –ight
Fight
S–oak
Soak
C–ake
Cake
L –aw
Law
W –ill
Will
Correct Response? (√)
* Cooter, K.S., & Cooter, R.B. (2017). The Phonemic Awareness Assessment System (PAAS). Louisville, KY: Unpublished manuscript. Used with permission of the authors.
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 83
Word/Sounds
Blended Word
T –op
Top
F –ail
Fail
B –ay
Bay
P –in
Pin
M –ore
More
M –elt
Melt
Tr –ain
Train
L –ime
Lime
St –orm
Storm
G –ate
Gate
Correct Response? (√)
BSA Part 2: Blending Individual Sounds (Page 1)
Segmented Word/ Sounds
Blended Word
F–i–t
Fit
T–a–n
Tan
F–i–n
Fin
B–i-t
Bit
B – ě –d
Bed
H - a –t
Hat
B – ē –t
Beat
L–o–t
Lot
S–ē
See
S–ō–p
Soap
C–a – p
Cap
S–i–p
Sip
M–a–t
Mat
St –ā – Ke
Stake
R – o – cks
Rocks
Sl – a – m
Slam
R–u–n
Run
Correct Response? (√)
PROCEDURE
BSA Part 1: Onset & Rime 1. Explain to the child that you will be stretching words out and saying each sound and it is important that they listen very carefully. 2. Say the following stretched words for the child; then say them as whole, blended words. Segmented Word/Sounds B – ug D - ock C – an 3. Then say them as whole, blended words. Blended Word (Examiner Pronounces) bug doc can
84 Chapter 4 4. Now so that the child can have some practice, present each of the words below to the child in segments and ask the child to say the blended word. Segmented Word/Sounds
Blended Word (Student Pronounces)
P -ack
Pack
F -at
Fat
Sl-ide
Slide
5. Once the child understands the task, proceed using the form provided. BSA Part 2: Blending Individual Sounds 1. Explain to the child that you will be stretching words out and saying every sound. Their job will be to put the word together again. 2. Say the following stretched words; then pronounce each as whole, blended word. Segmented Word/Sounds f- i - t c–a–n h– o – p 3. Then pronounce each as a whole, blended word. Blended Word (Examiner Pronounces) fit can hop 4. Now check and make sure the child understands by stretching the following words and asking the child to put the word together. Segmented Word/Sounds
Blended Word (Student Pronounces)
c- a - n
can
m–a-p
map
5. Once the child understands the task, proceed using the form provided.
Phonemic Segmentation Assessment Age Range: 5 years to 7 years Standard: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.2.C PURPOSE The Phonemic Segmentation Assessment (PSA) (K.S. Cooter & R.B. Cooter, 2017) measures a child's ability to isolate individual sounds in spoken words, or phonemes. This skill is an important early indication of readiness for phonics instruction. Children are to listen to the teacher’s spoken words and then orally identify the phonemes/sounds in the initial, medial, and final positions in the words they hear. MATERIALS
• Make one copy for each child of the three PSA reporting forms: initial phonemes, medial phonemes and final phonemes.
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 85
PSA Part 1: Beginning (Initial) Phonemes in Spoken Words Teacher says: “Listen to the words that I say. Tell me the sound you hear at the beginning of each word. So, when I say the word sat you would say /s/. Do you understand?” If the child seems confused, give her three other examples. Start the assessment using the target words below. Say each target word clearly; then write the child’s response on your reporting form in the space provided. Target Initial Phonemes
Student Responses
like /l/ bill /b/ sag /s/ met /m/ knob /n/ SCORE:____/ 5 words PSA Part 2: Medial (Middle) Phonemes in Spoken Words Teacher says: “Now we will do something a little different. I want you to tell me the sound you hear in the middle of each word. So if I say the word ‘nut’ you would say /u/. Do you understand?” If the child seems confused, give three more examples. Say each target word clearly; then write the child’s response on your reporting form in the space provided. Target Medial Phonemes
Student Responses
foam /ō/ rag /ă/ dip / ĭ/ file /ī/ freeze /ē/ SCORE:____/ 5 words PSA Part 3: Final (Ending) Phonemes in Spoken Words Teacher says: “Now I will say a word and I want you to tell the last sound you hear in the word. So, if I say the word ‘cut’ you would say /t/. Do you understand?” If the child seems confused, give three other examples. Say each target word clearly; then write the child’s response on your reporting form in the space provided. Target Final Phonemes
track /k/ pay /ā/ lot /t/ fun /n/ ball /l/ SCORE:____/ 5 words
Student Responses
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Phonemic Segmentation Assessment Parts 1–3
86 Chapter 4 PROCEDURE
1. Begin by modeling for the student how the individual phonemes heard in words are pronounced. You might demonstrate using the “stretching ” or “word rubber banding” technique (i.e., hearing and saying each phoneme in a spoken word by stretching the word out slowly like a rubber band). 2. Explain how you can hear the beginning (initial) sound /s/ in words like Sue, sat, and Silly Sam; the middle or medial sound /ī/ in words like bike, find, and dime; and the ending or final sound /k/ in words like book, like, and cook. 3. Let the child practice the “stretching” technique with these words. 4. After practicing, begin the Phonemic Segmentation Assessment. There are three parts: initial phonemes, medial phonemes and final phonemes. 5. Record each response of the child on the reporting forms.
Assessing Letter Name Knowledge Letter Identification Age Range: 4 years to 7 years Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1d: Recognize and name all upper- and lowercase letters of the alphabet. PURPOSE This task, based on the work of Marie Clay (1993), determines whether readers with special learning needs can identify letters of the alphabet. MATERIALS
• The randomized alphabet letter display shown in Figure 4.6. • A photocopy of the display PROCEDURE MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Random Alphabet Letter Display
1. Invite the student to sit next to you and explain that you would like to find out which letters of the alphabet he or she can name as you point to them on a chart (See Figure 4.6). 2. Begin pointing at the top of the alphabet letter display. 3. Working line-by-line and left to right to the bottom of the display while keeping letters below your line of focus covered as you ask the child to point to the letter you name in the display and record this information. 4. Using a photocopy of the display, mark which of the letters have been correctly named. Most children, even readers with special learning needs, will be able to identify at least 50% of the letters requested. However, students who have little familiarity with letters may identify less than 50% of the letters.
Figure 4.6 Random Alphabet Letter Display E P v r D f o A m l X T i Y w K u C J
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 87
Letter Production Task Age Range: 4 years to 7 years Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1d: Recognize and name all upper- and lowercase letters of the alphabet. PURPOSE This task is designed to determine whether students know and can write letters of the alphabet. Unlike simple letter identification, this task requires that students be able to produce letters from memory. Letter knowledge is an indication of how well students have sorted out sound and symbol processes but is not logically necessary for successful reading. It does, however, make learning to read easier (Venezky, 1975). Letter naming and production can be likened to a bridge that helps children cross the river of early reading and writing. MATERIALS
• Teacher-created list of 10 letters drawn randomly from the alphabet, with at least three vowel letters in the selection, as shown in Figure 4.7. • Pencil • Blank piece of paper PROCEDURE
1. Ask the student if he or she knows any letters. 2. Next ask the student to write down any letters he or she may know and name them. 3. Following this exercise, invite the student to write the letters you name from the random letter list you created (See Figure 4.7). Most students in first grade will score at least 70% on this task. However, students who have little familiarity with letters may perform poorly. This should be interpreted as a need to engage in strategies and activities outlined later in this chapter.
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) Age Range: 5-7 Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1d: Recognize and name all upper- and lowercase letters of the alphabet. PURPOSE The DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) is a standardized, individually administered test of students’ fluency (speed) of letter naming. The DIBELS LNF is not a comprehensive or complete measure of students’ alphabet or letter name knowledge, but rather provides an indicator of the “fluency or speed” with which young students can visually recognize in a single minute a selected sampling of letters and then retrieve them from memory and put a name on the symbol they see. Speed in letter identification is critical for students to attain as a foundation for later letter blending to decode words accurately and quickly. LNF is used for students in kindergarten and first grade, and this measure is highly predictive of later reading success. In the DIBELS LNF test, students are presented with a single sheet display of upperand lowercase letters arranged in a random order. They are asked to name as many letters as they can in 1 minute. Students are told if they do not know a letter, they will be told the letter. The DIBELS LNF score is the number of letters named correctly in 1 minute.
Figure 4.7 Random Letter Production Task 1. b
2. m
3. e
4. f
5. t
6. i
7. p
8. o
9. s
10. h
88 Chapter 4 According to the DIBELS website (https://dibels.uoregon.edu), the one-month, alternate-form reliability for the LNF in kindergarten is .88 (Good et al., 2004). The median criterion-related validity of LNF with the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational BatteryRevised (WJPEB-R) readiness cluster standard score in kindergarten is .70 (Good et al., 2004). The predictive validity of kindergarten LNF with first-grade WJPEB-R reading cluster standard score is .65 and .71 with first-grade oral reading fluency (Good et al., 2004). MATERIALS
• Student copy of LNF probe • Examiner copy of LNF probe • Clipboard • Stopwatch • Red pencil or pen • LNF probes PROCEDURE Each LNF probe is a random display of two lowercase and two uppercase alphabets. See the previously mentioned website to obtain all necessary DIBELS LNF testing materials and administration directions (see Table 4.2).
Table 4.2 Directions for Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting the DIBELS LNF Subtest Setting the Scene 1. Place the student copy of randomized alphabets in front of the student. 2. Place the examiner copy of randomized alphabets in front of you, but shielded so that the student cannot see what you record. Directions to Student 3. Say these specific directions to the student: “Here are some letters [point]. Tell me the names of as many letters as you can. When I say begin, start here [point to first letter in upper left-hand corner] and go across the page [point]. Point to each letter and tell me the name of that letter. Try to name each letter. If you come to a letter you don’t know, I’ll tell it to you. Put your finger on the first letter. Ready?” Beginning Administration 4. Say “Begin” and start your stopwatch. Score as You Go 5. Follow along on the examiner probe. Put a slash (/) through letters named incorrectly. Keep the Administration Going 6. If a student stops or struggles with a letter for 3 seconds, tell the student the letter and mark it as incorrect. Prompting for Correct Response 7. If the student provides the letter sound rather than the letter name, say, “Remember to tell me the letter name, not the sound it represents.” This prompt may be provided once during the administration. If the student continues providing letter sounds, mark each letter as incorrect and indicate what the student did at the bottom of the page. Ending Administration 8. At the end of 1 minute, place a bracket (]) after the last letter named and say “Stop.” Scoring the DIBELS LNF 1. Discontinue Rule: If a student does not get any correct letter names within the first 10 letters (1 row), discontinue the task and put a score of zero (0). 2. 3 Second Rule: If the student hesitates for 3 seconds on a letter, score the letter as incorrect, provide the correct letter, point to the next letter, and say, “What letter?” This prompt may be repeated. For example, if the letters are t, L, s and the student says t and then 3 seconds pass, prompt by saying, “L,” point to s and say “What letter?” 3. Self-Corrections: If a student makes an error and corrects him- or herself within 3 seconds, write “SC” above the letter and do not count it as an error. 4. Incorrect Letter: A letter is incorrect if the student substitutes a different letter for the stimulus letter (e.g., b for d). 5. Omissions: A letter is incorrect if the student omits the letter. 6. Similar-Shaped Font: For some fonts, including Times, the uppercase letter I and the lowercase letter l are difficult or impossible to distinguish. A response of either is scored as correct in that instance. 7. Articulation and Dialect: The student is not penalized for imperfect pronunciation due to dialect, articulation, or second language interference. For exam‑ ple, if the student consistently says /th/ for /s/ and pronounces “thee” for “see” when naming the letter C, he or she should be given credit for correct letter naming. This is a professional judgment and should be based on the student’s responses and any prior knowledge of his or her speech patterns. 8. Skipping Rows: If a student skips an entire row, draw a line through the row and do not count the row when scoring.
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 89
Students are considered at risk for difficulty achieving early literacy benchmark goals if they perform in the lowest 20% of students in their district. For classroom teachers, students may be considered at risk for difficulty achieving early literacy benchmark goals if they perform in the lowest 20% of students in their class.
Alphabet Knowledge Test (AKT) Age Range: 5-7 Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1d: Recognize and name all upper- and lowercase letters of the alphabet. PURPOSE Reutzel and Jones (2013) developed the Alphabet Knowledge Test (AKT). Based on recent evidence and research findings related to alphabet and letter name knowledge described in the teacher knowledge section of this chapter, the AKT assesses what it takes to know a letter well. Another impetus for developing the AKT was consistently low reliabilities reported in relation to existing letter name identification tests and their causal/predictive relationship to later reading and writing ability. The AKT consists of the following eight subtests:
• Letter Naming Subtest • Letter Sounds Subtest • Letter Classification Subtest • Letter Discrimination Subtest • Letter-Sound-Picture Association Subtest • Letter Free Write Subtest • Letter Dictation Subtest • Name Writing Subtest Each of these subtests is designed to determine how well students can identify alphabetical order, letter names, and letter sounds. Other subtests focus on students’ abilities to write their name, classify letters, discriminate letters, associate letters with pictures, and write letters. We believe this will give teachers a clearer picture of the depth and accuracy of their students’ alphabet and letter name knowledge. With multiple sets of items within each subtest, the subtest and entire-test reliabilities should be vastly improved over previously available letter ID tests when actually assessed in future research studies. However, since the AKT test has only recently been developed, we caution users that reliability and validity work has yet to be accomplished on the AKT, but soon will be. The AKT can be found in Figure 4.8. MATERIALS
• Student copy of AKT probe • Examiner copy of AKT recording sheet • Clipboard PROCEDURE
1. Invite an individual student to be seated next to you. 2. Explain that you would like to find out which letters of the alphabet he or she knows and that you’ll be asking the student to indicate this knowledge by having him or her complete various alphabet and letter name knowledge activities/tasks. 3. At this point, follow the directions for administration as outlined in Figure 4.8.
90 Chapter 4
Figure 4.8 The Alphabet Knowledge Test Student Response Recording Form Subtest 1: Letter Names (Point to each letter on the chart at the end of this test and say, “Tell me the name of this letter.”) A. Frequency 1. Set 1: R S N T 2. Set 2: K V B G 3. Set 3: J Q Y X 4. Set 4: l c d p 5. Set 5: b f h m 6. Set 6: w j q z
_____/4 _____/4 _____/4 _____/4 _____/4 _____/4
B. Sounds in the name 1. Set 1: p k t b 2. Set 2: m s f l 3. Set 3: h w y q
_____/4 _____/4 _____/4
C. Alphabet order 1. Set 1: A B C D 2. Set 2: L M N O 3. Set 3: s t u v 4. Set 4: g h i j
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Alphabet Knowledge Test
_____/3 _____/3 _____/3 _____/3
D. Comprehensive alphabet 1. Matrix of uppercase 2. Matrix of lowercase
_____/26 _____/26
C. Fluency of letter naming (each set is timed for 10 seconds) 1. Set 1: R S N T 2. Set 2: K V B G 3. Set 3: J Q Y X 4. Set 4: l c d p 5. Set 5: b f h m 6. Set 6: w j q z
_____/4 _____/4 _____/4 _____/4 _____/4 _____/4
Subtest 2: Letter Sounds (Point to each letter and say, “Tell me the sound this letter represents.”) Consonants: A. Frequency 1. Set 1: r p d t 2. Set 2: m h f g 3. Set 3: q j x w
_____/4 _____/4 _____/4
B. Sounds in the name 1. Set 1: d k t p 2. Set 2: n r x l 3. Set 3: h w y q
_____/4 _____/4 _____/4
C. Consonant oral acquisition order 1. Set 1: p m t n 2. Set 2: f b g w 3. Set 3: r v l z
_____/4 _____/4 _____/4
Vowels A. Frequency 1. Set 1: u i e (short or long) 2. Set 2: a o i (short or long)
_____/3 _____/3
B. Sounds in the name 1. Set 1: u i e (long) 2. Set 2: a o I (long)
_____/3 _____/3
Subtest 3: Letter Classification (Give children sets of magnetic letters and ask them to sort them into upper-and lowercase or consonant and vowel.) A. Upper/lowercase letters 1. Set 1: K s j T 2. Set 2: a I p m 3. Set 3: X q h f 4. Set 4: G C V e
_____/4 _____/4 _____/4 _____/4
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 91 B. Consonant/vowel letters 1. Set 1: o m r e 2. Set 2: a u i s 3. Set 3: z t r a 4. Set 4: p m t r
_____/4 _____/4 _____/4 _____/4
Subtest 4: Letter Discrimination Task (Give children laminated sentence strips and ask them to find the upper-and lowercase letters.) 1. Set 1: [T,t] The cat ate four ants 2. Set 2: [U,u] Cut the peanuts up 3. Set 3: [S,s] Sam sits on his seat 4. Set 4: [D,d] Dan had red hands
_____/4 _____/3 _____/4 _____/4
Subtest 5: Letter Picture Association (Show a picture and ask the student which letter represents the sound you hear at the beginning of the word for the picture. If the student can’t identify the picture, tell him or her what the picture is, as shown in the parenthetical word by the picture.)
1. Set 1: B, M, T -
2. Set 2: F, S, A -
_____/1
(Ball)
(Apple) _____/1
3. Set 3: Q, N, R -
(Nuts) _____/1
4. Set 4: L, E, V -
(Elephant) _____/1
Subtest 6: Letter Writing—Open Ended (Provide lined or unlined paper and say, “Write all the letters you know on this paper.”) Subtest 7: Letter Dictation (Dictate each letter in the set. Have the child write these letters on lined paper provided.) 1. 2. 3. 4.
Set 1: E, P, Z, Q Set 2: m, c, b, g Set 3: A, F, K, S Set 4: x, d, o, r
_____/4 _____/4 _____/4 _____/4
Subtest 8: Name Writing (Say, “Would you please write your name on this paper?” If they give you only their given name, then ask for their last name too.) A. Given name __________________
____/varies by # of letters ____
B. Surname_____________________
____/ varies by # of letters ____
Total Score: ____________
R K J l b w p m
Letter Names
S V Q c f j k s
N B Y d h q t f
T G X p m z b l
92 Chapter 4 4. Using the AKT Student Response Recording Form, mark the students’ responses as observed for each of the eight subtests. 5. Score each subtest item set as indicated on the AKT Student Response Recording Form by indicating the number out of the total possible correct in each blank. A total score can be calculated for purposes of determining percentage of mastery. At some point, usually by mid-year of first grade, students should approach 95% to 100% mastery of alphabet and letter name knowledge. Once again, we caution users that the AKT, like other letter naming tests, has fairly low reliability and validity evidence.
Assessing Applications for Early Literacy Instruction Age Range: For Teachers Standard: No Specific Standard Offered PURPOSE The purpose of this assessment is to help early elementary teachers more effectively select available applications (apps) to support early literacy instruction. As teachers and students engage in reading more and more digitally presented texts, they come to understand the many new complexities found in these multimodal texts. When assessing apps for teaching early literacy, the concept of an “affordance” is important according to Israelson (2015). Affordance has to do with the concept of “value added” —specifically, how an early literacy app helps students and teachers understand a digital text in ways that are not not possible using paper or traditional print media alone. This method of assessing apps by Israelson (2015) uses rubric categories and descriptors based on research into the effective use of apps and e-books. MATERIALS
• 1 paper copy or e-copy of the App Evaluation Rubric (See Table 4.3) • Pencil for marking the paper rubric/ highlighting feature for marking the e-copy rubric PROCEDURE There are a variety of early literacy apps that require careful evaluation before determining the affordances or value added to early literacy instruction they may provide over traditional printed texts. These apps may include:
• E-Books • Audio-Recording • E-Versions of traditional tools such as whiteboards or drawing boards • Rhyming or Phonics Games • Alphabet • Handwriting • Sight Word • Word Families • Dictionaries • Multimodal Composing According to Israelson (2015), when evaluating early literacy instruction apps for value added to tradition print texts, teachers need to consider answering the following questions. • Will this app be used independently or with peer, older student, or adult assistance? • Will I be using this app with the whole class, small group or individual students? • How will I use this app in a gradual release of responsibility framework? Will I use it during initial teaching, guided practice with scaffolds and support, or encourage students to use it independently?
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 93
• Will I be using this app as a substitution, an augmentation, a modification, or a redefinition? • Will the use of this app yield focused, motivated, and sustained action from students? • Is the content of the literacy app accurate or will students be learning and practicing with inaccurate information? • How easily is the app navigated for younger students? • Is the app intuitive and easy for younger students to navigate or is the app confusing or difficult to use? • Does the app encourage students to interact or passively observe the app when in use? Using a four-point rubric based on Israelson’s suggestions (2015) shown in Table 4.3, teachers can evaluate early literacy apps based on four categories: (1) multimodal features, (2) literacy content, (3) intuitiveness of app navigation, and (4) user interactivity.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Rubric for Evaluating Early Literacy Apps
1. To begin, make a paper copy or an e-file copy of Table 4.3. 2. Using a pencil or highlighter, mark the four rubric categories on a scale of 1 to 4. As a teacher you might consider how the app uses multimodal features (animations, enhanced content). 3. Once the rating of the app is completed using the four-point scale, sum the total number of points divide the sum to obtain the mean score for the app. The closer the mean score is to 4.0, the more engaging, accurate, intuitive and interact the app will be when put into the hand of young users. Furthermore, combining the app evaluation score in connection with answers to the questions above about how and with whom the app will be used will maximize the potential for the selected app to truly add value or “afford” students an enhanced experience in learning and developing early literacy skills over traditional paper print texts.
Table 4.3 App Evaluation Rubric* 1
2
3
Diverts Attention Digital and Multimodal Elements
Elements effectively divert attention away from literacy learning toward entertainment and game-playing
Elements mostly divert attention away from literacy toward entertainment and game-playing
Elements focus attention on literacy learning most of the time with the potential for some elements to divert attention away from literacy toward entertainment and game-playing
Difficult to Access Accessibility of App Navigation
Interference due to pop ups, ads, and other distractions make it difficult for students to know where and how to start the app No active engagement is required, passive watching.
Interference due to pop ups, ads, and other distractions make it somewhat difficult for students to know where and how to start the app
Directions within the app are generally accessible but clues, steps, examples, and illustrations may be some‑ what confusing.
Incorrect information, misleading examples, misspelled words
Directions within the app are clear, offering clues, steps, examples, and illustrations.
Active Engagement Little active engagement is required, mostly passive watching.
Moderate levels of engage‑ ment occasionally requiring clicking, pointing, highlighting, or filling in information.
Inconsistent information, examples, and interactive functions
Occasional inconsistencies in information, examples and interactive functions
Inaccurate Literacy and Informational Content
Elements focus attention on literacy learning
Easy to Access
Passive Engagement Level of Engagement
4 Focuses Attention
High levels of engagement requiring clicking, pointing, highlighting, or filling in information. Accurate Correct information, clear examples, properly spelled words
* Based On Israelson, M. H. (2015). The app map: A tool for systematic evaluation of apps for early literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 69(3), 339–349.
94 Chapter 4
Assessing Children’s Concepts about Print The assessment strategies offered in this section provide you with a comprehensive approach for assessing concepts of print, phonological and phonemic awareness, and letter name knowledge. To begin this section, we provide an assessment case study about a young, first-grade student named Aljandra Monez, age 6 years, 11 months. MyLab Education Application Exercise 4.3: Concepts About Print Case Study
Concepts About Print Test Age Range: 4 years to 7 years Standard: ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.1 Demonstrate understanding of the organization and basic features of print. ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.1.A Follow words from left to right, top to bottom, and page by page. ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.1.B Recognize that spoken words are represented in written language by specific sequences of letters. ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.1.C Understand that words are separated by spaces in print. ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.1.D Recognize and name all upper- and lowercase letters of the alphabet. PURPOSE The Concepts about Print (CAP) test was designed by Marie Clay (1972a, 1972b, 2000a, 2000b). The purpose of this test is to assess children’s print knowledge of the mapping and technical concepts about print, such as letter, word, sentence, story, directionality, text versus picture, and punctuation. The CAP test is composed of four small booklets, also by Clay: Sand and Stones (two color), published in 1972, and No Shoes and Follow Me, Moon (full color), published in 2000. Spanish versions of Follow Me, Moon and No Shoes (Sigueme, Luna; Descalzo, 2003) were also made available in 2003. One set of these test booklets may be used as a pretest and the other as a posttest in kindergarten, for example, Sand and Stones. The other set f two booklets may be used as a pretest and a posttest during first grade to measure students’ growth in concepts about print, for example Follow Me, Moon and No Shoes. More information about ordering the Concepts about Print test booklets and the manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation can be found online at www.heinemann.com. We suggest purchasing the following materials to support the assessment of Concepts About Print. Kervin and Mantei (2016) from Australia designed a prototype Online Reading Assessment (ORA) to extend Clay’s (2000b) Concepts about Print test to use in an online environment. The purpose of this test is to assess children’s print knowledge of concepts about print in online environments, such as traditional concepts about print like letter, word, sentence, story, directionality, text versus picture, and punctuation plus sound, navigation tools, peripheral information, video links, graphical features, etc. The ORA is composed of custom designed series of webpages with an accompanying script and scoring instructions to guide students through the screen pages as they demonstrate what they know about print. Unfortunately, this prototype of the ORA is not yet available in any form until the authors release the instrument into the public domain. We alert our readers to this assessment’s availability and encourage our tech savvy readers to contact the authors for more information at [email protected] or [email protected]. MATERIALS
• The book Concepts about Print: What Has a Child Learned about the Way We Print Language? (Clay, 2017)
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 95
• Four test booklets: Sand, Stones, No Shoes, and Follow Me, Moon (Clay, 1972a, 1972b, 2000a, 2000b) • One copy of the directions for administering the Concepts about Print test found in the book Concepts about Print: What Has a Child Learned about the Way We Print Language? (Clay, 2017). • Multiple copies of the Concepts about Print score sheet found in the book Concepts about Print: What Has a Child Learned about the Way We Print Language? (Clay, 2017). • One copy of An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, 3rd edition (Clay, 2013) PROCEDURE Administering the CAP test begins with the teacher and student viewing and reading one or more of the test booklets together. Procedures for administering, scoring, and interpreting the tests are found in Concepts about Print (Clay, 2017). Print concepts tested include front of book; proper book orientation to begin reading; beginning of book; print rather than pictures carrying the message; directional rules of left to right, top to bottom on a page; return sweep to the beginning of a line of print; matching spoken words with written words; concepts of first and last letters in a word; mapping spoken word and letter order onto the print; beginning and ending of a story; punctuation marks; sight words; and identifying printed letters, words, and uppercase versus lowercase letters. In order to comprehensively test children’s print concepts, the Sand, Stones, No Shoes, and Follow Me, Moon in English and Sigueme, Luna and Descalzo, 2003 in Spanish for ELLs booklets include some rather unusual features. At certain points, the print or pictures are upside down, letter and word order are changed or reversed (e.g., saw for was), line order is reversed, and paragraph indentions are removed or inverted. The CAP test has established a long and excellent record as a valid and reliable screening test to be used as part of a battery of screening, diagnosing, and progress monitoring tasks for young, inexperienced, or at risk readers. A major limitation of this test, however, is that it is based on error-detection tasks that require the child to find problems and explain them. Because of the somewhat tedious nature of this test and its tasks, children need to be tested in a calm environment and also need to have a trusting relationship with the examiner in order to obtain reliable results.
Mow Motorcycle Task Age Range: 4 years to 5 years Standard:
ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.1 Demonstrate understanding of the organization and basic features of print. ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.1.B Recognize that spoken words are represented in written language by specific sequences of letters. PURPOSE As young students learn to read and write, they may discover how spoken words or sounds are mapped onto letters and printed words in books and other printed language sources. One important print concept students need to learn is that the length of a printed word is related to the length of the same word spoken. The Mow Motorcycle Task, sometimes called the Rye Rhinoceros Task (Rozin, Bressman, & Taft, 1974), taps into students’ awareness and understanding of how the length of spoken and printed words are related. MATERIALS
• 10 pairs of teacher-prepared word cards (20 cards total). Each card displays in neatly printed block print one of two words in a pair, with each of the two printed words in the pair beginning with the same letter and differing in written and spoken length (see Figure 4.9).
MyLab Education
Video Example 4.3: Administering the Concepts About Print Test In this video, you will learn how to administer the Concepts About Print Test. When you are finished, describe what students must do to successfully complete this assessment. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Hrq_kzZ7u4o
96 Chapter 4
Figure 4.9 Mow Motorcycle Task One of these words is mow and the other is motorcycle. Which one is mow? MOTORCYCLE
MOW
PROCEDURE
1. Begin this formative assessment task by seating the child comfortably next to you at an appropriately sized table or desk. 2. Display one pair of words at a time that begin with the same letter but differ in length. For this example, we will use the words mow and motorcycle. 3. Say to the student, “One of these words is mow and the other is motorcycle. Which one is mow?” The child responds by pointing to the printed word that he or she thinks represents the spoken word. Note: Placement of word pair cards should be varied so that the target word (the one you name) and the foil (the incorrect choice) are not always in the same position in the display. This helps prevent the possibility that mere guessing on the student’s part—always choosing the left-hand word, for example—will result in a high number of false correct responses. 4. Repeat this process with the remaining 9 sets of word pair cards until the child has responded to the entire set of 10 word pair cards. 5. Calculate the total score for the Mow Motorcycle Task as the total number of correct responses, with 0 to 10 points possible. Students should score above chance on this assessment, with at least 8 points to be sure they have the concept of how the length of spoken and printed words are related. In Table 4.1, we summarize the procedures, tools and processes we have just discussed for assessing students’ concepts about print, phonemic awareness and letter name knowledge. In this summary matrix of assessments, we provide information about federally related assessment purposes (e.g., screening, diagnostic, progress-monitoring, or outcomes assessment), as well as type of test or procedure and psychometric evidence about the test or procedure scores (any available reliability and validity evidence).
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Classroom Profile Form – Phonological and Phonemic Awareness
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Classroom Profile Form: Letter Naming and Concepts About Print
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile and an if-then Chart for Early Reading Skills Effective instruction focuses on the appropriate skills to be learned by each child according to where they are in their literacy development. There are four basic steps in translating assessment data into effective instruction: • Step 1: Record assessment findings for each child on a classroom profile document. This is done by using a colored marker to fill in each box corresponding to skills learned by each student. The classroom profile document for Early Reading Skills in shown in Table 4.4. This may be duplicated for your use. We also provide an example of a completed classroom profile document in Table 4.5 followed by a classroom profile document for the remaining early reading skills, Letter Name Knowledge and Concepts about Print, in Table 4.6.
Word Awareness
Rhyme recognition
Alliteration Repetition & creation
Syllable counting
Onset/ rime manip.
Phoneme identity (beginning sound)
Phoneme isolation (last sound)
Phoneme blending
PHONEMIC AWARENESS (oral lang.) Phoneme segmentation
Next, identify the NEXT skill each child needs to develop. (Note: It will be the first box to the right of the last box filled in.) Form groups for instruction for students needing the same NEXT skill. Using the IF – THEN Chart, determine the evidence-based teaching strategy(s) to use for each group according to the skill they need to learn. Update the Classroom Profile for students as each new skill is learned.
PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS (oral lang.)
2. 3. 4. 5.
1. Using a colored marker, fill in each box for skills each student has learned.
Directions:
Table 4.4 Classroom Profile Form: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness
Phoneme addition
Phoneme substitution
Phoneme deletion
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 97
Wilson
Whit
Haley
Rosemary
Celina
Crosby
Ana
Adele
Keb
Lakeesha
Trevon
Iris
Thom
Jose
Mallory
Kevin
Word Awareness
Rhyme recognition
Alliteration Repetition & creation
PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS (oral lang.) Syllable counting
Onset/ rime manip.
5. Update the Classroom Profile for students as each new skill is learned.
Phoneme identity (beginning sound)
Phoneme isolation (last sound)
Phoneme blending
PHONEMIC AWARENESS (oral lang.) Phoneme segmentation
2. Next, identify the NEXT skill each child needs to develop. (Note: It will be the first box to the right of the last box filled in.) 3. Form groups for instruction for students needing the same NEXT skill. 4. Using the IF – THEN Chart, determine the evidence-based teaching strategy(s) to use for each group according to the skill they need to learn.
1. Using a colored marker, fill in each box for skills each student has learned (left to right).
Directions:
Table 4.5 Classroom Profile Example: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness
Phoneme addition
Phoneme substitution
Phoneme deletion
98 Chapter 4
Letter I.D. (upper case)
Letter I.D. (lower case)
Sound – Letter Matching
LETTER NAME KNOWLEDGE (LNK) Writes upper & lower case letters
Front/back of book
Where story begins
Picture I.D.
CONCEPTS ABOUT PRINT (CAP)
5. Update the Classroom Profile for students as each new skill is learned.
Word I.D. (one word)
Letter I.D. (one letter)
First and last letters of word
2. Next, identify the NEXT skill each child needs to develop. (Note: It will be the first box to the right of the last box filled in.) 3. Form groups for instruction for students needing the same NEXT skill. 4. Using the IF – THEN Chart, determine the evidence-based teaching strategy(s) to use for each group according to the skill they need to learn.
1. Using a colored marker, fill in each box for skills each student has learned.
Directions:
Table 4.6 Classroom Profile Example: Letter Name Knowledge & Concepts
Left to right progression, return sweep, top to bottom of page
Where to go next at the end of a page
Can point to words read
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 99
Explicit alphabet letter knowledge lesson (letter recognition)
Sound – Letter (Symbol) Matching
Voice Pointing Language Experience Approach Verbal Punctuation
Where to go next at the end of a page
Meaning of punctuation
Voice Pointing
Left to right word progression, return sweep, top to bottom of page
Points to words read
Language Experience Approach Language Experience Approach
Letter identification (one letter)
Language Experience Approach
Word identification (one word)
First and last letters of word
E-books E-books
Where story begins
Picture identification
Front and back of a book
Voice Pointing
Highlighting letters (letter recognition) Explicit alphabet letter knowledge lesson (letter recognition)
Letter Identification – all lower case letters
Concepts About Print
Highlighting letters (letter recognition) Explicit alphabet letter knowledge lesson (letter recognition)
Letter Identification – all upper case letters
Letter Name Knowledge
Word Rubber Banding
Phoneme segmentation
Language Experience Approach
E-books
E-books
E-books
E-books
Voice Pointing
Voice Pointing
Language Experience Approach
Sounds Rhythm Band
Reading Aloud Alphabet Books (alphabet order) Sounds Rhythm Band (letter recognition/naming) Letter-sound mneumonics (letter recognition)
Reading Aloud Alphabet Books (alphabet order) Letter-sound mneumonics (letter recognition)
Grab the Odd One Out
Word Rubber Banding
Picture Box Sound Counting (Elkonin Boxes)
Grab the Odd One Out Sing It Out
Phoneme isolation
Grab the Odd One Out
Word Rubber Banding
Phoneme blending
Phoneme identity
Phonemic Awareness
Onset and rime manipulation
Picture Box Sound Counting (Elkonin Boxes)
Syllable counting
Grab the Odd One Out
Sing It Out Sing It Out
Rhyme recognition during word play
Grab the Odd One Out
Alternate Teaching Strategy(s) That Are Appropriate (and page #) T
Sing It Out
T
“THEN” use this teaching strategy(s) first (and page #)
Repetition and creation of alliteration during word play
Word awareness
Phonological Awareness
“IF” your assessment show that a student needs to learn this skill . . . T
Table 4.7 If-then Teaching Strategy Guide: Early Literacy Skills
100 Chapter 4
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 101
• Step 2: After reviewing the skills each child CAN DO (i.e., skills they have learned according to your assessments), identify the very next skill in literacy development they need to learn (i.e., the first skill to the right of the last skill learned). • Step 3: Once completed, check the classroom profile document to identify children needing the same “next skill” so that you can form small groups for instruction based on each child’s learning needs. In some cases you may only have one child needing to learn a particular skill. To check your understanding, go to Table 4.4 Now, identify the five children needing to learn the same “next” skill. What are their names? Compare your answer to a colleague or classmate to see if you agree. What are the names of three children in Table 4.5 who know all of these skills? • Step 4: Using the IF – THEN Chart (Table 4.7), determine the evidence-based teaching strategy(s) to use for each group according to the skill they need to learn. To check your understanding, go to Table 4.7 IF-THEN TEACHING STRATEGY GUIDE: EARLY LITERACY SKILLS. What is the recommended teaching strategy for children needing to learn Syllable counting?
Instructional Strategies for Teaching Phonological and Phonemic Awareness Grab the Odd One Out Age Range: 4 years to 6 years CCSS. ELA-Literacy.RF.K.2d: Isolate and pronounce the initial, medial vowel, and final sounds (phonemes) in three-phoneme (-consonant-vowel-consonant, or CVC) words. (This does not include CVCs ending with /l/, /r/, or /x/.) PURPOSE The purpose of this game is to help children develop phonemic awareness through a playful oddity task activity. The ability to determine which spoken word does not fit among three choices relates to the oddity task described in the assessment section of this chapter. This game may focus children’s attention on beginning, ending, or middle sounds in words. Once a list of beginning syllable words is created, a list of ending sounds and then medial sounds should be composed for this game as well. MATERIALS
• One paper sack • A list of 10 sets of three words (e.g., hen, hammer, and pencil) • Objects for the odd word out PROCEDURE
1. Start by comfortably seating a group of children on the floor or at a table. 2. Begin by saying that you have a grab bag filled with objects while showing children the bag. 3. Next, tell the children you will be saying three words and that they are to listen carefully for the word that does not fit. If they know the word, they are to raise their hand but not call it out. 4. A child is selected to reach into the “grab bag” without looking and feel around to find the object. 5. After finding it, the child can say the word and show the object to the group.
102 Chapter 4 6. When an object has been used, it is returned to the grab bag for use with the next set of words. 7. This process continues until all the objects in the grab bag have been used.
Word Rubber Banding Age Range: 5 years to 6 years ELA Standards: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.2d: Segment spoken single-syllable words into their complete sequence of individual sounds (phonemes). PURPOSE Segmenting refers to isolating individual sounds in a spoken word. Although it can be one of the more difficult phonemic awareness tasks for students, segmenting is nonetheless an important skill for children to develop if they are to profit from implicit or indirect instruction related to letter names, sounds, and the connections between the two. Segmenting sounds in words can be done by rubber banding or stretching a word into its sounds, as previously described. MATERIALS
• Any song, poem, rhyme, chant, or story PROCEDURE
1. Begin by singing a favorite song, such as “Old MacDonald Had a Farm.” 2. Next, ask the children to repeat the first sounds of selected words as follows: “Old m-m-m-MacDonald had a f-f-f-farm, e i e i o, and on this f-f-f-farm he had a c-c-ccow, e i e i o. With a m-m-m-moo here and a m-m-m-moo there, here a moo there a moo everywhere a moo moo.. . .” Children’s names can be used in this fashion, such as “J-J-J-Jason” or “K-K-K-Kate.” 3. Still another variation involves drawing a sound out or exaggerating the sound, for example, “MMMMMaaaaarrrryyyy had a little llllllllaaaaammmmmb.” 4. Beyond this iterative technique, children can be asked to segment entire words. Yopp (1992) recommends a song set to the tune of “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star” for this purpose: “Listen, Listen, To my word, Tell me all the Sounds you heard. race [pronounce this word slowly]” “/r/ is one sound, /a/ is two, /s/ is last in race, It’s true.” When working with the segmentation of entire words, it is best to use words of no more than three to four sounds because of the difficulty of these tasks for younger learners or learners with special needs. Children seem to enjoy these tasks and with careful guidance can enjoy high levels of success as they develop phonemic awareness through segmentation tasks.
Picture Box Sound Counting (Elkonin Boxes) Age Range: 5 years to 6 years ELA Standards: ELA-Literacy.RF.K.2b: Count, pronounce, blend, and segment syllables in spoken words.
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 103
ELA-Literacy.RF.K.2d: Isolate and pronounce the initial, medial vowel, and final sounds (phonemes) in three-phoneme (consonant-vowel-consonant, or CVC) words. (This does not include CVCs ending with /l/, /r/, or /x/.) ELA-Literacy.RF.1.2b: Orally produce single-syllable words by blending sounds (phonemes), including consonant blends. PURPOSE Learning to hear sounds in words requires that students hear syllables and sounds (phonemes). Students need to develop the ability to hear these features of words in proper sequence. Counting the number of syllables and sounds in words helps children attend more carefully to these parts of words (Yopp & Troyer, 1992). A version of this activity (Elkonin, 1963) has been used for a number of years in successful intervention programs such as Reading Recovery. MATERIALS
• 5 to 10 teacher-prepared cards with pictures of words already familiar to the student, as shown in Figure 4.10 • Chips (markers) PROCEDURE
1. The teacher begins by pronouncing the word very slowly (rubber banding) while placing a chip into a box below for each letter or sound heard, progressing sound by sound (c-a-t). 2. Encourage the child to join in the activity by saying the word for the picture on the next card while the teacher places a chip into a box for each letter or sound. 3. Gradually release responsibility to the child by exchanging roles, e.g. The teacher pronounces the word and the child can place chips into the boxes for each letter or sound. 4. Finally, the child both says the word and places a chip into a box for each letter or sound entirely on his or her own. Eventually, children should be able to count the number of sounds in a word and be able to answer questions about the order of sounds in words (Griffith & Olson, 1992).
Figure 4.10 Elkonin Box for Sound Counting in Words
104 Chapter 4
Sing It Out Age Range: 5 years to 6 years ELA Standards: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.2b: Orally produce single-syllable words by blending sounds (phonemes), including consonant blends. PURPOSE The purpose of sounding it out when one reads is to blend spoken sounds together to form words. Blending is a critical skill for learning to read successfully. Hearing individual sounds and then putting them together quickly to hear a word that is already known orally is the same process often encouraged by teachers when they say, “Sound it out!” Listening to spoken sounds and saying these sounds quickly to blend them together into words are what most teachers mean when they say to “sound it out.” MATERIALS
• One copy of the song “If You’re Happy and You Know It” PROCEDURE
1. Teacher modeling is needed in the beginning to help children understand the process. Sing the song “If You’re Happy and You Know It” several times so that children learn the song and the words. 2. Change the words at the end of the song from “clap your hands” to “say this word.” Then give the letters of a word you want the children to blend together. For example, the sounds /b/, /r/, and /d/ are spoken slowly for the children. When you clap, they are to say the word bird. 3. The song can go on for as long as you wish to engage children in auditory blending of the spoken sounds you offer to make words. By singing and saying words phoneme by phoneme, students blend these sounds together to discover words.
Instructional Strategies for Teaching Letter Name Knowledge The Sounds Rhythm Band Age Range: 5-7 Standards: ELA-Literacy.RF.K.2d: Isolate and pronounce the initial, medial vowel, and final sounds (phonemes) in three-phoneme (-consonant-vowel-consonant, or CVC) words. (This does not include CVCs ending with /l/, /r/, or /x/.) CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.1.2d: Segment spoken single-syllable words into their complete sequence of individual sounds (phonemes). PURPOSE The tapping task developed by Liberman and colleagues (1974) is the basis for the sounds rhythm band activity. Using this activity, children learn to hear sounds in words in sequence. This is a critical prerequisite for blending sounds together to make words in reading and for segmenting words into sounds for writing and spelling words. MATERIALS
• A list of 5 to 10 words containing two, three, or four sounds PROCEDURE
1. This activity uses different rhythm band instruments to tap out the number of
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 105
sounds in spoken words. Rhythm band instruments include sticks, bells, tambourines, metal triangles, and so on that can be used to make a noise for each sound heard in a word. Begin by modeling a word very slowly while striking the rhythm band instrument for each letter or sound, progressing sound by sound (c-a-t). 2. After an initial demonstration, encourage the children to join in the activity by saying the next word with the teacher while striking their instruments for each sound they hear. 3. The teacher gradually releases responsibility to the children by exchanging roles. For example, the teacher can pronounce the word and the children strike the number of sounds they hear on their instruments. Or conversely, the children say the word slowly and the teacher strikes the number of sounds she hears on her instrument. 4. Finally, the children both say the word slowly and strike their instruments for each sound they hear in the word. We suggest this activity begin as a choral activity with all the children participating together. Individual children are then asked to perform solo, saying a word and striking the sounds he or she hears in a word. Eventually, children should be able to count the number of sounds in a word and be able to answer questions about the order of sounds in words (Griffith & Olson, 1992).
Highlighting Letters Strategy Age Range: 5-7 Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1d: Recognize and name all upper- and lowercase letters of the alphabet. PURPOSE This is a very simple procedure that can have excellent results. Researchers (Labat, Ecalle, Baldy, & Magnan, 2013) demonstrated in controlled studies that children learn to write letters more easily by highlighting the letter shapes. This multisensory approach can be especially helpful for children having learning difficulties. MATERIALS
• Highlighter markers • Worksheets with printed letters (upper- and lowercase forms) • Image projector for teacher modeling (e.g., overhead projector and transparencies matching student worksheets) • Lined notebook paper PROCEDURE
1. Begin with teacher modeling of how to trace each targeted letter, one at a time, using the image projector in your classroom. Be sure to identify where students should begin tracing the letter as though they were writing the letter. 2. After teacher modeling, provide students with a great deal of practice using their worksheets. Each targeted letter should be printed repeatedly (8–10 times) on a separate worksheet so that students get adequate practice. 3. After students have practiced highlighting the target letter numerous times, ask them to write the target letter several times on lined paper. 4. Check the students’ performance as you go along and repeat the process as necessary. In this instance, overlearning via a good bit of practice is the goal.
106 Chapter 4
Reading Published Alphabet Books Age Range: 4-8 Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1b: Recognize that spoken words are represented in written language by specific sequences of letters. ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3a: Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter–sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant. PURPOSE The purpose of using alphabet books is to assist young readers and readers with special needs in discovering the order and elements of the alphabet, both names and sounds. To do this, teachers may wish to acquire collections of quality alphabet trade books. On Market Street (Lobel, 1981), Animalia (Base, 1986), and The Z Was Zapped (Van Allsburg, 1987) are just a few of the many delightful books that can be used to teach children the alphabet. MATERIALS
• Commercially published alphabet books PROCEDURE After multiple readings of commercially produced alphabet books, teachers and children can construct their own highly predictable alphabet books using the commercial books as patterns. In an established writing center, young students can create both reproductions and innovations of commercial alphabet books shared in class. A reproduction is a student-made copy of an original commercially produced alphabet book. Children copy the text of each page exactly and draw their own illustrations for a reproduction. Innovations borrow the basic pattern of commercially produced alphabet books but change the selected words. For instance, one group of first-grade students made innovations on The Z Was Zapped (Van Allsburg, 1987). Each child chose a letter and made a new illustration as an innovation. One child, Kevin, picked the letter D and drew a doughnut in the shape of the letter D being dunked into a cup of hot chocolate. The caption underneath the picture read, “The D was dunked.” Reproductions and innovations of alphabet books help students take ownership of familiar text and encourage them to learn about the alphabetic principle through experimentation. Reproductions and innovations of alphabet books also help children sense that they can learn to read successfully.
English Language Learners: Letter Name and Sound Mnemonics Standard: No Specific Standards Offered Age Range: 4-7 Application of Common Core Standards for English Language Learners: Instruction that develops foundational skills in English and enables ELLs to participate fully in gradelevel coursework. Available at www.corestandards.org. PURPOSE The use of integrated picture mnemonics or pictographs has long been used in the United States and other nations around the world to help younger students learn and recognize letters and associate their sounds with an object pictured (Ehri, 2009; Ehri, Deffner, & Wilce, 1984). A pictograph for letter name learning is shown in Figure 4.11. The Letterland program, published in Great Britain, is an example of the use of pictographs to teach children letters and sounds and associate these with an picture
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 107
Figure 4.11 Integrated Picture Mnemonics or Pictographs house
vase
yak
wings
glasses
that is integrated into the letter shape (see www.letterland.com). Research on the use of pictographs to teach young students letter names, sounds, and recognition showed that “children took less time to learn the letter-sound association with embedded, integrated mnemonics [pictographs] than in the other conditions, and they remembered them better” (Ehri, 2009, p. 303). As a result of these findings, we highly recommend the use of picture–letter–sound association instruction, particularly when those pictures can be integrated within the representation of the letter as a mnemonic device. MATERIALS
• A classroom set of 26 black and white laminated mnemonic alphabet letter pictures printed on a single page of white card stock • A set of large 26 alphabet letter cards (6 × 12 inches) with both upper- and lowercase letters displayed on each card (displayed over the white board or on a computer projected display) • A long, plain wooden pointer or laser pointer PROCEDURE Teachers can use these mnemonic picture cards as a whole-class letter name and sound learning activity during a morning alphabet recitation exercise.
1. A teacher begins this activity by having children watch him point to the large mnemonic alphabet letter picture cards displayed above the whiteboard in the classroom. 2. If the teacher points to the letter A, students locate the same letter card with an integrated picture of an apple and say, “This is the letter A. It says /a/ /a/ /a/, apple.”
108 Chapter 4 3. This process is repeated with each letter of the alphabet during a morning opening session to review the letters of the alphabet. 4. Once these letters are learned in alphabetical order, then the student’s alphabet cards should be cut into 26 letter pieces and practiced in small groups and pairs in random order.
Planning Explicit Alphabet Letter Knowledge Lessons Age Range: 5-8 Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1d: Recognize and name all upper- and lowercase letters of the alphabet. PURPOSE Explicit alphabet letter knowledge lessons are brief and explicitly teach the letter’s name, sound, and written form. An explicit alphabet letter knowledge lesson plan format includes teacher modeling and guided practice for: (1) identifying the letter name and sound, (2) sorting alphabet letters into categories of upper- and lowercase letters, (3) discriminating the letter within text, and (4) producing the letter form. Each of these four steps includes teaching both the uppercase and lowercase form of each letter. Children typically gain proficiency with uppercase letters before lowercase letters (Smythe et al., 1971; Worden & Boettcher, 1990) largely due to more frequent exposure of uppercase letters in environmental print (Bowman & Treiman, 2004) and initial uppercase letters in children’s names (Treiman et al., 2007). When children know the uppercase letter, they are 16 times more likely to know the corresponding lowercase letter (Turnbull et al., 2010). Teachers need to help young students be able to quickly categorize uppercase and lowercase letter forms. This can be done using a typical sorting activity. When teaching letter sounds, use the language “the sound this letter represents” rather than “the sound this letter makes”. When teaching young students the sounds of vowels, teach only the short vowel sound (Jones & Reutzel, 2012). This is easier for young students to remember and distinguishes between vowel names and sounds more clearly. Writing the upper-and lowercase alphabet letters focuses young children’s attention on the critical features that distinguish one letter from another while building knowledge of letter names and sounds (Aram, 2005). In addition, the handwriting motor movements learned during the writing of letters aid memorization and identification of letters (Longcamp et al., 2005). MATERIALS
• Bag of mixed alphabet letters • Washable markers and lap boards • Copies of enlarged print page • Highlighter tape PROCEDURE Jones, Reutzel, and Clark (2013) developed a template for explicitly teaching letter knowledge to young students in an effective and efficient routine; this is found in Figure 4.12. Teachers who have used this plan find it helpful to occasionally change the media used to display, sort, highlight, and write the alphabet letters, but the lesson routine remains stable. This gives children the change they crave without undermining their need for the familiar and the routine.
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 109
Figure 4.12 Explicit Alphabet Letter Knowledge Lesson Template Lessons Objective: Students will learn the name, sound, and written formation for the upper- and lowercase letter Ss. Explanation: Tell students, “Today boys and girls you will be learning to name, say the sound of, and write the upper-and lowercase letter Ss. Learning the letter name, sound, and how to write upper-and lowercase letter s will help you to read and write many new words.” Letter Name Identification: “This is the upper case letter S.” (Write and show the uppercase form of the letter s). “This is the lowercase letter s.” (Write and show the lowercase form of the letter s). “Let’s practice naming this letter. What is this letter?” Ss. (Point in different order to upper-and lowercase letter s at least three times.) Letter Sound Identification: “The letter s represents the /s/ sound. Say the /s/ sound with me: /s/, /s/, /s/. What is the sound the letter s represents?” /s/. (Point to upper-and lowercase letter s at least three times, asking students to say the sound the letter represents.) Sort the Letters: “There are some upper-and lowercase letter Ss [six to eight upper-and lowercase s magnetic letters, foam letters, or die cuts] mixed in this bag. We need to sort these letters into upper-and lower case categories.” (Begin with a closed sort, and in subsequent review lessons you may use an open sort.) “I’ll put each letter on the board and if it is an uppercase letter s, you say, ‘uppercase S, /s/.’ If it is a lowercase letter s, say, ‘lowercase s, /s/.” Place letters from the bag onto the whiteboard one at a time for students to identify and sort. Find the Letters: “Now, let’s see how many letter s’s we can find on this page.” (Be sure to pick short pages of enlarged print with no more than four lines of print.) Run a pointer underneath the words in each line of print. When students see a letter s, they are to point to the s. Call on one student to come up and place a piece of highlighter tape over the letter s on the enlarged print page. Distribute a copy of a kindergarten or first-grade book page. Ask the children to use their highlighters to find the letter s on this page. Tell them the number of letter s’s they should find on the page. Give children no more than about 30 seconds to complete this activity. Let them count and check each other’s number of letter s’s highlighted. Write the Letter: Name and demonstrate the proper formation of the uppercase S. Say, “The uppercase letter S starts here near the top of the line and curves down to the middle of the line and then curves the other direction to the bottom line.” Next, name and demonstrate the proper letter formation of the lower case s. Say, “The lowercase letter s also starts near the middle of the line and curves down to the middle of the space between the midline and bottom of the space and then curves the other direction to the bottom line.” Pass out whiteboards, gel boards, or lap boards and ask students to take letter dictation. Ask students to write three to six dictated lower-and uppercase S/s letters. You may also want to quickly review other letters learned previously. Have students write and cover their letter. Decrease the time you allow the students to form the letter starting at 10 seconds to around 3 seconds. In unison, students show the written letter. Using a sticky note or clipboard, record which students struggled to recognize, sort, discriminate, or write the upper-and lowercase letter s for later small-group intensive instructional review.
Instructional Strategies for Helping Students Learn Concepts about Print After a thorough assessment of a student’s knowledge of the concepts about print, one or more of the following instructional strategies may be appropriately applied in subsequent teaching. Perhaps the most important thing for teachers to remember is that students with poorly developed print concepts benefit greatly from being immersed in a multitude of print-related activities in print-rich classroom environments (Venn & Jahn, 2004). Authentic reading and writing experiences coupled with the informed guidance of a caring teacher or other literate individuals (e.g.,
110 Chapter 4 parents, peers, and volunteers) can do much to help students learn necessary print concepts. Reutzel, Oda, and Moore (1989) found that implicit teaching of concepts about print is as effective or more effective than explicit instruction. This means that the concepts about print instructional strategies we are about to describe are best employed when they are embedded in the actual act of reading a text. For example, pointing to print in a left to right direction while reading aloud from an enlarged print displayed on computer screen is an implicit instruction strategy for demonstrating the concept of print known as print directionality.
The Language Experience Approach: Working with English-first and English Language Learners Age Range: 4 years to 6 years ELA Standards: ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1 and CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.1: Demonstrate understanding of the organization and basic features of print. PURPOSE The purpose of using a language experience approach (LEA) is to help students understand the concept that talk can be written down and read. This is particularly important for assisting ELLs in learning to read in English because LEA stories make use of student’s oral language facility and assure that students have the relevant background knowledge necessary for the content of the story or dictated text (Anderson, 2012; Freeman & Freeman, 2007; Van Allen (1982). Because LEA uses children’s firsthand or vicarious experiences to create personalized reading materials through dictation young children, including ELLs, are helped to understand the transition of oral language into written language. Using LEA also provides multiple opportunities for younger ELLs to use concepts and oral language, which are meaningful to them. In working with personally meaningful text, comprehension (in addition to vocabulary and orthography) is also greatly enhanced for ELLs because they are familiar with the language, concepts, and vocabulary (Lenters, 2004). ELLs also develop a stronger sense of the English orthographic system as they are involved in language experiences activities, because they see how words they say are spelled through the dictation process (Freeman & Freeman, 2007). Children learn print conventions and concepts by seeing how their speech looks when put into printed form. They learn the concept of mapping speech onto print and other technical aspects of print (e.g., directionality, punctuation marks) from creating and reading LEA texts. Teachers have found that children’s dictated LEA stories can be recorded in at least two different grouping sizes: the group (whole class or small group) experience chart or the individual language experience story. The latter is tremendously motivating because children see their own storytelling produced in a book format. Because the processes for creating group experience charts and individual language experience stories are so different, we describe each separately. MATERIALS NEEDED FOR A GROUP EXPERIENCE CHART
• Large chart paper displayed on an easel or a computer projected page on a smart board; the upper half of each page should be blank for a picture and the lower half should have 1inch lines for printing the students’ dictated story contributions as they are dictated. • Computer clip art, digital illustrations, drawing supplies, or photos or magazines for cutting out photos to illustrate the chart
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 111
PROCEDURE FOR A GROUP EXPERIENCE CHART The group language experience chart is a means for recording the experiences of an entire group of children. In all group LEA activities, it is essential that students have a shared experience about which they can talk and dictate lines, sentences, and stories. The following steps are typically associated with the creation of a group experience chart:
1. The children participate in a shared experience, such as a field trip, an experiment, viewing a video, handling an object, or listening to a guest speaker. 2. Teachers and children discuss the shared experience together. 3. The teacher asks children to dictate the text of the chart while the teacher transcribes the dictation onto paper or computer. The teacher doesn’t initially correct the grammar or usage when taking students’ dictation, but may later use these elements for further teaching. 4. Teachers and children read the chart text together, perhaps even several times. 5. After reading, the chart is used to teach students about print concepts, words, and other important language concepts. The selection of an interesting and stimulating experience or topic for children can spell the success or failure of an LEA group activity. Topics and experiences must capture the interest of children in order to provide the motivation necessary for learning. The following examples of topics and themes have been successfully used: • Our classroom pet had babies last night • A description of our field trip • Writing a new version of a favorite book • What we want for birthdays • Planning our Valentine’s Day party • What we know about Martin Luther King • Scary dreams we’ve had • How I got into trouble one time • Making a get well card from the class for a classmate who is ill Teachers should be sure to discuss the topic with enthusiasm, welcoming what each child might add to the text. This helps children to self-assess what they know about the topic and to make personal connections. Also, it motivates them to share their knowledge, experiences, and personal connections with others. Be careful not to dominate the discussion, however. Asking too many focused questions can turn what would otherwise be an open and exciting discussion into an interrogation. Questions should invite discussion instead of encouraging short and unelaborated responses. Be careful not to make the mistake of beginning dictation too early in the discussion, as this may lead to a dull, even robotic recounting of the experience or topic. After plenty of discussion, ask children to dictate the ideas they wish to contribute to the chart. With learners in the early grades who have special needs, you may want to record each child’s dictation in different colored markers to help the child identify his or her contribution to the chart. Later in the year, write the child’s name by his or her dictation rather than using different marker colors. When the chart is complete, read the children’s composition aloud in a natural rhythm, pointing to each word as you read. After the first reading, invite students to read along on the second reading. Next, ask volunteers to read aloud portions of the story.
112 Chapter 4 Other strategies for reading the composition include the following: • Highlight students’ contributions to the chart in different colors. Read aloud a selected dictation line from the chart and ask a child to come up to the chart and point to the line you just read aloud. You can also ask the child to come up and find their sentence dictation in the chart and read it back to the group of studujents. • Copy several lines of the chart onto sentence strips and have children pick a sentence strip and match it to the line in the chart. • Make copies of the LEA story that students can take home for individual practice. • Put copies of favorite words in the chart story onto cards for word banks and matching activities. MATERIALS NEEDED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE STORY
• Small unbound booklets containing 8 to 10 pages of 8½ × 11inch paper, with the upper halves of pages blank for pictures and the lower halves containing horizontal lines at half-inch vertical intervals for printing the students’ dictated stories • Illustration or drawing supplies for illustrating the stories, including access to computers, the Internet, and printers • An audio recording device, application, or program on a desktop or laptop computer or mobile device • Card pockets and cards • Tools to cut books into shapes (optional) PROCEDURE FOR INDIVIDUAL LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE STORY
1. Begin by asking a child to tell the teacher a story. 2. After telling the story, the teacher might ask questions and discuss the story with the child. 3. After a brief discussion, the teacher invites the individual student to tell her or his story into an audio recording device. 4. After recording, the student should be encouraged to listen to the story and record any changes. 5. Listening to edit an audio recording of a story can have a very positive transfer value for the writing process. This oral editing encourages children to retell or revise their stories until they are satisfied with the final product. 6. Next, turn the pages of the individual language experience story into a book. 7. Teachers can signal the value they and others hold for these books by placing a card pocket and library card in each child’s book. Then these books are added to the classroom library for other children to read. 8. Establish an individual language experience story reader’s chair in the library nook to encourage children to read their stories aloud to small groups of peers in their own classroom and to whole classes of children in other classrooms in the school. Additional approaches and suggestions include: • Invite parent volunteers to transcribe students’ individual language experience stories from audio to paper.
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 113
• Have students dictate their stories using a tablet device and a speech recognition app such as Dragon Dictation®. • One variation on the theme of individual language experience stories that children particularly like is turning the book into the shape of the topic or theme of the story. As shown in Figure 4.13, the cover and pages of a dictated individual language experience story are drawn and cut into the shape of the book’s topic. For example, if a child has just created a story about a recent family trip to Disney World, the book could be cut into the shape of Mickey Mouse’s head. An account of a trip to Texas may be cut into the shape of the state of Texas.
Voice Pointing Age Range: 5 years to 6 years ELA Standards: ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1 and CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.1: Demonstrate understanding of the organization and basic features of print. PURPOSE Clay (1979) indicates that voice pointing is a critical strategy to develop during the earliest stages of learning to read. Pointing to the print in an enlarged book, on a chart, or on an interactive computer whiteboard while reading aloud interactively with a group of children draws the eyes of the readers into contact with the print (Clay, 2013). Otherwise, children in the earliest stages of reading acquisition will have a tendency to carefully look at the illustrations and listen to the story language without paying a great deal of attention to the print. Voice pointing, or pointing to print that the reader is saying, shows children: (a) how the print rather than the picture carries the message of reading; (b) the beginning, ending, and directionality of the print; (c) how the spoken language of the reader is represented or mapped onto print on the page or display; and (d) the technical concepts of print such as word, letter, or punctuation.
Figure 4.13 Examples of Shape Books
MyLab Education
Video Example 4.4: Phonetic Punctuation In this video, you will learn how to give sounds and gestures to punctuation marks when reading. When you are finished, describe how you could use this approach with enlarged print to draw young children’s attention to punctuation marks in print. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=xJiHlt8NRqk
114 Chapter 4 MATERIALS
• A pointer (something as simple as an unsharpened pencil to a ruler, a telescoping pen pointer, or a laser pointer) An enlarged copy of a text—story, poem, song lyrics, book—in traditional print form or displayed on a computer projector PROCEDURE To help beginning readers make the connection that the print is guiding the speech of the reader, teachers point to the print as they read aloud. If a teacher wants to demonstrate the beginning point of print; the flow and directionality of print from top to bottom, left to right, and so on; and where the print ends on the page, then he or she can run the pointer smoothly under the line of print while reading it aloud. However, if the teacher wants to demonstrate how each word read aloud is represented by its corresponding word in the printed line, then he or she can move the pointer in a broken, word-by-word method. To draw attention to letters, single words, or punctuation, the teacher should point using a circular motion around the particular print element.
Verbal Punctuation Age Range: 5 years to 6 years ELA Standards: ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1 and CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.1: Demonstrate understanding of the organization and basic features of print. PURPOSE Drawing students’ attention to punctuation is often difficult for both students and teachers. Nonetheless, taking note of punctuation is important for students to achieve reading fluency and comprehension. Students who ignore punctuation often read without proper phrasing, rate, or intonation, which in turn interrupts comprehension. Students who skip or miss punctuation marks often run sentences together, resulting in confused or broken comprehension. The purpose of the verbal punctuation strategy is to help students notice punctuation in a playful and engaging fashion, a strategy first made famous by the comedian Victor Borge. MATERIALS
• An enlarged text that has been previously read and shared by the students and teacher together during a read aloud PROCEDURE
1. The verbal punctuation concepts about print instruction strategy is a process in which each punctuation mark in a piece of text is given a sound when encountered in a read aloud. For example, making the raspberry sound may represent a period. When a question mark comes up, a rising “uh” sound can be made. 2. This process continues, giving a sound to each punctuation mark found in a text. 3. Once all punctuation marks have been assigned a sound, the teacher may read aloud the first few sentences, modeling for students how to make the sounds for each punctuation mark as a part of the oral rereading. 4. Having modeled the process, students join in the rereading of the text, making the sounds for each punctuation mark in the text. Children find this strategy highly engaging and will continue its use spontaneously on later occasions; fortunately, the effect wanes over time, and this strategy has by this time
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 115
served its eye-attracting, humorous, and engaging purpose. A lesson plan for teaching concepts about print using verbal punctuation is found in the sample lesson below.
Sample Lesson: Teaching Print Concepts Using Verbal Punctuation • Teach this lesson to a K or 1st grade student or small group of students. Note two things: 1) the level of motivation the strategy engenders, and 2) the attention students pay to punctuation marks in print as a result. Lesson Objective Students will represent the punctuation marks in the text, The Gingerbread Man, with various verbal sounds and hand gestures to draw attention to punctuation marks as found in an enlarged text during a shared reading experience. Supplies • Enlarged text in a big book or a traditional book enlarged with a document camera or an online or audio version of the book projected onto a screen or smart board for shared reading. • Simple pointer for tracking print as an enlarged text is read by the group, • Highlighter tape or erasable markers for highlighting punctuation as an enlarged text is read by the group Explanation When we read, authors provide marks on the page to help us know when to take breaks, read certain words or parts of the text louder, change the pitch in our voice from low to high or high to low, and stop. These marks are called punctuation marks. I will show you a page of print from a familiar story we have read before – The Gingerbread Man. In this story, on the first page we see several punctuation marks. Highlight using highlighter tape or circle using an erasable marker on the enlarged print page the punctuations marks. Today, we are going to read this story again together. But when we see two types of punctuation marks we are going to do two things. First we are going to make a sound for that punctuation mark and second we are going to make a sign with our hands for that punctuation mark. The two punctuation marks we are looking for today are a period and a comma. A period is a black dot (point to one in the print, then write a period on the board). The second punctuation mark we are looking for today is the common. A comma is a black dot with a little tail (point to one in the print, then write a comma on the board). When we see a period in the story today as we read, we are going to make a “raspberry” sound like this (demonstrate) and take our finger and poke it out once like this (demonstrate). When we see a comma in the story today as we read, we are going to make a “growling” sound like this (demonstrate) and take our finger and poke it out once and make a little tail like this (demonstrate). Let me show you how this will sound and look. Read the first two pages of the book The Gingerbread Man making sounds and hand gestures for periods and commas. Participation After demonstrating, invite children to join in with you in a unison shared reading of the remaining pages of The Gingerbread Man. Use a pointer to help children track the enlarged print as a group and stop at each period and comma circling the punctuation marks of periods and commas with the pointer and inviting students to make the appropriate sound(s) and the hand gesture(s).
116 Chapter 4
E Books: Using Technology to Teach Concepts About Print Age Range: 4 years to 6 years ELA Standards: ELA-Literacy.RF.K.1 and CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.1: Demonstrate understanding of the organization and basic features of print. PURPOSE Young students are very familiar with e-books having grown up as “digital natives” using tablets, mobile phones, and home computers to experience a variety of stories and informational texts presented within digital technology platforms. Research by Ihmeideh (2014) has shown that e-books can be effectively used to enhance even preschool children’s emergent literacy skills including print concepts. In fact, it appears from this same research showed that younger students actually performed better when print concepts were highlighted in e-book formats as compared with traditional print presentation. E-books provide easy access to a variety of print awareness highlighting and pointing tools for classroom teachers to use in conjunction with computer projectors and digital interactive white board displays. MATERIALS
• Free e-books - https://www.thechildrensbookreview.com/weblog/2009/09/ where-to-find-free-ebooks-for-children-online.html • Projection technology – computer projector or smart board • iPads for individual student practice and response PROCEDURE Locate a free or purchased e-book. Some e-books can be downloaded to a PDF format others are read completely online. If using a PDF format, a free application, Adobe Acrobat Reader, can be used to project PDF e-books. Tools available on Adobe Acrobat Reader® include: highlighting ability, pointing, and sticky note comments or call outs. For free or purchased e-books read online, it is important to purchase books that have or support a variety of features (Parette, Blum & Luthin, 2015). High quality e-books allow teachers to demonstrate a wide variety of print awareness features using scanning and highlighting of text, text-to-speech, ‘hot spots’ that move and say sounds on touch, pull tabs, options to ask for narration to read the text, touching words and having them pronounced; touching pictures that respond with movement and make noises. Students should have ample opportunities for multiple means of response and expression. To assess children’s learning teachers can create assessment tasks asking students to count words on a page, demonstrate left to right, top to bottom tracking of print, and finding the periods or commas on a page. If using an iPad, the teacher can have children respond and then show her their responses or use the option of setting up an iPad camera to record the student’s responses to the assigned tasks either using an e-book or a traditional print book. High quality e-book whether free or purchased can provide a wide array of print awareness activities and assessment.
Early Literacy Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Letter Name Knowledge, and Concepts about Print 117
Recommended Resources Clay, M. (2017). Concepts about print: What has a child learned about the way we print language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Leu, D.J., & Kinzer, C.K. (2017). Phonics, Phonemic Awareness, and Word Analysis for Teachers: An Interactive Tutorial (10th Ed.). Boston: Pearson. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
Reutzel, D. R. (1995). Fingerpoint reading and beyond: Learning about print strategies (LAPS). Reading Horizons, 35(4), 310–328. Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P., Young, J., Morrison, T., & Wilcox, B. (2003). Reading environmental print: What is the role of concepts about print in discriminating young readers’ responses? Reading Psychology, 24(2), 123–162. Shared Reading Website: http://www.readingrockets.org/ strategies/shared_reading
Chapter 5
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills George is seated next to his teacher, Ms. Abrams, reading from that wonderful classic, Elmer, by David McKee (1968). The first sentence in the book talks about a herd of elephants. Ms. Abrams says, “George, I’m so happy you’ve chosen one of my favorite books to read for me today. Let’s start at the very beginning.” Excited and pleased, George begins, “Th-th-there w-was o-o-only . . .” Wanting to help, Ms. Abrams offers, “That word is once, George.” George repeats, “There was once a h-h-hard . . .” Ms. Abrams: “Herd.” George, with beads of perspiration now forming on his brow, reads, “Herd! There was once a herd of elephants.” Ms. Abrams responds, “Great, George! Let’s continue,” all the while thinking to herself, “Hmmmm. Not so great. I need to take a closer look at George’s decoding and word recognition knowledge. He’s really struggling with what I thought would surely be an independent reading book for him.”
Background Briefing for Teachers Phonics is an extremely important element of reading instruction that emphasizes how spellings are related to speech sounds in systematic ways (letter–-sound relationships), and how reader use of this knowledge to blend sounds represented by letters (Bowers & Bowers, 2017; Leu & Kinzer, 2017; National Institute for Literacy, 2008; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Children learn to read with the aid of a strong phonics program and a caring and skillful teacher (Blevins, 1996; Cunningham, 2017; NELP, 2008). Phonics is one component of a larger constellation of word analysis skills students learn known as decoding (Cunningham, 2017; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). In addition to phonics, decoding skills include structural analysis, onset and rime, body and coda, and use of sight words. Each is discussed in this chapter. In this chapter, we summarize essential research on decoding skills, particularly phonics, and suggest activities we have found useful in assessing and developing this important area. This research summary is aligned with the State Core Standards, which we summarize in the next section.
Phonics and the State Core Standards Phonics and other decoding skills are within a special class in State Core Standards (SCS) known as reading foundational skills (Shanahan, 2013). Reading foundational skills are appropriately seen in the SCS as important parts of a comprehensive reading
118
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 119
program. The primary goal stated in the SCS for phonics and word recognition is as follows: “Know and apply-grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words.” In Table 5.1 we show a breakdown by grade level of the key SCS skills to be learned by the end of each grade level for kindergarten through grade 5. You will note that we have identified in bold print the specific phonics skill areas. In the next section, we provide an overview of essential research on phonics and decoding. In some cases we will present information on critical phonics-related knowledge and skills to be learned that are implied but do not appear in the SCS (e.g., alphabet knowledge, onset and rime). In the end, we provide a combined list of nonnegotiable phonics and word recognition skills for your classroom use.
Research on Phonics Surveys conducted by the International Literacy Association (ILA) have indicated that phonics is one of the most talked about subjects in the field of reading education. In reviewing the literature, we have concluded that there are two essential areas for you to know about: (1) which phonics skills and generalizations are important for students to learn, and (2) how you might teach these skills in your classroom. Because teachers should be the phonics experts in the classroom, you may want to begin your study of phonics with a little self-assessment. We have included a phonics quick test in
Table 5.1 State Standards – Reading Fundamental Skills: Phonics and Word Recognition (Grades K-5) Key Foundational Skill Standard CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3: Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words. Kindergarten (4 total)
Grade 1 (7 total)
Grade 2 (6 total)
Grade 3 (4 total)
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3a Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter–sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3a Know the spelling-sound correspondences for common consonant digraphs.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3a Distinguish long and short vowels when reading regularly spelled one-syllable words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3a Identify and know the meaning of the most common prefixes and derivational suffixes.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3b Associate the long and short sounds with the common spellings (graphemes) for the five major vowels.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3b Decode regularly spelled one-syllable words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3b Know spelling-sound correspondences for additional common vowel teams.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3b Decode words with common Latin suffixes.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3c Read common high-frequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3c Know final -e and common vowel team conventions for representing long vowel sounds.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3c Decode regularly spelled two-syllable words with long vowels.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3c Decode multisyllable words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3d Distinguish between similarly spelled words by identifying the sounds of the letters that differ.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3d Use knowledge that every syllable must have a vowel sound to determine the number of syllables in a printed word.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3d Decode words with common prefixes and suffixes.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3d Read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3e Decode two-syllable words following basic patterns by breaking the words into syllables.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3e Identify words with inconsistent but common spelling-sound correspondences.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3f Read words with inflectional endings.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3f Recognize and read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3g Recognize and read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words. Grade 4
Grade 5*
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.4.3a Use combined knowledge of all letter-sound correspondences, syllabication patterns, and morphology (e.g., roots and affixes) to read accurately unfamiliar multisyllabic words in context and out of context.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.5.3a *Same as Grade 4
SOURCE: © Copyright 2010 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.
120 Chapter 5 MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Phonics Quick Test
Figure 5.1 so you can determine just how much you already know. (The results may surprise you!) Please complete the exercise before reading on. What are some of the important early skills to develop for reading, writing, and spelling development? In a review of numerous evidence-based studies, Lonigan, Schatschneider, and Westberg (2008) found that certain skill areas were strong predictors of later literacy success. These researchers concluded that there is “strong evidence for the importance of AK [alphabet knowledge], PA [phonological awareness], rapid naming tasks, ‘writing or writing name,’ and phonological STM [short-term memory] as predictors of later reading and writing skills” (pp. -77–-78). In Table 5.2 we share with you their 10 best predictors for later success in literacy (Note: we focus in this table on the predictors that influence the learning of decoding skills). The researchers went on to add: “Of these 10 variables, six variables (phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, rapid naming of letters and digits, rapid naming of objects and colors, ‘writing or writing name,’ phonological short-term memory) were consistently related to later conventional literacy outcomes, and these six variables continued to be predictive when other variables were controlled in multivariate analyses” (p. 67).
Figure 5.1 Phonics Quick Test 1. The word charkle is divided between ______ and ______. The a has an ______ -controlled sound, and the e is ______. 2. In the word small, sm– is known as the onset and -all is known as the ______. 3. Ch in the word chair is known as a ______. 4. The letter c in the word city has a ______ sound; in the word cow, the letter c has a ______ sound. 5. The letters bl in the word blue are referred to as a consonant ______. 6. The underlined vowels in the words author, spread, and blue are known as vowel ______. 7. The words tag, run, cot, and get have which vowel pattern? ______ 8. The words glide, take, and use have the ______ vowel pattern. 9. The single most powerful phonics skill we can teach to emergent readers for decoding unfamiliar words in print is ______ sounds in words. We introduce this skill using (consonants or vowels— choose one) ______ sounds first because they are the most ______. 10. The word part work in the word working is known as a ______. 11. The word part -ing in the word working is known as a ______. 12. Cues to the meaning and pronunciation of unfamiliar words in print are often found in the print surrounding the unfamiliar, also known as ______. NOTE: Answer key on page 224.
Table 5.2 Best Predictors for Literacy Success: Decoding Top Ten Skill Areas: Decoding
Predictive Value for Later Literacy Success
Alphabet knowledge (AK)
Highest value
Phonological awareness (PA)
Valuable
Concepts about print
Valuable
Rapid naming: letters and digits
Valuable
Rapid naming: objects and colors
Valuable
Writing or writing name
Valuable
Oral language
Valuable
Phonological short-term memory (STM)
Modest value
Visual perception
Modest value
Print awareness
Modest value
SOURCE: Adapted from Lonigan, C. J., Schatschneider, C., & Westberg, L. (2008). Identification of children’s skills and abilities linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, and spelling. Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy panel (55–106). Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Available at http://lincs. ed.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPreport.html.
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 121
The Need for Explicit and Systematic Phonics Instruction Research confirms that systematic and explicit phonics instruction is more effective than nonsystematic instruction or programs that ignore phonics (Carnine et al., 2006; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Stahl, 1992). When delivered as part of a comprehensive reading program—one that includes expansive vocabulary instruction, comprehension development, reading fluency practice in great books, and writing development, all delivered by a skillful teacher—phonics instruction can help children become enthusiastic lifelong readers (J. Cunningham, 2017). But, if offered in isolation, it can stifle children’s reading growth and create a dislike for reading, especially for children living at the poverty level (Kozol, 2005). Marilyn Jager Adams (1990), in her classic review of phonics and other factors essential to word identification, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print, found that approaches in which systematic code instruction was included with the reading of meaningful connected text resulted in superior reading achievement overall, for both-lowreadiness and-better-prepared students. Adams also noted that these conclusions seem to hold true regardless of the instructional approach through which reading is taught.
Approaches to Phonics Instruction Several approaches to phonics instruction have found support in the research (Armbruster & Osborn, 2001; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Reutzel & Cooter, 2012). These approaches are sometimes modified or combined in reading programs: • Synthetic phonics instruction: Traditional phonics instruction in which students learn how to change letters or letter combinations into speech sounds and then blend them together to form known words (sounding out). • Embedded phonics instruction: Teaching students phonics by embedding phonics instruction in text reading, a more implicit approach that relies to some extent on incidental learning (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). • -Analogy-based phonics: A variation of onset and rime instruction that has students use their knowledge of word families to identify new words that have that same word part. For example, students learn to pronounce light by using their prior knowledge of the -ight rime from three words they already know: right, might, and night. • Analytic phonics instruction: In this variation of the previous two approaches, students study previously learned whole words to discover -letter–-sound relationships. For example, Stan, steam, and story all include the st word element (st is known as a consonant blend). • Phonics through spelling: Students segment spoken words into phonemes and write letters that represent those sounds to create the word in print. For example, rat can be sounded out and written phonetically. This approach is often used as part of a process writing program. The question in building a comprehensive and balanced reading program is not whether one should teach phonics strategies, but rather which phonics skills should be taught and how should we teach them? The next section partially answers the “which phonics skills” question.
Phonics Students Must Know We have compiled a brief phonics primer for you that summarizes the main content of decoding and phonics instruction beginning with the most simple, individual
122 Chapter 5 sound—symbol relationships, and proceeding to the more complex. Note that we link these to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) still used in many states. This may be helpful if you are required to account for these skills as part of your lesson planning.
Letter Names and Sounds ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3a: Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one -letter-sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant. ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3d: Distinguish between similarly spelled words by identifying the sounds of the letters that differ. Although the English alphabet has only 26 letters, there are actually 44 speech sounds. These 44 sounds can be represented in about 350 different ways; hence, English can become a formidable challenge for children when they try to crack the code. Fortunately, there is a high degree of regularity in English that teachers can focus on to introduce phonics rules and relationships. The place to begin is at the beginning: rapid letter naming/identification and knowing the sounds the letters represent (Lonigan et al., 2008). In Figure 5.2, we have compiled a list of the 44 speech sounds and the most common ways they are represented by various alphabet letters. Note that in many cases we have listed the percentage of the time each sound is represented by a specific letter. For instance, the speech sound /b/ (such as in basket and bunk) is represented by the letter b 97% of the time in written English.
Figure 5.2 The 44 Speech Sounds of English and Their most Common Spellings Sound
Spellings
Examples
1. /b/
b (97%), bb
ball
2. /d/
d (98%), dd, ed
dot
3. /f/
f (78%), ff, ph, lf
fun
4. /g/
g (88%), gg, gh
goat
5. /h/
h (98%), wh
hall
6. /j/
g (66%), j (22%), dg
jug
7. /k/
c (73%), cc, k (13%), ck, lk, q
kite
8. /l/
l (91%), ll
leap
9. /m/
m (94%), mm
moat
10. /n/
n (97%), nn, kn, gn
no
11. /p/
p (96%), pp
pit
12. /r/
r (97%), rr, wr
rubber
13. /s/
s (73%), c (17%), ss
sat
14. /t /
t (97%), tt, ed
tap
15. /v/
v (99.5%), f
vast; of
16. /w/
w (92%)
wood
17. /y/
i (55%), y (44%)
onion; yell
18. /z/
z (23%), zz, s (64%)
zip
19. /ch/
ch (55%), t (31%)
chair
20. /sh/
ti (53%), sh (26%), ssi, si, sci
shorts
21. /zh/
si (49%), s, ss, z
Asia; azure
22. /th/
th (100%)
(voiceless sound) bath
23. /th/
th (100%)
(voiced) than, together
24. /hw/
wh (100%)
what, wheat
25. /ng/
ng (59%), n (41%)
rung, sing
26. /ā/
ā (45%), ā_e (35%), āi, āy, eā
A; bake
27. /ē/
ē (70%), y, ēā (10%), ēē (10%), īē
free
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 123
Sound
Spellings
Examples
28. / ī/
ī_e (37%), ī (37%), y (14%)
five
29. /ō/
ō (73%), ō_e (14%), ōw, ōa, ōe
go
30. /yōō/
u (69%), u_ē (22%), ēw, uē
cube
31. /ā/
ā (96%)
cab
32. /ē/
ē (91%), ē_ē (15%)
best
33. / ī/
ī (66%), y (23%)
brick
34. /ō/
ō (79%)
hot
35. /u/
u (86%), ō, ōu
bug
36. /â/ (schwa)
ā (24%), ē (13%), ī (22%), ō (27%), u
America
37. /â/
ā (29%), -āre (23%), -āir (21%)
dare
38. /û/
ēr (40%), īr (13%), ur (26%)
bird
39. /ä/
ā (89%)
bar
40. /ô/
ō, ā, āu, āw, ōugh, āugh
for
41. /ōī/
ōī (62%), ōy (32%)
boil, boy
42. /ōu/
ōu (56%), ōw (29%)
trout
43. /ōō/
ōō (38%), u (21%), ō, ōu, u_ē
boom
44. /oo/
oo (31%), u (54%), o (8%), ould, ou, o
cook
SOURCE: Based on Phonics from A to Z: A Practical Guide, Blevins (1998). Scholastic Inc.
Common Rules Governing Letter Sounds There are several rules governing letter sounds that have a high degree of reliability and are certainly worth teaching. THE C RULE. CCSS Correlation: Note: Though this specific consonant rule is not specifically mentioned in the Common Core State Standards, we highly recommend it be taught in grade 1 due to its high utility in decoding. The letter c is an irregular consonant letter that has no phoneme of its own. Instead, it assumes two other phonemes found in different words: /k/ and /s/. In general, when the -letter c is -followed by a, o, or u, it will represent the sound /k/ we usually associate with the letter k, also known as the “hard c sound.” Some examples are the words cake, cosmic, and cute. On the other hand, the letter c can sometimes represent the sound /s/, commonly associated with the letter s, referred to as the “soft c sound.” The soft c sound is usually produced when c is followed by e, i, or y. Examples of the soft c sound are in the words celebrate, circus, and cycle. THE G RULE. CCSS Correlation: Though this consonant rule is not specifically mentioned in the Common Core State Standards, we highly recommend it be taught in grade 1 due to its high utility in decoding. The letter g is the key symbol for the phoneme /g/ we hear in the word get (Hull, 1989). It is also irregular, having a soft g and a hard g sound. The rules remain the same as they are for the letter c. When g is followed by the letters e, i, or y, it represents a soft g or /j/ sound, as in the words gently, giraffe, and gym. If g is followed by the letters a, o, or u, then it usually represents the hard (or regular) sound, as in the words garden, go, and gust. THE CVC GENERALIZATION. The CVC generalization correlates with several CCSS reading fundamental (RF) skills. The one you choose for documentation in a lesson plan will depend on how your lesson is structured. Following are the relevant CCSS RFs for the CVC generalization:
ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3b: Associate the long and short sounds with the common spellings (graphemes) for the five major vowels. ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3b: Decode regularly spelled -one-syllable words. ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3a: Distinguish long and short vowels when reading regularly spelled -one-syllable words.
124 Chapter 5 When a vowel comes between two consonants, it usually has a short vowel sound. Examples of words following the CVC pattern include sat, ran, let, pen, win, fit, hot, mop, sun, and cut. VOWEL DIGRAPHS. Vowel digraphs correlate with Common Core State Standards at grades 1 and 2. The one you choose for documentation in a lesson plan will depend on how your lesson is structured:
ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3b: Decode regularly spelled -one-syllable words. ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3c: Know final -e and common vowel team conventions for representing long vowel sounds. ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3b: Know -spelling-sound correspondences for additional common vowel teams. When two vowels come together in a word, usually the first vowel is long and the second vowel is silent. This occurs especially often with the oa, ee, and ay combinations. Some examples are toad, fleet, and day. In the words of a common slogan used by teachers to help children remember this generalization, “When two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking.” THE VCE FINAL E GENERALIZATION. The -vowel—consonant-e (VCE) pattern is specifically named in Common Core State Standards. SCS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3c: Know final -e and common vowel team conventions for representing long vowel sounds. When two vowels appear in a word separated by a consonant and the final one is an e at the end of the word, the first vowel is generally long and the final e is silent. Examples include cape, rope, and kite. THE CV GENERALIZATION. The CV generalization can be interpreted in several of the Common Core State Standards found in grades -K–-2. The one you choose for documentation in a lesson plan will depend on how your lesson is structured:
ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3b: Associate the long and short sounds with the common spellings (graphemes) for the five major vowels. ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3b: Decode regularly spelled -one-syllable words. ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3a: Distinguish long and short vowels when reading regularly spelled -one-syllable words. ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3c: Decode regularly spelled -two-syllable words with long vowels. When a consonant is followed by a vowel, the vowel usually produces a long sound. This is especially easy to see in -two-letter words such as be, go, and so. R-CONTROLLED VOWELS. ELA-Literacy Correlation: Although this generalization is not specifically mentioned in the SCS, we highly recommend it be taught in grade 1 due to its high utility in decoding. Vowels that appear before the letter r are usually neither long nor short, but tend to be overpowered or “swallowed up” by the /r/ sound. Examples include person, player, neighborhood, and herself.
Special Consonant Rules SINGLE CONSONANTS. ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3a: Demonstrate basic knowledge of oneto-one -letter-sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant. Single consonants nearly always make the same sound. We recommend that they be taught in the following order due to their frequency in our language:
T, N, R, M, D, S (sat), L, C (cat), P, S, F, V, G (got), H, W, K, J, Z, Y.
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 125
CONSONANT DIGRAPHS, TRIGRAPHS, AND SILENT LETTER COMBINATIONS.
Consonant Digraphs: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3a: Know the -spelling-sound correspondences for common consonant digraphs. Consonant Trigraphs: These are not specifically named in the SCS RFs, but in our view should be introduced in grade 1 and revisited in grades 2 and 3. Silent Letter Combinations: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3g: Recognize and read -grade-appropriate -irregularly spelled words. ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3e: Identify words with inconsistent but common -spelling-sound correspondences. ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3d: Read -grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words. Two consonant letters that represent only one distinct speech sound (th, sh, ch, wh, gh, ph, ck, ng, ge) are called consonant digraphs, as in the following examples: ch—children, change, merchant, search, which, branch th—thank, author, both, that, mother, smooth ng—sling, gang, long, fang, hung, wrong Three consonant letters that represent only one distinct speech sound (tch, dge) are called consonant trigraphs, as in the following examples: tch—pitch, match, hutch dge—fudge, budge, fridge In addition to consonant digraphs and trigraphs, there are consonant silent letter combinations such as (-bt, gn-, kn-, -lk, -lm, -mb, -mn, -ps, rh-, and wr-) that use two letters to represent single sounds as in the following examples: gn—gnome, gnarl ps—psychology, psuedo INITIAL CONSONANT BLENDS OR “CLUSTERS.” ELA-Literacy SCS Correlation: Consonant blends are not specifically named in the SCS RFs, but in our view are critical and should be introduced in grade 1 and revisited in grade 2. Two or more consonants coming together in which the speech sounds of all the consonants may be heard are called consonant blends (bl, fr, sk, spl). Consonant blends that come at the beginning of words are the most consistent in the sounds they make. It is recommended that they be taught in the following order according to their frequency in English:
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
st
pl
sc
sm
pr
sp
bl
gl
tr
cr
fl
sn
gr
cl
sk
tw
br
dr
sl
fr DOUBLE CONSONANTS ELA-Literacy SCS Correlation: Double consonants are not specifically named in the SCS RFs, but in our view are important and should be introduced in grade 1 and revisited in grade 2. When two identical consonants come together in a word, they typically make the sound of a single consonant (all, apple, arrow, attic).
126 Chapter 5 PH AND THE /F/ SOUND. This reading fundamental skill is embedded in grades 1 and 2 specifications: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3g, 2.3f: Recognize and read -grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words. Ph is always pronounced as /f/ (phone, phoneme, philosophy, phobia, phenomenon).
Special Vowel Rules Unlike consonant letters, which are the more reliable starting point for phonics instruction, vowel letters are highly variant in representing sounds in spoken English. At the simplest level, most teachers are familiar with long and short vowel sounds. These variant speech sounds, represented by five to seven vowel letters, can be written using 96 different letter combinations (Moats, 2010). When explaining vowels, teachers need to be cautious in overloading young students with too many technical linguistic terms and definitions. For example, when teaching about long and short vowels, it may be useful to simplify the terminology by saying that vowel letters usually represent a sound (short) and the name (long) of the vowel letters. Telling children that a vowel letter can represent its sound and name when blending certain word patterns is a simple but effective way of helping them gain insights into the variant sounds that are represented by vowel letters. Unfortunately, vowels, unlike consonants, are even more unreliable in representing a single phoneme (sound) to grapheme (letter) relationship, as noted by the 96 combinations used in English. Once students learn that vowels can represent the sounds associated with their names and sounds, they encounter vowel letter combinations used to represent sounds in spoken English that are quite challenging and often somewhat rare or infrequent. These include vowel digraphs, diphthongs, the schwa, and r-controlled vowel sounds, as briefly explained in the following subsections. VOWEL DIGRAPHS OR “TEAMS.” The vowel team rule is embedded in the following grades 1 and 2 CCSS specifications:
ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3c: Know final -e and common vowel team conventions for representing long vowel sounds. ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3b: Know -spelling-sound correspondences for additional common vowel teams. Combinations of two vowel letters together in words representing only one distinct speech sound (ee, ea, ei, ey, oo, ie, ai, ay with some consonants eigh, igh, oa, ow, oe, ough, au, aw, augh, oo) are called vowel digraphs or vowel teams (Moats, 2010). The usual rule is “When two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking,” but this is not always so. The following examples show words containing vowel digraphs and vowel teams. ee—eel, sleep, week, three, spree ea—head, each, threat, heaven oa—houseboat, oak, coat, loaf, toad ough—rough, through, brought ow—snow, low, growth SCHWA / ∂/. ELA-Literacy SCS Correlations: One may consider the schwa sound to be embedded in the following first- and -second-grade RFs: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3g, 2.3e: Recognize and read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words. A vowel letter that produces the “uh” sound (A in America) is known as a schwa. The schwa is represented by the upside-down e symbol (/∂/). The following examples show words containing the schwa sound.
a—about, ago, several, canvas, china, comma e—effect, erroneous, happen, children, label, agent
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 127
o—other, mother, atom, riot, second, objection no vowel letter—simple, apple, subtle (the schwa sound uh is heard between the s and the b) DIPHTHONGS. As with the schwa, one may consider diphthongs to be embedded in the following first- and second-grade standards: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3g, 2.3e: Recognize and read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words. A diphthong consists of two vowels together in a word that produce a single glided sound (oi in oil, oy in boy). Other examples include:
ow—down, flower, crowd, towel, how, bow, avow oi—oil, voice, exploit, soil, void, typhoid ou—out, hour, doubt, our, around, count ow—cow, tower, now, how Many reading scholars question the value of teaching diphthongs as a decoding strategy and ask, “When was the last time you came to an unfamiliar word and asked yourself if there was a diphthong in it?” (Answer: Never). Nevertheless, diphthongs continue to appear in many reading curricula, although not specifically in the Common Core State Standards RFs. Y RULES. ELA-Literacy Correlation: The Y rules are not specifically named in the SCS RFs, but in our view are -important and should be introduced in grade 1 and assessed in grade 2. When the letter y comes at the end of a long word (or a word having at least one other vowel), it will have the sound of long e (/e/) as in baby. When y comes at the end of a short word or in the middle of a word, it will make the sound of long i (/i/) as in cry and cycle.
Other Phonics they use Segmenting and Blending Sounds Absolutely critical to decoding are the skills of segmenting and blending sounds in written words. Segmenting and blending are the primary strategies or tactics used in decoding words in print. Segementing involves decoding the separate sounds in written words represented by individual letters and letter combinations into speech sounds. This is what is meant in the common phrase “sound it out.” In our own classrooms, we have used a simple strategy called word rubber banding to help students visually see what we mean when we model how to verbally segment a word. The modeling goes something like this: “I am going to show you how to hear the sounds in the word I’ve written on the whiteboard.” (For example, let’s say the target word for demonstration is moon and you have written it on the whiteboard.) “This word is pronounced moon. Watch how I pull it apart into its different sounds.” Using a large rubber band, or simply by holding your hands together at the beginning of the activity then slowly moving them apart horizontally as though you were stretching a rubber band, say the phonemes of the word slowly with a short pause between each phoneme. “mmmmmmm—oooooooooooo—nnnnnnnnnnn.” “Now girls and boys, let’s do it again together. As I stretch out the word moon, you do it with me.”
As you can see, word rubber banding is exactly the same activity we might use in a phonemic awareness activity with the exception that we are linking the sounds to the letters, an alphabetic principle concept.
128 Chapter 5 Blending involves what its name implies—merging individual phonemes (represented by letters and letter combinations) to produce a whole word. This completes the so-called -sounding-out process: segmenting letters into sounds, then blending them together so the reader can pronounce the word. This is the purpose of teaching children the consonant and vowel rules presented in the previous section. Segmenting and blending are essential in students’ understandings of syllabication, onset and rime, and body and coda strategies.
Syllabication Syllabication rules are addressed in the first grade CCSS: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3d: Use knowledge that every syllable must have a vowel sound to determine the number of syllables in a printed word. ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3e: Decode -two-syllable words following basic patterns by breaking the words into syllables. The ability to segment words into syllables is yet another form of phonic awareness that may be helpful to students when encountering unknown words in print. Although the research on syllabication has been somewhat inconclusive, we have found certain syllabication rules to be the most reliable for (1) dividing words and (2) pronouncing words, as presented in Figures 5.3 and 5.4. Note: We tend to favor teaching students to use common onset and rime knowledge whenever possible to segment words in print; we present this option in the next section.
Onset and Rime: Word Families Onset and rime are not specifically addressed in the CCSS. However, we feel the onset and rime are research-proven skills, and the syllabication specifications for the firstgrade may be used: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3d: Use knowledge that every syllable must have a vowel sound to determine the number of syllables in a printed word. ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3e: Decode two-syllable words following basic patterns by breaking the words into syllables.
Figure 5.3 Syllabication Rules for Dividing Words 1. When two identical consonants come together, they are divided to form two syllables. Examples: ap - ple, but - ter, lit - tle. 2. The number of vowel sounds that occur in a word usually indicate how many syllables there will be in the word. Examples: slave (one vowel sound/one syllable); caboose (four vowels, but only two vowel sounds, hence, two syllables—ca - boose). 3. Two adjoining unlike consonants are also usually divided to form syllables, unless they form a consonant digraph. Example: car - pet. 4. Small words within a compound word are syllables (as with onset/rimes). Examples: book - store, fire - fly. SOURCE: Adapted from Literary Disorders: Holistic Diagnosis and Remediation by A. V. Manzo and U. C. Manzo, 1993. Reprinted with permission of Wadsworth, a division of Cengage Learning, Inc. (www.cengage.com/permissions).
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 129
Figure 5.4 Syllabication Rules for Pronouncing Words 1. le is pronounced as ul when it appears at the end of a word. Examples: shuttle, little, remarkable. 2. Syllables that end with a vowel usually have a long vowel sound. Examples: bi - lingual, re - read. 3. When a vowel does not come at the end of a syllable, and it is followed by two consonants, it will usually have a short sound. Examples: letter, all, attic. SOURCE: Adapted from Literary Disorders: Holistic Diagnosis and Remediation by A. V. Manzo and U. C. Manzo, 1993. Reprinted with permission of Wadsworth, a division of Cengage Learning, Inc. (www.cengage.com/permissions).
Because many vowel letters and vowel letter combinations are not as consistent in English as we would like, teachers can show children other levels of word patterns that are somewhat more reliable. Adams (1990) states that linguistic researchers have found an instructionally useful alternative form of decoding words involving the use of onsets and rimes. An onset is that part of a syllable that comes before the vowel; the rime is the rest of the syllable (Adams, 1990). Although all syllables must have a rime, not all have an onset. The following are a few examples of onsets and rimes in words.
Word
Onset
Rime
a
—
a
in
—
in
aft
—
aft
sat
s-
-at
trim
tr-
-im
spring
spr-
-ing
What is the usefulness of onset and rime in the classroom, at least as far as decoding instruction is concerned? First, there is evidence that children are better able to identify the spellings of rimes than of individual vowel sounds (Adams, 1990). Second, children as young as 5 and 6 years of age can transfer by analogy what they know about the pronunciation of one word to another that has the same rime, such as call and ball (Adams, 1990). Third, although many vowels do not represent single phonemes reliably, even irregular vowel sounds seem to remain stable within rimes. Finally, there is evidence supporting the utility of learning and using rimes in early decoding instruction (Goswami, 1990). Nearly 500 -primary-level words can be derived through the following set of only 37 rimes (Adams, 1990):
-ack
-at
-ide
-ock
-ain
-ate
-ight
-oke
-ake
-aw
-ill
-op
-ale
-ay
-in
-or
-all
-eat
-ine
-ore
-ame
-ell
-ing
-uck
-an
-est
-ink
-ug
-ank
-ice
-ip
-ump
-ap
-ick
-ir
-unk
-ash
130 Chapter 5
Body and Coda (Word “Chunks”) CCSS Correlations: Although segmenting skills as part of decoding are included in the CCSS RFs, blending strategies are not specifically addressed in the CCSS RFs. Regardless, our opinion is that they should be introduced in grade 1 and assessed in grade 2 for mastery. Research evidence suggests that children are able to blend word sounds most easily by using an approach called body and coda. Body word chunks include the onset plus the vowel sound in a syllable. Coda word chunks include all sounds following the vowel sound in a syllable. For example, a student using this technique to blend the word hat would say the body, /ha/, and the coda, /t/ (Murray, Brabham, Villaume, & Veal, 2008). This evidence demonstrates that blending word sounds using body and coda may be even more effective than using onsets and rimes.
Structural Analysis Structural analysis decoding strategies are found in the SCS RFs in grades 1 through 3 as follows: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3f: Read words with inflectional endings. ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3d: Decode words with common prefixes and suffixes. ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3a: Identify and know the meaning of the most common prefixes and derivational suffixes. ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3b: Decode words with common Latin suffixes. Structural analysis refers to the study of word elements to identify their individual meaning elements, called morphemes. Words are made up of two classes or morphemes—free and bound. Free morphemes are word parts (whole words, really) that sometimes stand-alone. They are also known as root words. For example, in the word working, work is the root word (free morpheme). In contrast, bound morphemes must be attached to a root word to carry meaning. Prefixes and suffixes (together referred to as affixes) are bound morphemes. Common prefixes, which come before a root word, include -intro-, -pro-, -post-, -sub-, and -dis-. Some of the more common suffixes, which come after a root word, include -ant, -ist, -ence, -ism, -s, and -ed.
High-Frequency or “Sight” Words Sight words (i.e., high-frequency words) appear in the kindergarten SCS RFs: ELALiteracy.RF.K.3c: Read common -high-frequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does). Learning to “see and say” or instantly recognize a limited group of high-frequency sight words will get young students the other 50 percent of the way toward the goal of effortless and automatic word recognition. Once word recognition is an effortless, automatic, and fluent process, students’ attention and working memory are freed up to make comprehension of text possible, which, although not automatically guaranteed, becomes more likely with instruction in comprehension strategies. But there is another group of words called high-frequency words, also known as sight words, that must be instantly recognized without using letter-by-letter analysis since they occur so often in print and do not always conform to basic phonics rules. High-frequency words, also known as sight words, are those words that occur most often in printed texts. For example the word the occurs roughly 5 percent of the time in running English texts at almost any level of difficulty. Imagine, once children can effortlessly recognize the word the, they have mastered 5 percent of all the reading they will ever do! Researchers have long been interested in counting the relative frequency with which certain words in English appear in print. In a classic 1944 study, Thorndike and Lorge conducted word frequency counts of 4.5 million words taken from American magazine articles. These researchers found that there was a list of 25 words that
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 131
accounted for 1.5 million words of the total 4.5 million. This means that a list of 25 highfrequency words will account for roughly 33 percent of the words an adult American would read in printed texts such as magazines, newspapers, and so on. A listing of these 25 highly frequent words is found in Figure 5.15 later in this chapter. What’s more, many of the words on this list are irregular words to decode, meaning that they are not easily decoded using phonics skills. For instance, imagine blending the sounds of letters to pronounce the word the. Either one would blend the three individual letter sounds /t/ /h/ /ē/, or perhaps say the consonant digraph /th/ using the voiced or unvoiced sounds and then blend that with the sound /ē/. However, blending these sounds together does not get one to the conventional pronunciation of the word the. Thus, the word the is best learned by focusing students’ attention on how the word “looks” and committing it to memory through repetitious exposures to the word the of various types (what is called learning the word “by sight”). In the mid-nineties, a group of researchers found that a group of 107 high-frequency words comprises 50 percent of all the words that one would normally encounter when reading English texts (Zeno, Ivens, Millard, & Duvvuri, 1995). This listing of the 107 high-frequency words (which includes the 25 words in the Thorndike-Lorge list as well) should also be taught by sight. This listing, commonly known as the Zeno Word List, is found in Figure 5.16 later in this chapter. Imagine how recognizing these 107 words instantly, by sight, would affect students’ reading fluency and word recognition automaticity. They would instantly recognize one out of every two words they would encounter in English texts! An effective process for teaching children to recognize high-frequency words by sight will be thoroughly described later on in this chapter. Although there are many more “relatively” high-frequency words that young students will eventually commit to memory or sight through volume reading, there is a clear diminishing of return on investment of time—sometimes referred to as a cost–benefit analysis—for explicitly teaching more than the 107 high frequency words listed in Figure 5.16. Zeno and colleagues (1995) showed that in order to learn 65 percent of typically occurring words in English texts, students would have to commit to memory 930 words, or about 823 more words to get an additional 15 percent return rate on the 50 percent rate already achieved by learning the 107. Thus, learning an additional 100 words through explicit sight-word lessons would increase students’ reading fluency by a mere 2 percent. Consequently, once the 107 frequently occurring words have been learned by sight, time is better spent on helping children learn additional sight words through reading challenging texts that contain these relatively high-frequency words in running English.
What Does A Good Decoding Program Look Like? Three main accomplishments characterize good readers: They understand the alphabetic system of English, they use background knowledge and strategies to obtain meaning from print, and they read fluently (Cunningham, 2017; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Similarly, successful phonics instruction has a number of common qualities (Stahl, 1992). First of all, it builds on children’s knowledge about how print functions. In the early stages, phonics and decoding instruction build on students’ phonological awareness when the alphabet is introduced. The alphabet makes sense to young learners when we show them how they can match or “map” speech sounds to the letters that represent those sounds. We call this important step in literacy learning the alphabetic principle. Phonics is integrated into a comprehensive reading program and focuses, ultimately, on reading words, not memorizing rules. Research confirms that effective programs include onset and rime instruction, which can also be woven into writing
132 Chapter 5
MyLab Education Application Exercise 5.1: Decoding and Word Recognition Case Study
instruction (for instance, using “temporary” or phonemic spellings). A prime objective of exemplary phonics instruction is to develop independent -word-recognition strategies, focusing attention on the internal structure of words (structural analysis). All effective instruction is preceded by an assessment of student knowledge, which is our next topic.
Assessing Students’ Decoding and Word Recognition The goal of decoding and word recognition assessment is to discover how students go about recognizing words. Some words, that have decodable structures, are best approached through the application of phonics knowledge and blending sounds to say words or dividing oral or spoken words into sounds to spell. In contrast, some words are so frequent in printed language or they are so irregular in terms of phonics patterns that they are best learned as sight words through repetitious exposures. Knowing what a student can and cannot do in recognizing words makes it clear what a teacher’s course of action should be in instruction. There are a number of basic assessments that one can use to discover which decoding and word recognition skills have been learned and which need attention. In general, assessment should allow teachers to unpack the components of word recognition such as phonics knowledge and application and high frequency sight words to guide instructional decision making.
The Early? Names Test Age Range: 5-8 Standard: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3b PURPOSE Originally developed by Cunningham (1990) and refined later by Duffelmeyer and colleagues (1994), the names test was developed as a quick and easy tool for teachers to use in gathering information about students’ emerging decoding skills. Mather and colleagues (2006) developed an enhanced, validated, and highly reliable version of this screening tool they call the Early Names Test. Administered to individual students, this survey assessment will assist you in assessing learners’ abilities to recognize and decode many -grapheme–-phoneme patterns found in single-syllable word patterns, and it correlates well with many of the benchmark standards for grades 1 and 2. MATERIALS
• A copy of the Early Names Test (Figure 5.5) • Administration Instructions and Scoring Sheet: Early Names Test (Figure 5.6) • Scoring Matrix for Early Names Test (Figure 5.7) PROCEDURE
1. Seat the student across from you at a small table. MyLab Education Application Exercise 5.2: William and the Early Names Test
2. Provide the student with a copy of the Early Names Test (See Figure 5.5). You should have in front of you a copy of the Administration Instructions and Scoring Sheet (See Figure 5.6) and a pencil for recording student responses. As indicated in the instructions, say, “I want you to pretend that you are a teacher and you are calling out your students’ names to take attendance. You are trying to figure out who is at school and who is not. Some of these names may be hard, but just do the best you can.” 3. Record a 1 for a correct response and a 0 for an incorrect response. Score both the first and last names. Write incorrect responses directly above the name. 4. Once you have administered the test, use the scoring matrix (See Figure 5.7) to identify any need areas for the student.
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 133
Figure 5.5 Early Names Test Rob Hap
Pam Rack
Flip Mar
Frank Lug
Ross Quest
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
Jud Lem
Trish Mot
Jet Mit
Grace Nup
Dane Wong
Early Names Test
Ray San
Fred Tig
Rand Lun
Beck Daw
Tom Zall
Pat Ling
Bab Fum
Jen Dut
Dell Smush
Gail Vog
Tim Bop
Kate Tide
Jake Bin
Gus Lang
Rod Blade
Brad Tash
Brent Lake
Sid Gold
Lex Yub
Tag Shick
SOURCE: From Mather, N., Sammons, J., Schwartz, J. (2006). Adaption of the Names Test: Easy-to-Use Phonics Assessment, The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 117.
Figure 5.6 Administration Instructions and Scoring Sheet: Early Names Test Say: “I want you to pretend that you are a teacher and you are calling out your students’ names to take attendance. You are trying to figure out who is at school and who is not. Some of these names may be hard, but just do the best you can.” Record a 1 for a correct response and a 0 for an incorrect response. Score both the first and last names. Write incorrect responses directly above the name.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Adminstration Instructions and Scoring Sheet
Name: ______________________________ Grade: ___________________________ Date: ___________ Rob ___________
Hap ___________
Jen ___________
Dut ___________
Jud ___________
Lem ___________
Jake ___________
Bin ___________
Ray ___________
San ___________
Sid ___________
Gold ___________
Pat ___________
Ling ___________
Frank ___________
Lug ___________
Tim ___________
Bop ___________
Grace ___________
Nup ___________
Brad ___________
Tash ___________
Beck ___________
Daw ___________
Pam ___________
Rack ___________
Dell ___________
Smush ___________
Trish ___________
Mot ___________
Gus ___________
Lang ___________
Fred ___________
Tig ___________
Lex ___________
Yub ___________
Bab ___________
Fum ___________
Ross ___________
Quest ___________
Kate ___________
Tide ___________
Dane ___________
Wong ___________
Brent ___________
Lake ____________
Tom ___________
Zall ___________
Flip ___________
Mar ___________
Gail ___________
Vog ___________
Jet ___________
Mit ___________
Rod ___________
Blade ___________
Rand ___________
Lun ___________
Tag ___________
Shick ___________
Total first and last names read correctly ___________ SOURCE: From Mather, N., Sammons, J., Schwartz, J. (2006). Adaptations of the Names Test: Easy-to-use Phonics Assessments, The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 118.
Figure 5.7 Scoring Matrix for Early Names Test
Name
Initial Consonant
Ending Consonant
Bab
B
-b
Beck
B
Bin
B
Blade Bop Brad
Consonant Diagraph -ck
-n -d
B
Consonant Blend
Brent
-nt
Rime -ab
e
-eck
i
-in a-e
BrBr-
Vowel Diagraph
a
Bl-
-p -d
Short Vowel
Long Vowel/ VowelConsonantFinal e
-ade
o
-op
a
-ad
e
-n
-ent
Dane
D
a-e
Daw
D
-ane
Dell
D
-ll
e
-ell
Dut
D
-t
u
-ut
-aw
-aw
134 Chapter 5
Name
Initial Consonant
Flip
Ending Consonant -p
Frank -d
Consonant Diagraph
FlFr-
Fred Gold
Consonant Blend
-nk
Fr-
G
Short Vowel
Long Vowel/ VowelConsonantFinal e
Vowel Diagraph
i
-ip
a
-ank
e
-ed
-ld
Grace
Rime
-old
-Gr
a-e
-ace
Gus
G
-s
u
-us
Hap
H
-p
a
Jake
J
-k
Jen
J
-n
e
-en
Jet
J
-t
e
-et
Jud
J
-d
u
Kate
K
-t
Lake
L
-k
Lang
L
Lem
L
-m
Lex
L
-x
Ling
L
Lug
L
Lun
L
Mar
M
Mit
-ap a-e
-ng
-ake
-ud a-e
-ate
a-e
-ake
a
-ang
e
-em
e
-ex
i
-ing
-g
u
-ug
-n
u
-un
M
-t
i
-it
Mot
M
-t
o
-ot
Nup
N
-p
u
-up
Pam
P
-m
a
-am
Pat
P
-t
a
-at
Quest
(Qu)*
-st
e
-est
Rack
R
-ck
a
-ack
Rand
R
-nd
a
Ray
R
Rob
R
-b
o
-ob
Rod
R
-d
o
-od
Ross
R
-ss
o
-oss
San
S
-n
a
an
i
-ick
S
-d
i
-id
u
-ush
a
-ag
-ng
-ar
Shick Sid
-and -ay
Sh-
Smush
Sm-
-ck -sh
-g
-ay
Tag
T
Tash
T
Tide
T
-d
Tig
T
-g
i
-ig
Tim
T
-m
i
-im
Tom
T
-m
o
-om
i
-ish
Vog
V
-g
o
-og
Wong
W
o
-ong
Yub
Y
-b
u
-ub
Zall
Z
-ll
-sh
Trish
a
-ash i-e
Tr-
-sh -ng
-ide
all
NOTE: Qu is sometimes referred to as a consonant oddity or a consonant blend. SOURCE: From Mather, N., Sammons, J., Schwartz, J. (2006). Adaptations of the Names Test: Easy-to-use Phonics Assessments, The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 120–121.
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 135
The Starpoint Phonics Assessment (SPA) Age Range: 5-8 Standard: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3b, CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3e PURPOSE For many years, nonsense words (made-up words having common phonics patterns) have been used in reading assessment to determine students’ knowledge of English -spelling -patterns. These nonsense words are usually read in a list and the teacher records any miscues. Critics say that nonsense words, because they are not real words, do not -permit -students to use their prior knowledge—a primary reading tool used in decoding -unfamiliar words in print. Advocates counter that nonsense words, because they preclude the use of background knowledge, force the student to use only those phonics skills that he or she has internalized. We support the limited use of nonsense words as simply one tool in a teacher’s toolbox of assessment ideas that may shed some light on a student’s phonics skills development. The Starpoint Phonics Assessment (SPA) (Williams, K. Cooter, & R. Cooter, 2003) was designed as a beginning of the year quick assessment for children attending the Starpoint Laboratory School at Texas Christian University. The SPA is also included as a subtest now included in The Flynt-Cooter Comprehensive Reading Inventory, Second Edition (CRI-2), by Cooter, Flynt, and Cooter (2014). Areas of special focus include initial consonant sounds (onsets), correct pronunciation of common rimes, syllabication, affixes (prefixes/suffixes), and r-controlled vowels. These phonics features are embedded within nonsense words that students are asked to read (see Figure 5.8). Analysis of children’s phonics abilities focuses on these five areas. MATERIALS
• Flash cards showing each row of nonsense words from Figure 5.8 (e.g., row 1 words on one card—runk, mip, bor) • Copy of the SPA Analysis Grid Form (Figure 5.9) for each student to be assessed • Audio recorder
Figure 5.8 Starpoint Phonics Assessment (SPA) Nonsense Words 1. runk
mip
bor
2. pight
caw
jor
3. wunk
lemmock
zatting
4. nash
soug
zad
5. battump
dapping
yod
6. mur
hote
seg
7. lattum
yinter
poat
8. telbin
vike
leat
9. dar
mur
foat
10. pice
gar
whesp
11. dop
femmit
yadder
12. gapple
sheal
telbis
13. lome
ridnip
hade
14. tade
chogging
vappel
15. minzif
kosh
waig
16. tain
demsug
nater
17. festrip
bowunk
thiping
18. wapir
polide
wabor
19. polide
siler
jiper
20. atur
niping
quen
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Starpoint Phonics Assessment Flash Cards
136 Chapter 5
Figure 5.9 Starpoint Phonics Assessment (SPA) Analysis Grid Initial Sound 1. runk
mip
bor
2. pight
caw
jor
3. wunk
lemmock
zatting
4. nash
soug
zad
5. battump
dapping
yod
6. mur
hote
seg
7. lattum
yinter
poat
8. telbin
vike
leat
9. dar
mur
foat
10. pice
gar
whesp
11. dop
femmit
yadder
12. gapple
sheal
telbis
13. lome
ridnip
hade
14. tade
chogging
vappel
15. minzif
kosh
waig
16. tain
demsug
nater
17. festrip
bowunk
thiping
18. wapir
polide
wabor
19. polide
siler
jiper
20. atur
niping
quen
Rimes
Syllabication
Affixes
R-Controlled
Totals EXAMINER’S Notes:
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Starpoint Phonics Assessment
PROCEDURE
1. Seat the student at a table directly across from where you are sitting. 2. Turn on your audio recorder and say the student’s name aloud and the date to mark the record. 3. Beginning with the first flash card you have prepared from Figure 5.8, say to the student, “Please read the words on each card as I hold it up. The words are all nonsense words. That means they are not real words. Just pronounce them the way you think they would sound. For instance, this first word is runk. Go ahead and try to say the other words for me as I hold them up.” 4. As the student reads each word, make a notation to the right of each grouping of words on the SPA Analysis Grid Form (Figure 5.9) indicating whether the child said the word -correctly. Words pronounced correctly should be noted with a checkmark. Incorrect -pronunciations should be written phonetically. For example, if a student pronounces the nonsense word wabor (line 18) as “-way-bee,” make a note to the right of the word cluster on line 18 that reflects the way the student said it. 5. Continue having the student read each cluster of words and mark every miscue (a mispronounced word) in the blank area to the right of the relevant word cluster. 6. The SPA is quick and easy to analyze. First, replay the recording to be sure that any miscues have been correctly recorded. 7. Next, for each miscue noted, simply place a hash mark in the box to the right indicating which phonics skill(s) the student seems to be lacking when trying to decode that particular nonsense word: beginning sounds (onset), rimes, syllabication, affixes (common prefixes and suffixes), and/or r-controlled vowels. You should have at least one box marked for each miscue. If none of the phonics categories seems to be appropriate, which is possible, then make a note of the miscue
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 137
at the bottom of the sheet in the area marked “Examiner’s Notes” along with your interpretation of what the student may need to learn (e.g., CVC rule, hard g sound, vowel digraphs). 8. Finally, add up the number of miscues in each column and record that number in the appropriate totals box. If the student has had two or more miscues in one category (i.e., beginning sounds/ onset, rimes, syllabication, affixes, or r-controlled vowels), you should consider developing explicit instruction plans to teach that skill.
The Consortium on Reading Excellence (CORE) Phonics Survey 2nd Edition Section II, Decoding Skills (ESL Assessment) Age Range: 4 - 8 Standard: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3b, CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3e PURPOSE The CORE Phonics Survey, 2nd edition is a criterion-referenced (CR) mastery measure available in English and Spanish (Honig, Diamond & Gutlohn, 2013). A mastery measure assesses discrete skills that are “useful when it is important to monitor a skill that is taught in isolation or while troubleshooting a particular area that is giving a student difficulty” (Stahl & McKenna, 2013, p. 6). The CORE Phonics Survey (CORE-PS) manual states, “This test is a mastery test. It is expected that students will ultimately get all items correct” (CORE, 1999, p. 64). The CORE Phonics Survey is typically available in multiple places online with a simple internet engine search. The CORE-PS, 2nd edition (CORE, 2008) section 1, alphabet skills, consists of a series of four subtests (A-D) as described in Table 5.3. Each of the four alphabet skills subtests, A-D, are scored as a single item with a total of 4 scored items for all four subtests, A-D. The CORE-PS, section one, alphabetic skills, requires roughly 3-5 minutes administration time per student. Although the COREPS can be used in grades K-8 to assess alphabet and letter name knowledge mastery, practically and developmentally it is used most frequently and appropriately in grades pre-K-1. The purpose of the CORE-PS, section one, alphabet knowledge, according to its developers, is to monitor students’ acquisition of letter name knowledge to a level of mastery. The administration guide provides a matrix suggesting when each subtest, A-D, should be administered during the school year (fall, winter, spring) by grade level. Recent research suggests that the CORE Phonics Survey, Section 1, Alphabet Skills is a marginally reliable assessment with reliability coefficients as low as .64 to as high as .73 (Reutzel, Brandt, Fawson, & Jones, 2014). Also, the fact that each subtest only has one item to be scored allows for little variation in student scores leading to lowered reliability estimates. Teachers who use this test would be well advised to give it early, in pre-K to 1st
Table 5.3 The CORE PS, Second Edition, Components, Dimensions and Tasks Component
Dimension
Tasks
Alphabet Knowledge
Subtest A: Uppercase Letter Recognition
Point to a matrix of uppercase alphabet letters. Students say name of letters. N = 1
Subtest B: Lowercase Letter Recognition
Point to a matrix of lowercase alphabet letters. Students say name of letters. N = 1
Subtest C: Consonant Sounds Identification
Point to a line of consonant letters and ask students to say the sound associated with letter to which the examiner points. N = 1
Subtest D: Long and Short Vowel Sounds Identification
Point to a line of vowel letters and ask students to say the sound associated with letter to which the examiner points. N = 2 (Long) (Short)
SOURCE: By D. Ray Reutzel, Lorilynn Brandt, Parker C. Fawson, Cindy D. Jones (The Elementary School Journal, page 49 – 72) in the forthcoming book, Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction: Helping Every Child Succeed, by D. Ray Reutzel, Robert B. Cooter, Jr.
138 Chapter 5 grade, and only use it beyond that when a lack of letter name knowledge is suspected as a problem inhibiting a student’s reading progress. The most important information that can be obtained from administration of the CORE Phonics Survey, Section 1, Alphabet Skills subtest is knowing which particular letters and sounds a student does not know and being able to obtain this information in a very short period of time, usually about 3-5 minutes. MATERIALS
• A copy of the CORE Phonics Survey, Section 1, Alphabet Skills Display Materials [See CORE PHONICS SURVEY, 2nd Edition] • Administration Instructions and Scoring Sheet for CORE Phonics Survey, Section 1, Alphabet Skills: CORE Phonics Survey – Record Form PROCEDURE
1. Seat the student, if possible, comfortably next to you at a small table or desk. 2. Provide the student with a copy of the stimulus or display materials associated with subtests A-D of the CORE Phonics Survey, section 1, alphabet skills. You should have in front of you a copy of the administration instructions, the CORE Phonics Survey – Record Form, and a pencil for recording student responses. 3. As indicated in the instructions say, “Can you tell me the names of these letters, or can you tell me the sound each letter makes?” 4. Record the students’ responses on the CORE Phonics Survey – Record Form. 5. Analyze the results for which letters or sounds the student did not know. 6. Plan future letter name and alphabet knowledge lessons to address each of these unknown letters, upper or lower case. Most students have mastered the content of these two tests by mid-year in most kindergarten classrooms. As a result, student scores achieve a ceiling effect by first-grade.
Running Records Age Range: 5-8 Standard: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3b, CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3e PURPOSE Perhaps the most essential assessment tool for assessing students’ ability to use phonics and word recognition strategies is the running record. A running record allows teachers to assess students’ decoding abilities while reading texts orally and identify need areas for instruction. Given its significance, we first review how this powerful tool came into being. From the earliest days of formal reading instruction and research, the ability to decode words in print has been viewed as essential. In 1915, for example, William S. Gray published the Standardized Oral Reading Paragraphs for grades 1 through 8, which focused exclusively on oral reading errors and reading speed. In the 1930s and 1940s, Durrell (1940) and Betts (1946) discussed at length the value of studying oral reading errors as a way to inform reading instruction. These and other writings began the development of what we now refer to as informal reading inventories (IRIs), in which oral reading errors are analyzed. Half a century after Gray’s test was published, Marie Clay (1966) began publishing landmark research from her doctoral dissertation detailing a systematic analysis of oral reading errors of emergent readers. The examination and interpretation of the relative “value” of oral reading errors (i.e., semantic and syntactic “acceptability”) by Clay helped usher in a new age of understanding decoding processes. A year later, it appears that Goodman (1967) and other researchers mirrored Clay’s thinking by employing careful studies of oral reading errors, called miscue analysis, to better understand decoding patterns of emergent readers.
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 139
In the 1970s, Goodman and Burke (1972), in an assessment manual for the Reading Miscue Inventory, and Clay (1972), in her manual called The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties, sought to formalize methodology for teachers who wish to focus on decoding assessment. Because of its complexity and impractical nature for classroom use, the Reading Miscue Inventory (RMI) never really gained much acceptance beyond university research settings, although its theoretical base was widely heralded among reading education scholars. Of the two methodologies, Clay’s running records for analyzing oral reading errors proved to be the more functional for most classroom teachers because of administration time and other -real-world constraints. In the next section, we describe in detail how running records are constructed and used to inform classroom teaching. Marie Clay (1972), New Zealand educator and former president of the International Reading Association, described the running record as an informal assessment procedure with high reliability (.90 on error reliabilities) that can inform teachers regarding a student’s decoding development. Running records are usually most useful with beginning readers through about grade 3 and can be administered using any text. The running record procedure is not overly difficult but does require practice. Clay estimates that it takes about 2 hours of practice for teachers to become relatively proficient at running records. In essence, the teacher notes everything the student says or does while reading orally, including all the correctly pronounced words and all errors or miscues. A running record takes about 10 minutes to transcribe. Clay recommends that three running records be obtained for each child on various levels of difficulty for initial reading assessment. Criteria developed by Marie Clay for oral reading assessment are based on words correctly read aloud. MATERIALS
• reading sample (100-200 words in length) • sheet of paper for recording student responses PROCEDURE
1. Prepare a reading sample from a book or story that is 100 to 200 words in length. For early readers, the text may fall below 100 words. 2. Allow the student to read the passage one or two times without assistance before you take the running record. 3. Sit alongside while the student reads so that you can both see the page. 4. Record all accurate reading by making a check mark (sometimes called a tick mark) on a sheet of blank paper for each word said correctly. Errors (miscues) should be indicated using the notations listed in Figure 5.10. 5. Once the running record is taken, you will analyze the miscues so that you will know what the reader can do as well as his or her learning needs. ANALYZING ORAL READING ACCURACY RATE The first level of running record analysis is to determine whether the level of the reading passage used is appropriate for instruction. In order to decide whether the level of text is on the student’s independent, instructional, or frustration level, you must determine the percentage of words read correctly in the passage used for the running record. Here is the rule of thumb for determining the student’s overall reading level: Oral Reading Accuracy
Text Level Difficulty
Level of Support Needed by the Reader
95% or better
Independent (easy reading level)
Appropriate for recreational reading, this level does not require support from a stronger reader or teacher.
MyLab Education
Video Example 5.1: Conducting a Running Record In this video, you will learn how to administer a Running Record. When you are finished, describe what teachers can learn about students’ reading performance from administering a Running Record.
140 Chapter 5 Oral Reading Accuracy
Text Level Difficulty
Level of Support Needed by the Reader
90–94%
Instructional (adequate ability)
This is the student’s zone of proximal development and will require some assistance.
Below 90%
Frustration (too difficult)
This level of text is beyond the student’s zone of proximal development and should not be used for instruction.
Figure 5.10 Notations for a Running Record Reading Behavior
Notation
Explanation
Accurate Reading
✓✓✓✓✓✓
Notation: A check is noted for each word pronounced correctly.
Self-Correction
✓✓✓✓ Attempt
SC
Word in Text Omission
————
A word or words are left out during the reading. Notation: A dash mark is written over a line above the word(s) from the text that has/have been omitted.
Word in Text
Insertion
Word Inserted
The child adds a word that is not in the text. Notation: The word inserted by the reader is placed above a line and a dash placed below it.
————
Student Appeal and Assistance
————
A
Word from Text
T
Repetition
Substituted Word Word from Text
Teacher Assistance
———— Word from Text
The child is “stuck” on a word he or she cannot call and asks (verbal or nonverbal) the teacher for help. Notation: A is written above a line for “assisted,” and the problem word from the text is written below the line. Sometimes children will repeat words or phrases. These repetitions are not scored as errors, but are recorded. Notation: Write an R after the word repeated and draw a line back to the point where the reader returned.
✓✓✓ R ✓✓✓
Substitution
The child corrects an error himself or herself. This is not counted as a miscue. Notation: SC is the notation used for self-corrections.
T
The child says a word that is different from the word in the text. Notation: The student’s substitution word is written above a line under which the correct word from text is written. The student pauses on a word for 5 seconds or more, so the teacher tells him or her the word. Notation: The letter T is written to the right of a line that follows the word from text. A blank is placed above a cross-line to indicate that the student did not know the word.
Figure 5.11 shows an example of a running record using a passage from the CRI-2 (Cooter, Flynt, & Cooter, 2014) using the miscue notation and explanation system. In this figure, the text on the left is a copy of the passage the student is reading, while the box on the right is a running record taken by the teacher with each of the miscue types noted and explained.
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 141
Figure 5.11 A Running Record Example Student
Paco, Grade 2
______________________________________________
Title: The Pig and the Snake One day Mr. Pig was walking to town. He saw a big hole in the road. A big snake was in the hole. “Help me,” said the snake, “and I will be your friend.” “No, no,”
sam sc saw big
out friend
A
said Mr. Pig. “If I help you get out you will bite me. You’re
R
a snake!” The snake cried and cried. So Mr. Pig pulled the
popped pulled
snake out of the hole. Then the snake said, “Now I am going to bite you, Mr. Pig.” “How can you bite me after
after T
I helped you out of the hole?” said Mr. Pig. The snake said,// “You knew I was a snake when you pulled me out!” SOURCE: From The Flynt/Cooter Reading Inventory for the Classroom (5th ed.), by E. S. Flynt and R. B. Cooter, Jr., 2004. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2004. Reprinted and Electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
As you can see, Paco had several oral reading miscues. Our first task is to decide which miscues are countable errors. For example, the following quick summary shows the miscues that are countable errors (refer back to Figure 5.10 to review a listing of miscues and their notations). Countable Errors
Not Countable Errors
• Omissions
• Self-correction
• Insertions
• Repetition
•
Student appeal with assistance • Substitutions • Teacher assistance
142 Chapter 5
MyLab Education Application Exercise 5.3: Running Record Case Study
In Paco’s running record (5.11), we see the following miscues noted: one -selfcorrection (not a countable error), one omission, one insertion, one student appeal with assistance, one repetition (not a countable error), one substitution, and one teacher assistance. Of the seven miscues recorded, five are countable as oral reading errors. To determine whether this passage was on Paco’s independent, instructional, or frustration level, we will use a -two-step formula: Step 1: Total words in running record passage – Number of miscues = Number of words read correctly Step 2: Number of words read correctly ÷ Total words in running record passage = Accuracy rate percentage In Paco’s example, there were a total of 111 words. Applying the -two-step formula gives the following result: Step 1: 111 – 5 miscues = 106 words read correctly Step 2: 106 ÷ 111 = 95% oral reading accuracy
MyLab Education Application Exercise 5.4: Running Record Exercise #1: Gannon Reads Bedtime
MyLab Education Application Exercise 5.5: Running Record #2: Alejandro Reads Birthday at the Zoo
MyLab Education Application Exercise 5.6: Running Record #3: Alejandro Reads You Cannot Fly
Therefore, because Paco is able to read this passage with 95% accuracy, this level of passage would be at his independent reading level. A Simple Alternative for Determining Words Read Correctly. In busy -real-world classrooms, it is important to work smart. Cooter, Flynt, and Cooter (2014) have suggested a shortcut for determining words read correctly in a much quicker but still, we think, valid manner. Count the number of words in the passage used for the running record and note the 100th word. After completing the running record, only count miscues up to the 100th word and subtract the countable miscues from 100 and you will have the percentage of words read correctly in one step. If you look again at Figure 5.11, you will note that the 100th word is indicated using two slashes immediately following the words “The snake said.” Subtracting the number of countable miscues in Paco’s example yields the same percentage of words read correctly (95%). UNDERSTANDING MISCUES USING MSV ANALYSIS Marie Clay (1972) also developed a way of interpreting miscues for use in her widely acclaimed Reading Recovery® program. This method of analysis enables you to determine the extent to which the student uses three primary cuing strategies when he or she encounters a new word in print and an oral reading miscue occurs: meaning cues (M), syntax cues (S), and visual cues (V). The following summary is based on the work of Cooter, Flynt, and Cooter (2007).
• M = Meaning (Semantic cues—Does it make sense?) In reviewing each miscue, consider whether the student is using meaning cues in her attempt to identify the unknown word in print. Context clues, picture cues, and information from the passage are examples of meaning cues used by the reader. • S = Syntax (Structure cues—Does it sound right?) A rule system or grammar governs the English language, as with all other languages. For example, English is essentially based on a -subject–-verb grammar system. Syntax is the application of this -subject–-verb grammar system in creating sentences. The goal in studying syntax cues as part of your miscue analysis is to try to determine the extent to which the student unconsciously uses rules of grammar in attempting to identify unknown words in print. For example, if a word in a passage causing a miscue for the reader is a verb, ask yourself whether the student’s miscue is also a verb. Consistent use of the appropriate part of speech in miscues (i.e., a noun for a noun, a verb for a verb, articles for articles) is an indication that the student has internalized the rule system of English grammar and is applying that knowledge in attacking unknown words. • V = Visual (Graphophonic—Does it look right?) Sometimes a miscue looks a good bit like the correct word appearing in the text. The miscue may begin with the same letter or letters, for example, saying top for toy or sit for seat. Another possibility is that the letters of the miscue may look very similar to the word appearing in text (e.g., introduction for introspection). Use of visual cues is essentially the student’s ability or inability to apply phonics skills to decode words in print. The extent to which readers
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 143
use visual cues is an important factor to consider when trying to better understand the skills employed by developing readers when attacking unknown words in print. Applying MSV thinking is fairly simple once you get the hang of it. In Figure 5.12, we return to the miscues previously noted in Figure 5.11 and conduct an MSV analysis on each. Do you see why each interpretation was made? THE MISCUE GRID: AN EFFICIENT RUNNING RECORDS SCHEME As useful as the running record can be for teachers in planning instruction, many feel that the time required for administering and analyzing running records can be prohibitive in public school classes of 20 or more students. To make the process go more quickly and reliably, Cooter, Flynt, and Cooter (2014) developed a simplified process for completing running records called the miscue grid that makes running records more practical for classroom use.
Figure 5.12 Running Record with MSV Analysis Student
Paco, Grade 2
______________________________________________
Title: The Pig and the Snake
E MSV
One day Mr. Pig was walking to
✓ ✔ ✓ ✔ ✔ ✓ ✓
town. He saw a big hole in the
✓ ✔
road. A big snake was in the
sam sc sa w
✔ ✓ ✔✓ ✓
“and I will be your friend.” “No, no,”
✓ ✔ ✓ ✔✔
ouT
✔
✓
✔
A ✔ ✓ friend
said Mr. Pig. “If I help you get
a snake!” The snake cried and cried. So Mr. Pig pulled the snake out of the hole. Then the snake said, “Now I am
✓ ✓
✓
✔
✔
✓
✓
✔
✔
✔
✓
✓
popped pulled
✓
✔
✓
✓
✔
✔ ✓
I helped you out of the hole?”
when you pulled me out!”
✓ ✔ ✔ R
✔ ✓
“How can you bite me after
“You knew I was a snake
S
V
M S V M
S
V
M S V
✓ ✔ ✓ ✔ ✔ ✓ ✓ ✔
out you will bite me. You’re
said Mr. Pig. The snake said,//
M
✓ ✔ ✔ ✓ ✓
✓ ✔ ✓ ✔ ✔
big
hole. “Help me,” said the snake,
going to bite you, Mr. Pig.”
SC MSV
✓
✔ ✔
✓
✔ ✔
M
✓
✓
✓
✓
✔ aft er
✓
✔
✓
✔
✓
✓
✓
V
V
✔
✔
✔
S
S
✔
✓
✔
M
✓
T
M S V
✔
✔
✓ ✔ ✓ ✔ ✔ ✓ ✔ ✔ ✓ ✓ ✔
SOURCE: Flynt, e. S., Cooter, r. B., (2004). Reading Inventory for the Classroom, 5th edition, © 2004. reprinted and electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson education, Inc., Upper Saddle river, new Jersey
144 Chapter 5 With this method, teachers mark the miscue grid according to the kind of reading miscues the student has made. By totaling the number of oral reading errors in each miscue category (i.e., mispronunciations, substitutions), as well as completing an MSV analysis for each miscue, the teacher is then able to quickly determine miscue patterns and begin to plan instruction accordingly. -Field-tested with thousands of teachers, the miscue grid has proven to be an extremely effective and efficient classroom tool. Figure 5.13 shows an example of a completed miscue grid prepared by Cooter, Flynt, and Cooter (2014) for The Flynt/Cooter Comprehensive Reading Inventory-2 for a passage called “Hot Shoes,” considered to be a fifth grade level passage. Notice how this simple format of noting miscues in the appropriate column with a tick mark (l) can speed the process for teachers in noting and tallying miscues by type. Notice also that each miscue spoken by the student is simply written above the word in the text on the left, which has a line drawn through it to signal the miscue. These simple modifications to the running record procedure makes the process much faster and can easily be used in a real world classroom. In the next section, we show you how a miscue grid can be analyzed using the If-Then method. ANALYZING RUNNING RECORDS USING A MISCUE GRID: MISCUE COUNTING AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS In the example shown in Figure 5.13, notice that for each miscue, a tick mark was recorded under the appropriate column heading, thus classifying each miscue as a mispronunciation, substitution, or other reading error. After all miscues have been studied and their error type identified, the tick marks in each column are totaled, which helps the teacher discern where consistent problems are occurring. In Figure 5.13, this process revealed that, at least with this passage, most of the student’s miscues were mispronunciations (2), substitutions (4), and omissions. Thus, in all, there were nine countable miscues. When doing an MSV analysis on the nine countable errors, we can conclude that:
1. Meaning (M) was used with five out of nine miscues. 2. Syntax (S) was used with five of nine miscues. 3. A visual (V) cue such as phonics decoding was not used.
MyLab Education
Video Example 5.2: Analyzing a Running Record In this video, you will find out what teachers can learn about students’ reading performance from analyzing error patterns in a Running Record.
With a total of nine miscues when reading this -100-word selection (remember that we do not count any miscues after the 100th word), simple subtraction tells us that the student read with 91% accuracy, placing her within the “instructional” reading level for this text sample according to Clay’s system mentioned earlier. Remember: Conclusions about students’ strengths and needs should not be drawn from only one running record; we are doing so here simply as an illustration of the process. As already noted, a minimum of three running records should be taken and comparisons made across all three to determine whether a pattern of reading behavior exists (Fawson, Ludlow, Reutzel, Sudweeks, & Smith, 2006). Finally, let us summarize what we know about the student’s reading according to this sample running record and a careful study of her miscues. Remember, the goal here is to identify what the student can do in reading to help the teacher decide what should come next in her learning program (see Principle 1 earlier in this chapter). This Student Is Able to Do the Following in Reading • Use context clues most of the time to help identify unknown words in print • Use syntax clues most of the time to help identify unknown words in print • Use beginning sounds in words as a phonics skill in decoding in most words and in some miscue words (e.g., lived/loved; mobil/model) • Use ending sounds in words as a phonics skill in decoding in most words • Accurately decode -one- and -two-syllable words most of the time • Recognize common sight words
2
1
1
4
1
3
1
9*
2
1
1
2
1
1
Error Totals
1
2
Omissions
1
Tchr. Assists
1
Insertions
1
Substitute
ERROR TYPES
2
1
1
SelfCorrect.
Source: The Flynt/Cooter Comprehensive Reading Inventory2 (2nd ed.), by R.B. Cooter, Jr., E.S. Flynt, and K.S. Cooter 2014. Boston, MA: Pearson. Used with permission of Pearson Education.
Summary of Reading Behaviors (Strengths and Needs)
TOTALS
shoes was basketball.
boys loved as much as their
by Superior. The only thing Anthony / /
soomer
pair of “High Five Pump’em Ups”
sc
grade was Jamie Lee. He had a
was the envy of the entire fifth
enemy
looking at their feet. But the boy who
identify their friends just by
in-duh-fee
with their shoes that they could
The Anthony boys got to the point
“Uptown-Downtown” by Beebop.
Smarts” by Master, or the
for a lesser shoe. Some liked the “Street
sc
couldn’t afford Sky Highs would settle
model by Leader. Others who
mobd
shoes. Some wore the “Sky High”
wear
Elementary School loved all the new sport
lived
The guys at the Susan B. Anthony
Hot Shoes
Mispronun.
Figure 5.13 Miscue Analysis Using the Miscue Grid
5
1
1
1 1
1
Meaning (M)
5
1
1
1 1
1
Syntax (S)
Visual (V)
ERROR ANALYSIS
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 145
146 Chapter 5 MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Reutzel/Cooter Phonics and Word Recognition Record
The next step would be for the teacher to refer to the Recommended End-of-Year Benchmark Skills (English and Spanish): Decoding (Table 5.4) and use the The Reutzel/ Cooter Phonics and Word Recognition Record (PWRR) (Figure 5.14) to chart the student’s growth and reading needs. If she has not advanced up through most of the required grade 4 accomplishments, for example, then the teacher may reasonably conclude that some sort of classroom intervention may be needed using grade 3 Common Core State Standards as a starting point, as well as other tips from our If-Then Charts in relevant chapters.
Table 5.4 Recommended End-of-Year Benchmark Skills (English and Spanish): Decoding Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4 and above
DRP. Recognizes and can rapidly name all uppercase and lowercase alphabet letters (alphabet recognition).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.1.3a Know the spelling- sound correspondences for common consonant digraphs.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.2.3a Distinguish long and short vowels when reading regularly spelled one-syllable words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.3.3a Identify and know the meaning of the most common prefixes and derivational suffixes.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.4.3a Use combined knowledge of all letter-sound correspondences, syllabication patterns, and morphology (e.g., roots and affixes) to read accurately unfamiliar multisyllabic words in context and out of context.
DRP. Knows that the sequence of written letters and the sequence of spoken sounds in a word are the same.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.1.3b Decode regularly spelled one-syllable words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.2.3b Know spelling- sound correspondences for additional common vowel teams.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.3.3b Decode words with common Latin suffixes.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3a Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter– sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.1.3c Know final -e and common vowel team conventions for representing long vowel sounds.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.2.3c Decode regularly spelled two-syllable words with long vowels.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.3.3c Decode multisyllable words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.K.3c Read common high- frequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.1.3d Use knowledge that every syllable must have a vowel sound to determine the number of syllables in a printed word.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.2.3d Decode words with common prefixes and suffixes.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.3.3d Read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.K.3b Associate the long and short sounds with the common spellings (graphemes) for the five major vowels.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.1.3e Decode two-syllable words following basic patterns by breaking the words into syllables.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.2.3e Identify words with inconsistent but common spelling-sound correspondences.
DRP. Uses phonic knowledge and structural analysis to decode words
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.K.3d Distinguish between similarly spelled words by identifying the sounds of the letters that differ.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.1.3f Read words with inflectional endings.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.2.3f Recognize and read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words.
DRP (Spanish only). Applies letter sound knowledge of consonant-vowel patterns to produce syllables.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.1.3g Recognize and read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words.
DRP (Spanish only). Uses structural cues to recognize words such as compounds, base words, and inflections such as?-mente, -ito, and –ando.
DRP (Spanish only). Decodes two-syllable words, using knowledge of sounds, letters, and syllables including consonants, vowels, blends, and stress. EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds). • The C rule • The G rule • R-controlled vowels • Consonant blends • Consonant trigraphs • Y rules
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 147 Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4 and above
EBR additions (blending sounds) • Onset and rime • Body and coda EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) • CVC rule • VCE rule • CV *Key for benchmark standards: • Common Core State Standards begin with CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF. • Dallas Reading Plan end-of-year benchmarks (Cooter, 2000) begin with DRP. • Other evidence-based reading research sources begin with EBR additions. NOTE: All decoding skills pertain to English and Spanish unless identified as Spanish only.
Figure 5.14 The Reutzel/Cooter Phonics and Word Recognition Record (PWRR) Student Name: ___________ Teacher ________________________________ Grade Level: ______________ Skill Areas: Phonics and Decoding
Common Core State Standards, RF; DRP; EBR End-of-Year Benchmarks/Grade Level* (English and Spanish)
Alphabet and Alphabetic Principle Alphabetic principle: Demonstrates an understanding that letters represent individual phonemes
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3a. Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter–sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant. (K) CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3a. Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter–sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant. (K) DRP. Knows that the sequence of written letters and the sequence of spoken sounds in a word are the same. (K)
Alphabet knowledge
DRP. Recognizes and can rapidly name all uppercase and lowercase alphabet letters (alphabet recognition). (K)
Rapid letter naming—uppercase
DRP. Recognizes and can rapidly name all uppercase and lowercase alphabet letters (alphabet recognition). (K)
Rapid letter naming—lowercase
DRP. Recognizes and can rapidly name all uppercase and lowercase alphabet letters (alphabet recognition). (K)
Consonant sounds (most stable)—R, T, N, L, S /s/, D, C /k/, M, P, B
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3a Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one lettersound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant. (K)
Vowel sounds (long)—a, e, u
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3b Associate the long and short sounds with the common spellings (graphemes) for the five major vowels. (K)
Long and short vowel sounds
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3a Distinguish long and short vowels when reading regularly spelled onesyllable words. (2)
Words and Word Elements Sight words
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3c Read common highfrequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does). (K)
Body word chunks (onset plus first vowel in syllable)
EBR additions (blending sounds) • Onset and rime (1)
Dates of Student Observations and Notes Aug./ Sept.
Nov./ Dec.
Feb./ Mar.
May/ June
Aug./ Sept.
Nov./ Dec.
Feb./ Mar.
May/ June
(continued)
148 Chapter 5
Skill Areas: Phonics and Decoding
Common Core State Standards, RF; DRP; EBR End-of-Year Benchmarks/Grade Level* (English and Spanish)
Alphabet and Alphabetic Principle Coda word chunks (all sounds 1 syllable following body word chunk)
EBR additions (blending sounds) • Body and coda (1)
Rime (37 most frequent)
EBR additions (blending sounds) • Onset and rime (1)
The Y rules
EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) • Y rules (1)
Knowledge of Latin root morphemes
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3b Decode words with common Latin suffixes. (3)
Phonics Generalizations: OneSyllable Decoding Patterns Single consonant sounds (high frequency and reliability)—T, N, R, M, D, S (e.g., sat), L, C (cat), P, S, F, V, G (got), H, W, K, J, Z, Y
EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) (1) • Single consonant sounds (initial, medial, and final/ending positions
Initial consonant blends—pr, tr, gr, br, cr, dr, sm, sn, pl, cl, bl
EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) (1) • Initial consonant blends
Consonant digraphs—ch, th, sh, wh
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3a Know the spellingsound correspondences for common consonant digraphs. (1)
C rule
EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) • The C rule (1)
G rule
EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) • The G rule (1)
Consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC)
EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) (1) • CVC rule
Vowel digraphs—ai, ea, ee, ie, oo, oi, ou, oa
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3b Know spelling-sound correspondences for additional common vowel teams. (2)
Vowel-consonant—e (VCE)
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3c Know final —e and common vowel team conventions for representing long vowel sounds. (1)
Consonant-vowel (CV)
EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) (1) • CV rule
R— controlled vowels—ar, er, ir, or, ur
EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) • R— controlled vowels (1)
Final consonant blends—ld, lf, sk, st, nk
EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) • Consonant blends (1)
Double consonants (e.g., apple, all, arrow, attic)
EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) • Consonant blends (1)
Consonant trigraphs
EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) • Consonant trigraphs (1)
Accurately decodes one-syllable words
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3b Decode regularly spelled one-syllable words. (1)
Demonstrates knowledge that every syllable must have at least one vowel sound
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3d Use knowledge that every syllable must have a vowel sound to determine the number of syllables in a printed word. (1)
Distinguish between similarly spelled words by identifying the sounds of the letters that differ (e.g., sat-sit, mat-sat)
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3d (K)
Uses beginning, medial, and ending consonant sounds in decoding unknown words
DRP. Uses beginning, medial, and ending consonant sounds in decoding unknown words. (1)
Accurately decodes two-syllable words having basic sound-symbol patterns
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3e Decode two-syllable words following basic patterns by breaking the words into syllables. (1) DRP (Spanish only). Decodes two-syllable words, using knowledge of sounds, letters, and syllables including consonants, vowels, blends, and stress. (1) CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3c Decode regularly spelled two-syllable words with long vowels. (2)
Dates of Student Observations and Notes Aug./ Sept.
Nov./ Dec.
Feb./ Mar.
May/ June
Aug./ Sept.
Nov./ Dec.
Feb./ Mar.
May/ June
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 149
Figure 5.14 Continued Skill Areas: Phonics and Decoding
Common Core State Standards, RF; DRP; EBR End-of-Year Benchmarks/Grade Level* (English and Spanish)
Dates of Student Observations and Notes Aug./ Sept.
Alphabet and Alphabetic Principle Accurate decoding of multiple syllable words
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3c Decode multisyllable words. (3) CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.4.3a Use combined knowledge of all letter–sound correspondences, syllabication patterns, and morphology (e.g., roots and affixes) to read accurately unfamiliar multisyllabic words in context and out of context.
Recognize and read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3g Recognize and read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words. (1) CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3e Identify words with inconsistent but common spelling-sound correspondences. (2) CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3f Recognize and read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words. (2) CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3d Read gradeappropriate irregularly spelled words. (3)
Syllabication (dividing words/rules [4])
EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) (2) • Syllabication
Syllabication (pronunciation words/rules [3])
DRP (Spanish only). Applies letter sound knowledge of consonant-vowel patterns to produce syllables. (K)
Structural analysis: Common prefixes (e.g., intro-, pro-, post-, sub-, dis-)
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3d Decode words with common prefixes and suffixes. (2) DRP (Spanish only). Uses structural cues to recognize words such as compounds, base words, and inflections such as-mente, -ito, and –ando. (2) CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3a Identify and know the meaning of the most common prefixes and derivational suffixes. (3)
Structural analysis: Common suffixes (e.g., s, ed, -ing, -ant, -ist, -ence, -ism)
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3f Read words with inflectional endings. (1) CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3d Decode words with common prefixes and suffixes. (2) DRP (Spanish only). Uses structural cues to recognize words such as compounds, base words, and inflections such as-mente, -ito, and –ando. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3a Identify and know the meaning of the most common prefixes and derivational suffixes. (3)
Nov./ Dec.
Feb./ Mar.
May/ June
* Key for benchmark standards:
• Common Core State Standards begin with CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF. • Dallas Reading Plan endofyear benchmarks (Cooter, 2000) begin with DRP. • Other evidence-based reading research sources begin with EBR additions.
Note: All decoding skills pertain to English and Spanish unless identified as Spanish only. Source for Common Core State Standards: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards: English Language Arts Standards. Washington, D.C.: Author.
IMPLEMENTING RUNNING RECORDS: A SELF-EVALUATION RUBRIC As with most important teaching strategies, becoming an expert in administering running records comes in stages over time; it is a continuum of learning. A team of urban literacy researchers (Cooter, Mathews, Thompson, & Cooter, 2004) developed a rubric or continuum for use in coaching teachers learning to use running records in their classrooms. It was later published as a -self-assessment instrument (see Figure 5.13) to help teachers implement running records with good fidelity. In this rubric, running records are divided into conventions (marking system), analysis, and frequency of use. There are six levels of implementation for each category. We recommend that you determine your own levels of implementation monthly as you begin using running records to find ways of using them even more effectively. Now try you hand at a running record case study of Mahika, a first grader, in Mr. Carter’s first grade.
150 Chapter 5
Assessing Sight Word Recognition: Thorndike-Lorge Magazine Count High Frequency Word List Age Range: 5-8 Standard: ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.3.C Read common high-frequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does).
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Thorndike-Lorge Flash Cards
PURPOSE We suggest beginning sight word fluency assessment with the Thorndike-Lorge Magazine Count list of 25 high frequency words shown in Figure 5.15 for assessing sight word reading fluency of kindergarten children. This listing of high frequency sight words comprises 33.4% of all the words a student will likely read as an adult. MATERIALS
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
• 25, 3” × 5” plain white index cards with one of the Thorndike-Lorge Magazine Count list of 25 high frequency words printed on each card.
Thorndike-Lorge Test Sheet
• One copy of the Thorndike-Lorge Magazine Count list of 25 high frequency words with the student’s name and date of test. • Highlighter or pencil for scoring. PROCEDURE
1. Neatly print each of the 25 words onto individual cards using white card stock and black block printing or computer produced print. 2. Once completed, shuffle the deck of 25 sight word cards to randomize the order.
Figure 5.15 The Thorndike-Lorge Magazine Count 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Word
Frequency of Use
Cumulative % of Use
the and a to of I in was that it he you for had is with her she his as on at have but me
263,472 138,672 117,222 115,358 112,601 89,489 75,253 58,732 55,667 52,107 49,268 42,581 39,363 34,341 33,404 32,903 31,824 31,087 30,748 30,693 30,244 26,250 24,456 23,704 23,364
.0515 .0817 .1072 .1323 .1568 .1763 .1926 .2055 .2176 .2290 .2397 .2490 .2576 .2651 .2723 .2795 .2884 .2932 .2999 .3066 .3132 .3189 .3242 .2392 .3345
Sum = 1,535,783 Total Number of Words = 4,591,125
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 151
3. Next, invite a student to be seated next to you. Explain that you would like to find out which words the child knows by sight. 4. Begin by showing the child the first card in the deck and continue until all 25 randomly presented words from the list are shown to the child. 5. If the student can pronounce each word, without analyzing or decoding the word within one second of exposure, the word is counted recognized. Using your pencil put a check mark or highlight the word if recognized. If recognizing the word takes more than one second, the word is counted as unrecognized. Progress monitoring of early readers’ accurate and fast (less than 1 second) recognition of these 25 most highly frequent words should occur at least monthly in the second half of kindergarten and early half of first-grade. By end of kindergarten or early first-grade children should be able to accurately and quickly recognize these 25 sight words.
Assessing Sight Word Recognition: Zeno 107 High Frequency Word List Age Range: 6-8 Standard: ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.3.C Read common high-frequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does). PURPOSE To extend beginning sight word recognition assessment, we recommend using the107 High Frequency Word list by Zeno, Ivens, Millard& Duvvuri (1995) of the 107 most frequently used words in written English in Figure 5.16 for assessing sight word reading fluency of primary grade students. This listing of high frequency sight words comprises 50% of all the words a student will likely read as an adult.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Zeno High Frequency Flash Cards
MATERIALS
• 107, 3” × 5” plain white index cards with one of the Zeno list of 107 high frequency words printed on each card. • One copy of the Zeno list of 107 high frequency words with the student’s name and date of test. • Highlighter or pencil for scoring.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Zeno High Frequency Word List
Figure 5.16 The 107 Most Frequently Used Words in Written English (Zeno et al., 1995) the of and to a in is that it was for you he on as are they with be his
at or from had I not have this but by were one all she when an their there her can
we what about up said out if some would so people them other more will into your which do then
many these no time been who like could has him how than two may only most its made over see
first new very my also down make now way each called did just after water through get because back where
Know little such even much our must
152 Chapter 5 PROCEDURE
1. Neatly print each of the 107 words onto individual cards using white card stock and black block printing or computer produced print. 2. Once completed, shuffle the deck of 107 sight word cards to randomize the order. 3. Next, invite a student to be seated next to you. Explain that you would like to find out which words the child knows by sight. 4. Begin by showing the child the first card in the deck and continue until 25 randomly presented words from the list of 107 are shown to the child. 5. If the student can pronounce each word, without analyzing or decoding the word within one second of exposure, the word is counted recognized. If recognizing the word takes more than one second, the word is counted as unrecognized. Progress monitoring of early readers’ accurate and fast (less than 1 second) recognition of these 107 most highly frequent words should occur at least monthly in the second half of first-grade and into second-grade. By end of kindergarten, all children should be able to recognize this list of 25 words accurately in one second or less. By end of secondgrade children should be able to accurately and quickly recognize these 107 sight words. If children are have difficulty remembering the 25 or 107 sight words, we will describe later in this chapter how to help provide effective instruction that will help them commit these words to memory.
San Diego Quick Reading Assessment: Assessing Word Recognition for Placing Students in Text Age Range: 5-8 Standard: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3c PURPOSE The San Diego Quick Reading Assessment is a set of thirteen graded word lists to quickly assess a student’s grade level of word recognition (La Pray & Ross, 1969). The aim of this test is largely one of placing students into grade level materials for their initial reading experiences. Because this is a quick test for reading placement, teachers will want to examine students’ word recognition abilities more carefully using other assessments we have previously described above to fine tune and differentiate their decoding and word recognition instruction. MyLab Education Teacher Resource: San Diego Quick Assessment Flash Cards
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: San Diego Quick Assessment Word List
MATERIALS
• 13, 5” × 7” plain white index cards with one of the 13 San Diego Quick Assessment graded word lists (See Figure 5.17) printed on each card. • One copy of the 13 San Diego Quick Assessment graded word lists with the student’s name and date of test. • Highlighter or pencil for scoring.
Figure 5.17 The San Diego Quick Assessment Word List by Grade Level Preprimer see play me at run go and look can here
Primer you come not with jump help is work are this
Grade 1 road live thank when bigger how always night spring today
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 153 Grade 2 our please myself town early send wide believe quietly carefully
Grade 3 city middle moment frightened exclaimed several lonely drew since straight
Grade 4 decided served amazed silent wrecked improved certainly entered realized interrupted
Grade 5 scanty business develop considered discussed behaved splendid acquainted escaped grim
Grade 6 bridge commercial abolish trucker apparatus elementary comment necessity gallery relativity
Grade 7 amber dominion sundry capillary impetuous blight wrest enumerate daunted condescend
Grade 8 capacious limitation pretext intrigue delusion immaculate ascent acrid binocular embankment
Grade 9 conscientious isolation molecule ritual momentous vulnerable kinship conservatism jaunty inventive
Grade 10 zany jerkin nausea gratuitous linear inept legality aspen amnesty barometer
Grade 11 galore rotunda capitalism amnesty risible exonerate superannuate luxuriate piebald crunch
PROCEDURE
1. Have the student read aloud each word from a card at least two years below their grade. If the student misses any words, go to easier lists until they make no errors. This is their base reading level. 2. Have the student read each subsequent card in sequence. Record incorrect responses on a copy of the actual grade level word list. Be sure to have the student read every word so you can determine her decoding strategies. 3. Continue the assessment until the student misses at least three words on one of the lists.Use the assessment results to identify the student's independent (no more than one error on a list), instructional (two errors on a list), and frustration (three or more errors) levels. Provide independent reading materials for each child accordingly. In Figure 5.18 we summarize the assessment procedures and instruments we have just discussed for assessing factors associated with phonics and decoding skills. In this Summary Matrix of Assessments, we provide information about federally related assessment purposes (i.e., screening, diagnostic, -progress-monitoring, or outcomes assessment), as well as the type of test or procedure and psychometric evidence about the test or procedure scores (any available reliability and validity evidence).
154 Chapter 5
Figure 5.18 Summary Matrix of Assessments to Measure Phonics & Decoding, and Word Recognition Skills ASSESSMENT STRATEGY(S) (WITH PAGE #)
ASSESSMENT PURPOSE(S): SCREENING (S), DIAGNOSTIC (D), PROGRESS MONITORING (M), OUTCOMES (O)
Segmenting sounds
Starpoint Phonics Assessment (SPA)
S, D, P, O
R: Not available V: Construct
Blending sounds
Starpoint Phonics Assessment Running Records
S, D, P, O (both assessments)
SPA: See above Running Records R: 90 on error reliabilities (Clay, 1972, 1985) V: Construct
C Rule
Early Names Test (ENT)
S, D
R: For second graders, the KR-20 reliability was .93, and for fourth and fifth graders is was .98 V: Construct
G Rule
Early Names Test
S, D
See above
CVC Generalization
Early Names Test
S, D
See above
VCE Pattern
Running Records
S, D, P, O
See above
Consonant digraphs
Running Records
S, D, P, O
See above
Consonant blends
CORE Phonics Survey Early Names Test
CORE: S, D, P, O ENT: S, D
CORE R: Test-Retest was .98, Cronbach Alpha ranged .95-.98 for primary grades V: Construct, Face, Criterion, Consequential, and Content ENT See above
Double consonants
Starpoint Phonics Assessment
S, D, P, O
See above
CV Pattern
CORE Phonics Survey
S, D, P, O
See above
Vowel digraphs
CORE Phonics Survey
S, D, P, O
See above
R-controlled vowels
Starpoint Phonics Assessment CORE Phonics Survey
S, D, P, O S, D, P, O
SPA: See above
RELIABILITY (R), VALIDITY (V) EVIDENCE
PHONICS & DECODING SKILLS
WORD RECOGNITION SKILLS Sight words*
Assessing sight word recognition strategies San Diego Quick Reading Assessment
Structural analysis
Running Records Starpoint Phonics Assessment San Diego Quick Reading Assessment
S, D, P, O S, D, P, O S, P
RR: See above SPA: See above SDQR: See above
Onset & Rime
Running Records Starpoint Phonics Assessment
S, D, P, O (both assessments)
RR: See above SPA: See above
Sight Word Rec. R: NA V: Numerous word frequency studies SDQR R: NA V: Face; Grade level word list studies
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile After reviewing evidence-based research as well as the Common Core foundational skills for reading, we can now construct a concise list of benchmark skills that should be learned by typically developing learners. These are the skills teachers must assess and develop a classroom profile indicating which skills should be taught to which learners in small group “targeted” instruction. In Table 5.5 we provide our CLASSROOM PROFILE FORM: PHONICS, DECODING, & WORD RECOGNTION SKILLS.
STUDENT
Segmenting sounds
PHONICS & DECODING
Blending sounds
C Rule
G Rule
CVC Generaliz.
5. Update the Classroom Profile for students as new skills are learned.
VCE Pattern
Consonant digraphs
Consonant blends
Double consonants
2. Next, identify the skills each child needs to develop. 3. Form groups for instruction for students needing the same NEXT skill. 4. Using the IF – THEN Chart, determine the evidence-based teaching strategy(s) to use for each group according to the skill they need to learn.
1. Using a colored marker, fill in each box for skills each student has learned.
Directions:
Table 5.5 Classroom Profile Form: Phonics, Decoding, & Word Recogntion Skills
CV Pattern
Vowel digraphs
R-controlled vowels
WORD RECOGNITION Sight words
Structural analysis
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 155
156 Chapter 5 MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Classroom Profile Form Phonics, Decoding, and Word Recognition Skills
As noted in Chapter 4, there are four basic steps in translating assessment data into effective instruction: • Step 1: Record assessment findings for each child onto the classroom profile form. Use a colored marker to fill in each box corresponding to skills learned by each student. The classroom profile document for Early Reading Skills in shown in Table 5.5. This may be duplicated for your use. • Step 2: After reviewing the skills each child CAN DO (i.e., skills they have learned according to your assessments), identify another skill(s) they need to learn. • Step 3: Once completed, check the classroom profile document to identify children needing the same “next skill” so that you can form small groups for instruction based on each child’s learning needs. In some cases you may only have one child needing to learn a particular skill. • Step 4: Using the IF – THEN Chart shown in the next section, determine the evidence-based teaching strategy(s) to use for each group according to the skill they need to learn.
Connecting Assessment Findings to Teaching Strategies Before discussing phonics and decoding teaching strategies, we provide an If-Then Chart connecting assessment findings to intervention and strategy choices (see Figure 5.19). It is our intention to help you select the most appropriate instructional interventions and strategies to meet your students’ needs based on assessment data. In the next part of this chapter, we offer instruction strategies for interventions based on the foregoing assessments.
Figure 5.19 If-Then Strategy Guide For Phonics, Decoding, & Word Recognition “IF” your assessment show that a student needs to learn this skill . . .
“THEN” use this teaching strategy(s) first
Alternate Teaching Strategy(s) That Are Appropriate
Segmenting sounds
Sequential segmenting strategy
Framework for Phonics Instruction Hierarchical segmenting strategy Spelling in parts (SIP) Word boxes
Blending sounds
Sequential blending strategy
Hierarchical blending strategy Framework for Phonics Instruction
C Rule
Framework for Phonics Instruction
Sequential segmenting strategy Sequential blending strategy Spelling in parts (SIP) Teaching with technology Hierarchical segmenting strategy Hierarchical blending strategy
G Rule
Framework for Phonics Instruction
Sequential segmenting strategy Sequential blending strategy Spelling in parts (SIP) Teaching with technology Hierarchical segmenting strategy Hierarchical blending strategy
CVC Generalization
Framework for Phonics Instruction
Sequential segmenting strategy Sequential blending strategy Spelling in parts (SIP) Hierarchical segmenting strategy Hierarchical blending strategy
VCE Pattern
Framework for Phonics Instruction
Drastic strategy Sequential segmenting strategy Sequential blending strategy Spelling in parts (SIP) Teaching with technology Hierarchical segmenting strategy Hierarchical blending strategy
PHONICS & DECODING
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 157
“IF” your assessment show that a student needs to learn this skill . . .
“THEN” use this teaching strategy(s) first
Alternate Teaching Strategy(s) That Are Appropriate
Consonant digraphs
Framework for Phonics Instruction
Drastic strategy Sequential segmenting strategy Sequential blending strategy Spelling in parts (SIP) Word boxes Teaching with technology Hierarchical segmenting strategy Hierarchical blending strategy
Consonant blends
Framework for Phonics Instruction
Sequential segmenting strategy Sequential blending strategy Word boxes Drastic strategy Spelling in parts (SIP) Teaching with technology Hierarchical segmenting strategy Hierarchical blending strategy
Double consonants
Framework for Phonics Instruction
Sequential segmenting strategy Sequential blending strategy Drastic strategy Spelling in parts (SIP) Teaching with technology Hierarchical segmenting strategy Hierarchical blending strategy
CV Pattern
Framework for Phonics Instruction
Drastic strategy Sequential segmenting strategy Sequential blending strategy Spelling in parts (SIP) Teaching with technology Hierarchical segmenting strategy Hierarchical blending strategy
Vowel digraphs
Framework for Phonics Instruction
Drastic strategy Sequential segmenting strategy Sequential blending strategy Spelling in parts (SIP) Teaching with technology Hierarchical segmenting strategy Hierarchical blending strategy
R-controlled vowels
Framework for Phonics Instruction
Drastic strategy Sequential segmenting strategy Sequential blending strategy Spelling in parts (SIP) Teaching with technology Hierarchical segmenting strategy Hierarchical blending strategy
Sight words
Drastic Strategy
Framework for Phonics Instruction Word Boxes Teaching with technology
Structural analysis
Framework for Phonics Instruction
Hierarchical segmenting strategy Hierarchical blending strategy
WORD RECOGNITION
Teaching Strategies: Helping Students Increase Decoding and Word Recognition Decoding is the translation of written language (letters) into speech sounds (phonemes) and then blending these sounds to read words or the opposite where hearing a word segmenting the sounds in a spoken word to spell the word. If students know the meaning or meanings for a decoded word, then comprehension can occur. For emergent learners, decoding begins with learning to map or match individual speech sounds (phonemes) onto the alphabet letters (graphemes) that most often represent those
158 Chapter 5 sounds. Research by Byrne (2013) suggests that explicit instruction in phonics and applying phonics knowledge is preferred when teaching young children to decode. As we have already learned, there are five types of phonics instruction. Although there is some suggestion in research that synthetic phonics instruction provides the best results, this is not yet thoroughly supported with sufficient evidence. Consequently we believe that teachers would be well paid to use a combination of the five approaches previously described in this chapter for teaching phonics. In this section, we share several strategies we have found helpful in teaching students to successfully decode and recognize words.
Adapting Decoding and Word Recognition Instruction for English Learners Age Range: 5-8 Standard: No Specific Standard Offered The Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth (August & Shanahan, 2006) shed considerable light on the reading instruction needs of English learners (ELs). First, it was found that evidence-based reading research confirms that focusing instruction on key reading components, such as phonemic awareness, decoding, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, vocabulary, and writing, has clear benefits. The researchers went on to say that differences due to children’s second-language proficiency make it important to adjust instruction to meet the needs of -second-language learners. This important study makes it clear that phonics instruction is critical to ELs and must be delivered by a knowledgeable teacher.
Adaptations and Modification of Decoding and Word Recognition Instruction for English Learners (Spanish) Native Spanish speakers are the most rapidly growing population of ELs in many states. There are some basic similarities and differences between English and Spanish languages that may cause problems in the learning of phonics. In table 5.6 we present the most essential decoding skills for ELs whose first language is Spanish; these should be learned in both English and Spanish.
Table 5.6 Recommended End‑of‑Year Benchmark Skills (English and Spanish): Decoding Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4 and above
DRP. Recognizes and can rapidly name all uppercase and lowercase alphabet letters (alphabet recognition).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3a Know the spelling-sound correspondences for common consonant digraphs.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3a Distinguish long and short vowels when reading regularly spelled one-syllable words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.3.3a Identify and know the meaning of the most common prefixes and derivational suffixes.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.4.3a Use combined knowledge of all letter-sound correspondences, syllabication patterns, and morphology (e.g., roots and affixes) to read accurately unfamiliar multisyllabic words in context and out of context.
DRP. Knows that the sequence of written letters and the sequence of spoken sounds in a word are the same.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3b Decode regularly spelled one-syllable words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3b Know spelling-sound correspondences for additional common vowel teams.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3b Decode words with common Latin suffixes.
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 159
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3a Demonstrate basic knowledge of one‑to‑one letter– sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3c Know final ‑e and common vowel team conventions for representing long vowel sounds.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3c Decode regularly spelled two-syllable words with long vowels.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3c Decode multisyllable words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3c Read common high- frequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3d Use knowledge that every syllable must have a vowel sound to determine the number of syllables in a printed word.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3d Decode words with common prefixes and suffixes.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3d Read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.K.3b Associate the long and short sounds with the common spellings (graphemes) for the five major vowels.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3e Decode two-syllable words following basic patterns by breaking the words into syllables.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.2.3e Identify words with inconsistent but common spelling-sound correspondences.
DRP. Uses phonic knowledge and structural analysis to decode words
CCSS.ELA-Literacy. RF.K.3d Distinguish between similarly spelled words by identifying the sounds of the letters that differ.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3f Read words with inflectional endings.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3f Recognize and read grade- appropriate irregularly spelled words.
DRP (Spanish only). Applies letter sound knowledge of consonant-vowel patterns to produce syllables.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3g Recognize and read grade- appropriate irregularly spelled words.
DRP (Spanish only). Uses structural cues to recognize words such as compounds, base words, and inflections such as?-mente, -ito, and –ando.
DRP (Spanish only). Decodes two-syllable words, using knowledge of sounds, letters, and syllables including consonants, vowels, blends, and stress. EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds). • The C rule • The G rule • R‑controlled vowels • Consonant blends • Consonant trigraphs • Y rules EBR additions (blending sounds) • Onset and rime • Body and coda EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds) • CVC rule • VCE rule • CV *Key for benchmark standards: • Common Core State Standards begin with CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF. • Dallas Reading Plan end‑of‑year benchmarks (Cooter, 2000) begin with DRP. • Other e vidence-based reading research sources begin with EBR additions. Note: All decoding skills pertain to English and Spanish unless identified as Spanish only.
Grade 4 and above
160 Chapter 5 Taking this a step further, in Table 5.4 we present a few teaching points adapted from Honig, Diamond, and Gutlohn (2000) for you to consider in planning phonics instruction with ELLs. Happily, most phonics generalizations in English and Spanish are the same. If anything, Spanish is far more consistent than English!
A Framework for Phonics Instruction Age Range: 5-7 Standard: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.3 Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words. CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.3.C Read common high-frequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does). Appropriate as a framework for teaching all State Standards’ reading fundamental skills. PURPOSE Glazer (1998) has developed a step-by-step procedure for teaching phonics skills. Try it as one way to provide explicit instruction for your students. MATERIALS
• Tongue twisters, riddles, jokes, songs, poems, or stories specially selected for the phonics pattern you wish to teach PROCEDURE Following are several methods you can try in your classroom:
• Bombard students with correct models. New phonics knowledge is heavily dependent on students having already internalized in their listening and speaking vocabularies correct pronunciations and usages of thousands of words. After deciding which phonics element you wish to teach, select reading materials that use the element. Read, retell, and organize simple plays or raps involving students, or use other means to build in many encounters with the words you want to emphasize. As you use the target words in your readings or retellings, write the words on your easel chart paper or highlight them when using a big book. Say, “Read these words with me as I say them.” Then ask, “What is the same about these words we just read?” to guide them to the phonics element you want to emphasize. Always provide the correct answer if the students are in doubt. • Provide structured practice. With students gathered in a small group, write the letter(s) being emphasized at the top of your easel chart. If, for instance, we
Table 5.4 Planning Phonics Instruction for English Learners Sound
Explanation
Examples
/s/
This sound is spelled with s in English and Spanish.
English: Seed, secret Spanish: semilla, secreto
/m/
This sound is spelled with m in English and Spanish.
English: map, many Spanish: mapa, mucho
Spanish e
The letter e in Spanish has the long-a sound, as with eight.
Spanish: bueno, recibir
/ch/
In Spanish the digraph “ch” also make the /ch/ sound. However, ch only appears in the beginning or medial positions in Spanish
English: church, each Spanish: chico, ocho
/sh/
The sh digraph does not exist in Spanish! Sorting new words with sh and ch will be helpful. Be sure to also focus on the meaning of each word.
SOURCE: Adapted from Honig, B., Diamond, L., and Gutlohn, L. (2000). Teaching reading: Sourcebook for kindergarten through eighth grade. Novato, CA: Arena Press.
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 161
are emphasizing the consonant digraph ch, the following words can be written and said aloud slowly by the teacher: cheese, church, cherry. Then students are encouraged to contribute others having that same beginning sound (perhaps chain, change, charm, child). • Assess learning using a phonics game. The object of this game is to assess student learning by matching the letter or letter combination being emphasized with pictures representing words beginning with that sound. Cut a sheet of tagboard into several pieces about flash card size. Create cards for each student showing the letter or sound being studied. Collect several pictures of objects or creatures from magazines whose names begin with that letter or sound. Place students into pairs. Then demonstrate to students how to cut and paste pictures from magazines onto the tagboard cards showing the beginning sound you are emphasizing. Repeat the exercise, except this time students are doing the task with you in their groups of two (i.e., finding pictures of objects or creatures whose names begin with the specified sound). Check the products from each group with the students. Ask them to name the picture that begins with that sound. • Sharing what they have learned. Children love to share (and brag about) their accomplishments. Help them create word banks, pocket dictionaries, or word charts showing off how many words they can find containing the phonics element you have been studying together. These may include the names of animals, foods, toys, friends, family members, or objects from their environment having the target -letter–-sound combination. Have students share their accomplishments in small groups or with the whole class in a kind of author’s chair format. They will love showing off their new knowledge!
Sequential Segmenting Strategy Age Range: 5-8 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3b: Decode regularly spelled-one-syllable words. PURPOSE Segmenting is not intuitive for young learners and requires explicit explanation, specific modeling, and sustained guided practice because the segmenting process occurs on sequential and hierarchical levels. The sequential segmenting strategy (Reutzel & Cooter, 2015) is a useful framework for helping students learn to segment words in print. It includes writing as part of the strategy. MATERIALS
• Whiteboard and markers • Large rubber band for word rubber banding demonstration • Target words for modeling and guided practice PROCEDURE In the sequential segmenting of -single-syllable words, students will:
1. Stretch out a spoken word to hear the individual sounds 2. Listen for and count each sound in the spoken word from first to last 3. Write a letter for each sound that is heard in the stretched out word to spell the entire word. In order to teach writers how to sequentially segment sounds to spell -singlesyllable words, one must be very explicit. For example, consider the following explicit lesson in the sample lesson below for teaching students sequential segmentation of single-syllable words.
162 Chapter 5
Sample Lesson: Teaching Single Syllable Word Segmenting Objective: Teach students to segment single-syllable words to produce approximate spellings to be checked and confirmed. Supplies: White board, markers, eraser, word list, lap white boards, markers, erasers, dictionary or computer spell check Explain:
– What is to be taught: Today we are going to learn a strategy for spelling single syllable words and how to check to see if we spelled the words correctly. – Why it is important to learn: We need to learn to do this so that we can spell words correctly. – When/Where will it be used: You will need to spell words every time you write anything. Students can be helped to understand this strategy of sequential segmentation through the use of a graphic organizer, such as the one shown in Figure 5.20.
Figure 5.20 Graphic Organizer Showing Sequential Blending of CVC Words the word slowly— ssssiiiit
Count the sounds you hear.
a blank for each
sound— _ _ _ .
___
for the 1st sound in the word.
the letter
for the sound you hear in
s __
the first blank s _ _ .
for the 2nd sound in the word.
the letter
for the sound you hear in
si _
the second blank s i _ .
for the 3rd sound in the word.
the letter
for the sound you hear in
sit
the third blank s i t . SOURCE: REUTZEL, D. RAY; COOTER, ROBERT B., TEACHING CHILDREN TO READ: THE TEACHER MAKES THE DIFFERENCE (SUBSCRIPTION), 8th Ed., ©2019. Reprinted and Electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, NY.
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 163
Modeling: Today we are going to learn a strategy for spelling single syllable words and how to check to see if we spelled the words correctly. Listen to the word – stop. Now say the word scope aloud. Next say the word stop slowly and count the number of sounds you hear. Draw a line for each sound you hear -_ _ _ _. The first sound is /s/. The letter that represents the first sound /s/ is s. The second sound is /t/. The letter that represents the second sound /t/ is t. The third sound is /o/. The letter that represents the third sound /o/ is o. The fourth and final sound is /p/. The letter that represents the fourth or final sound /o/ is p. So we have spelled the word stop. Which of these look like the word stop.
skip slit stop Guided Practice: “Let’s practice together segmenting some sounds of letters in words to say words.” I will model for you how to segment the sounds of letters in words. Here is a word, sled. I want to segment the sounds of the letters to say the word. To segment the letter sounds in this word I begin by stretching the word out and counting each sound I hear in the word – s l e d = 4 . I draw four lines on my paper for each sound I hear - _ _ _ _. I think to myself, this is the sound /s/ and I know that the letter represents this sound /s/ is s. So, I write s in the first blank. Next, think to yourself, this is the sound /l/ and I know that the letter represents this sound /l/ is l. So, I write l in the second blank. Next, I think to myself, this is the sound /e/ and I know that the letter represents this sound /e/ is e. So, I write e in the third blank. Finally, think to yourself, this is the sound /d/ and I know that the letter represents this sound /d/ is d. So, I write d in the fourth or final blank. So we have spelled the word sled. Which of these look like the word sled.
slop sled stop Continue guided practice over several days using at least six words per day gradually sharing away the steps of segmenting with the group. Then move this process into small groups segmenting cvc and (cb)cvc words together for several more days before asking individual students to segment the letter sounds together to say words. Independent Practice Now, you will segment the letter sounds to spell words on your own. Here is a list of 10 initial consonant blend one-syllable words to show me how you can use the sequential segmenting process to pronounce these words. Let’s begin with the first word on the list:
Strap Slip Blank Flip Pray Trip Grape Skate Play Fry
(continued)
164 Chapter 5
Sample Lesson Continued Assessment As the student independently segments the list of 10 words shown above, make a copy of the list and mark on this list any words that are inaccurately spelled to guide future word selection, instruction, and guided practice.
MyLab Education Application Exercise 5.7: Sequential Segmenting Strategy
Students practice, with teacher guidance, many more -single-syllable CVC words using this strategy until they are able to segment CVC words independently with accuracy and fluency. Once children understand and practice the sequential segmentation strategy, they can apply it to many of the words they want to use in their in early reading and writing in grades K through 2.
Hierarchical Segmenting Age Range: 6-8 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3e: Decode -two-syllable words following basic patterns by breaking the words into syllables. CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3c: Decode regularly spelled -two-syllable words with long vowels. CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3c: Decode multi-syllable words. PURPOSE Beginning in second grade, teachers should teach the second type of segmentation—hierarchical segmenting—to help students write or spell multisyllabic words. Similar to blending, hierarchical segmenting moves from words → syllables → letters and back again. Hierarchical segmenting begins by stretching a whole word into pronunciation units very similar to, but not always exactly like, spoken syllables and then to the already familiar sequential segmenting process within syllables to write the syllables and then combine them to spell the multi-syllable word. Teaching writers how to hierarchically segment multi-syllable words requires very explicit teaching. For example, consider the following explicit lesson for teaching students hierarchical segmenting (See Figure 5.21). Students can be greatly helped to understand this strategy of hierarchical segmenting through the use of graphic organizers, such as the one in Figure 5.22. Students practice, with teacher guidance, many more multi-syllable words from two—up to four- and five-syllable words without prefixes or suffixes. Then, teach prefixes and suffixes explicitly if this has not already taken place. Provide guided practice in this strategy with known prefixes and suffixes until students are able to segment multisyllabic words with and without prefixes and suffixes independently with accuracy and fluency. With this strategy well in hand, even very young students become willing to attempt writing and spelling most of the words they encounter in second grade and beyond.
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 165
Figure 5.21 Hierarchical Segmenting Lesson Explanation. Today we will be learning how to segment words into chunks and sounds to spell big words. Segmenting words into chunks and sounds to write big words is a very important part of learning how to write. Writing and spelling are important abilities you will learn in school to help you write about things that you will discover in school and life. Modeling. I will model for you how to segment big words. Here is a big word to spell:
macaroni 1. I want to segment the word macaroni to spell it. 2. To segment the parts of the word macaroni, I stretch the word into pronounceable units or syllables: mac-a-ro-ni. 3. I hear four syllables or pronunciation units. 4. I write out four big blanks for the syllables I hear in the word macaroni. 5. The first syllable or pronunciation unit I hear is mac. 6. I stretch this syllable out slowly—mmmm–aaaa–k. 7. I hear three sounds so I write three blanks on the big blank for the first syllable. 8. Next I listen for the first sound in the syllable mac—mmm. 9. I think about this sound and write the letter that I know represents this sound—m. 10. Next, I listen for the second sound in the syllable mac. 11. I hear the second sound—aaaaa. 12. I write the second sound’s letter—a. 13. I listen to the third sound in the syllable mac. 14. I hear the sound and write the letter k. 15. In the second syllable I hear the sound “uh” and write a single letter a on my second big blank. 16. In the third syllable I hear two sounds—rrrrrooooo. 17. I write down two blanks on my third big syllable blank to represent the two sounds in this syllable. 18. Next, I write the letter I hear in the first sound in the syllable ro—r. 19. Then I listen for the second sound and write the letter for the sound I hear—o. 20. Finally, I stretch the last syllable of the word—nnnnneeee. 21. After stretching the sounds in this syllable, I write two blanks on my last big syllable blank. 22. The first sound is nnnn, so I write the letter n. 23. The final sound is eeee so I write the letter e. 24. Now I have the spelling makarone. 25. I look at this spelling to see if it looks like the word as I have seen it. 26. If not, I check it using a dictionary or spell-check. [HINT: We used the spell checker on our MS Word program for this spelling of makarone and following suggestions were made: macaroni, macaronic, and macaroon.] 27. Model this process of checking in a dictionary or spell-check. SOURCE: REUTZEL, D. RAY; COOTER, ROBERT B., TEACHING CHILDREN TO READ: THE TEACHER MAKES THE DIFFERENCE (SUBSCRIPTION), 8th Ed., ©2019. Reprinted and Electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, NY.
Sequential Blending Strategy for Single-Syllable Words Age Range: 5-8 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3b: Decode regularly spelled -one-syllable words. PURPOSE The blending process is not necessarily intuitive for learners and requires explicit teacher explanation, modeling, and guided practice. The blending process occurs on two different levels: sequential and hierarchical (Reutzel & Cooter, 2015). In sequential blending, the reader scans each letter of a -single-syllable word, moving from left to right, saying the associated sound of each letter, and finally blending the letter sounds together to say the word. To teach readers how to sequentially blend
166 Chapter 5
Figure 5.22 Hierarchical Segmenting Strategy Multi-Syllabic Words Say the word slowly by stretching it out and listen for and count the number of syllables in the word—complete. Write down big blanks for the number of syllables— ______ ______ —complete. Segment the first syllable into sounds by saying and stretching the syllable slowly— cccc/uh/mmm. Write three blanks for the first syllable: __ __ __ . Listen for the first sound in the syllable and write the letter—c or k. Listen for the next sound in the syllable and write the letter—/ —a, o, or u. Listen for the next sound in the syllable and write the letter—m. Segment the second syllable into sounds by saying and stretching the syllable slowly—pp/lll/eeee/t. Write four blanks for the second syllable: __ __ __ __ . Listen for the first sound in the syllable and write the letter—p. Listen for the next sound in the syllable and write the letter—l. Listen for the next sound in the syllable and write the letter—e. Listen for the last sound in the syllable and write the letter—t. Check the spelling—complet or komplet—using a dictionary or spell check. SOURCE: REUTZEL, D. RAY; COOTER, ROBERT B., TEACHING CHILDREN TO READ: THE TEACHER MAKES THE DIFFERENCE (SUBSCRIPTION), 8th Ed., ©2019. Reprinted and Electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, NY.
letters and sounds to pronounce -single-syllable words, teachers must be very explicit in modeling and guiding students’ practice in learning and applying a sequential blending strategy. MATERIALS
• Whiteboard and markers • Target words for modeling and guided practice PROCEDURE To create an explicit lesson for teaching a sequential blending strategy, be sure to follow the framework of (1) teacher explanation, (2) teacher
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 167
modeling, and (3) guided practice with students, in which they try out the strategy with support from a more accomplished user of the strategy (i.e., gradual release of responsibility). Following is an example of what this might look like in your classroom for a lesson on blending -single-syllable words having the CVC pattern. 1. Explanation. “Today we will be learning how to blend the sounds of letters to say words. Blending the sounds of letters to say words is a very important part of learning how to read. Blending words we see in books is one of the most important things you will learn.” 2. Modeling. “I will show you how I blend the sounds of letters in words. Here is a word—fan. I want to blend the sounds of the letters to say this word. a. I begin with the first letter in the word—f (point to the letter). I think to myself, this is the letter f and I know that the sound that this letter makes is /f/. So, I say /f/. b. I look at the second letter in the word—a (point to the letter). I need to learn a hint about -three-letter words with a vowel letter in the middle of consonants (CVC words). The hint says that the middle vowel letter in a -three-letter word makes its short sound. So I think to myself, this letter a makes the short a sound. I say /aˇ /. c. Then I say the first sound in the word again, /f/, and then the second sound in the word, /aˇ /. d. Next I look at the third letter in the word—n (point to the letter). I think to myself, this is the letter n and I know that the sound this letter makes is /n/. e. Then, I say the first sound in the word again, /f/, and then the second sound in the word again, /aˇ /, and last the third sound in the word, /n/. f. Then I say the three sounds in order again a little faster like this, /f/ /aˇ / /n/. I say them again even faster. I listen as I say them faster and begin to blend the sounds together to hear a word. I think about what the word is as I hear it pronounced. The word I hear when I say the sounds in order fast, or blended, is fan.” 3. Guided Practice. Select a list of 5 or more CVC words to practice. To gradually release the steps for sequential blending of single syllable words from teacher to student, alternate responsibility for each of the steps outlined above. For each subsequent word practiced, add one more step for students to complete until the students are taking responsibility for all 6 steps (a-f).
Students can be greatly helped to understand this strategy of sequential blending through the use of a graphic organizer such as the one shown in Figure 5.23 Once children understand and practice the sequential blending strategy, they become very able to apply it to many of the words they read in kindergarten and first grade.
Hierarchical Blending Age Range: 6-8 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3e: Decode -two-syllable words following basic patterns by breaking the words into syllables. CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3c: Decode regularly spelled -two-syllable words with long vowels. CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3c: Decode multisyllable words.
MyLab Education
Video Example 5.3: Blending Sounds to Say Words Notice in this video how the teacher helps children blend words while focusing on long and short vowel sounds. What are some of the techniques she employs in her lessons to help children blend sounds in words to write and read?
MyLab Education Application Exercise 5.8: Sequential Blending Strategy
168 Chapter 5
Figure 5.23 Graphic Organizer Showing Sequential Blending of CVC Words at the 1st letter in the word
at the 2nd letter in the word
at the 3rd letter in the word
the
SU N
SU N
SU N
the
of the
1st letter in the word
the
of the
2nd letter in the word
the
of the
3rd letter in the word
of each letter
in the word faster and faster
SU N
and SOURCE: REUTZEL, D. RAY; COOTER, ROBERT B., TEACHING CHILDREN TO READ: THE TEACHER MAKES THE DIFFERENCE (SUBSCRIPTION), 8th Ed., ©2019. Reprinted and Electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, NY.
PURPOSE Beginning in second grade, teachers need to help students understand the second type of blending—hierarchical blending—used to decode multisyllabic words. The name comes from the hierarchical nature of the blending process. Students are often overwhelmed by the task of decoding multi-syllable words. This is because multisyllable words often have more than seven letters, which begins to overtax students’ working memory, which is limited to around five to nine bits of information at a time. Some students are so challenged by multi-syllable words they either try to avoid decoding them or guess. Begin teaching students to hierarchically blend multi-syllable words by dividing a whole word into pronunciation units around the vowels that signal the number of syllables. Blending then moves from syllables back to the familiar sequential blending process within syllables and then back up to the level of blending syllables to say the word. Thus, hierarchical blending moves through levels of a multisyllabic word—word → syllables → letters → syllables and → the word again. To teach readers how to hierarchically blend letters and sounds to say multi-syllable words, one must be very explicit. For example, consider the following lesson for teaching students hierarchical blending (See Figure 5.24). Students can be greatly helped to understand the strategy of hierarchical blending through the use of a graphic organizer, such as is shown in Figure 5.25. Students practice, with teacher guidance, many more multi-syllable words, beginning with two- and three-syllable words and then progressing onto four- and fivesyllable words that do not use prefixes or suffixes. Finally, teach students prefixes and suffixes explicitly and place a listing of these common word affixes on the classroom wall. Then provide guided practice in the hierarchical blending strategy described here for words containing known prefixes and suffixes (e.g., na-tion) until students are able to blend multisyllabic words independently with accuracy and fluency. Once children understand and practice the hierarchical blending strategy, they become comfortable with decoding many of the “big” words they were once anxious about reading in second grade texts and beyond. In fact, our experience has been that once children learn
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 169
Figure 5.24 Hierarchical Blending Lesson Explanation. Today we will be learning how to blend parts of words to say really big words. Blending the parts of words to say big words is a very important part of learning how to read more challenging words and books. Blending big words is one of the important abilities you will learn in school to help you become a better reader. Modeling. I will model for you how to blend the parts of words to say big words. Here is a big word:
confirm 1. I want to blend the parts of this word to say the big word. 2. To blend the parts of this big word, I look for the vowels. [Model underlining the vowels in the big word.] 3. Once I have found the vowels in the big word, I break the word into parts around the vowels. [HINT: I never divide double vowels, such as oi, ai, oa, and ee, or consonant digraphs, such as ph, ch, wh, th, and sh. But I can divide between two consonants that are not consonant digraphs.] 4. In the word confirm there are two vowels—o and i. So, if I divide this word around the vowels o and i and between two consonants that are not a consonant digraph, I could divide the big word confirm into two word parts—con-firm. 5. To say this big word, I say the sound for each letter in the first word part /c/–/o/–/n/. 6. Then I blend the three sounds in this word part together to say the word part—con. 7. Next I say each letter sound in the second word part—/f/–/i/–/r/–/m. 8. Then I blend the four sounds to say the second word part—firm. 9. Last, I say the two word parts—con and firm. When I blend these two word parts together I say the word—confirm SOURCE: REUTZEL, D. RAY; COOTER, ROBERT B., TEACHING CHILDREN TO READ: THE TEACHER MAKES THE DIFFERENCE (SUBSCRIPTION), 8th Ed., ©2019. Reprinted and Electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, NY.
to use the hierarchical blending strategy fluently, they have the confidence to decode almost any word of any length!
Spelling in Parts (SIP) Age Range: 5-7 Standard: EBR Additions (Blending Sounds): Onset and Rime (1); Body & Coda (1); CVC, VCE, CV. CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3a: Know the -spelling-sound correspondences for common consonant digraphs. CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3g: Recognize and read -grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words. CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3f: Recognize and read -grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words. PURPOSE The spelling in parts (SIP) strategy (Powell & Aram, 2008) gives learners an opportunity to discover new spelling patterns and also allows readers who may be intimidated by large words to break them down into small chunks. This strategy can be helpful in improving both spelling and reading skills through the teaching of onset and rime and/or body and coda, as well as vowel patterns, such as VCE (-vowel— consonant-e), CVC (-closed-syllable) words, or CV (-open-syllable) words. This would be a great word wall activity, but it can also be used with sight words, free reading books, and core subject area materials in science, social studies, mathematics, and English/language arts. The procedure we describe follows the steps recommended by Powell and Aram (2008).
170 Chapter 5
Figure 5.25 Hierarchical Blending Strategy for Decoding Multisyllabic Words Look for the vowels in the word and underline them— elephant Break the word into chunks around the vowels (Note: Never divide double vowels— for example, oi, ai, oa, ee—or consonant diagraphs—for example, ph, ch, wh, th, sh. We can divide between double consonants that are not consonant digraphs.)— e/leph/ant or el/e/phant or e/le/phant Blend the letter sounds in the first chunk— e or el Say the chunk Blend the letter sounds in the second chunk— leph or e or le Say the chunk Blend the first and the second chunk— eleph or ele Blend the letter sounds in the third chunk— ant or phant Say the chunk Blend the first, second, and third chunks— e/leph/ant or el/e/phant or e/le/phant Say the word— elephant SOURCE: REUTZEL, D. RAY; COOTER, ROBERT B., TEACHING CHILDREN TO READ: THE TEACHER MAKES THE DIFFERENCE (SUBSCRIPTION), 8th Ed., ©2019. Reprinted and Electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, NY.
MATERIALS
• Ordinary writing materials PROCEDURE The teacher models examples first and provides other demonstrations as required. The children do the following:
1. Say and clap the word in syllables. 2. Divide the word into syllables while pronouncing each syllable. (The teacher may check that it is a reasonable division without teaching the explicit syllabication rules. For example, the division for the word bucket is buck-et; -buc-ket would be acceptable for this exercise, but bu-cket would not be.) 3. Say a syllable and then spell it. (The teacher checks that students are saying each phoneme within the syllable as they have written it.) 4. Circle any syllable with an unusual (irregular) or difficult pattern. 5. Study the circled syllable and think of a mnemonic or an analogy to recall the spelling pattern (e.g., the mnemonic “to-get-her” might be used for together, even though it requires the child to divide the word in an unconventional way).
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 171
6. Cover the syllable and then write it. 7. Check the syllable spelling and repeat as necessary.
Sound Swirl Age Range: 6-8 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.1.3g: Recognize and read -grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words. CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3f: Recognize and read -grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words. PURPOSE Sound Swirl is a simple activity that is used (1) to help students think of “words in their head” that have a certain sound element, and then (2) to use invented or temporary spellings to construct the words they have recalled. This helps students learn to sound out words and to notice particular word sounds as their phonics awareness grows. This activity is usually best applied as a guided practice exercise or for review. MATERIALS
• Chart paper • Markers in different colors PROCEDURE
1. Gather a group of children around you with whom you wish to review a phonics sound pattern (for our example here, we will use the beginning sound represented by /ch/ as in church). 2. Write the letters representing the sound you wish to emphasize (ch, in our example) on the chart paper using a colorful marker. 3. Say, “Boys and girls, I want us to see just how many words we can think of that begin with the sound made by the letters ch, which make the /ch/ sound. So get your mouth ready to make the /ch/ sound, swirl around all the letters in your head (making a grand gesture of a swirling motion above your head), and say the first words that come to your mind, right now!” 4. At this point, the students will call out such words as church, chump, change, child, chirp, and so on. Select a few of the words they have called out. 5. In -whole-group fashion (using volunteers), have them sound out the written words (as you write them, each time with ch in a different color from the rest of the word) so they can recognize visually how words can be sounded out and written.
Word Boxes (Elkonin Boxes) Age Range: 5-7 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3a: Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one -lettersound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant. EBR additions (decoding or segmenting sounds): Single consonant sounds (initial position) DRP: Uses beginning, medial, and ending consonant sounds in decoding unknown words. (1) EBR additions (blending sounds): Onset and rime (1); body and coda (1)
172 Chapter 5 PURPOSE Word boxes (Clay, 1993), also known as Elkonin Boxes (named for the ussian psychologist, D.B. Elkonin), are “designed to help children make -letter–R -sound correspondences and note -letter–-sound sequence patterns in words” (Devault & Joseph, 2004, p. 22). On a drawn rectangle divided into sections according to the number of sounds in a word, magnetic or tile letters are placed below the divided boxes, and the children slide the letters into the respective sections of the rectangle as each sound is articulated. This technique has been found to be effective for helping first graders and elementary children with disabilities achieve phonemic awareness, word identification, and spelling skills, as well as for high school students with severe reading difficulties. MATERIALS
• Word boxes, like the one shown in Figure 5.26, for each focus word • Magnetic letters, letter tiles from a Scrabble game, or laminated cutout letters • Large teacher’s word box with pockets or clips to attach index cards • Index cards with printed words for teacher’s word box PROCEDURE Repeated readings coupled with word boxes can be practiced with your students, depending on age and attention span, for 5 to 10 minutes for approximately 5 days per week.
1. Begin (in small groups of four or so) with a modeling exercise involving a readaloud from a favorite book at the group’s instructional (i.e., zone of proximal development) reading level. 2. Using a preselected target word displayed below a large word box with letters on index cards, say the sound represented by each letter while sliding it into place in its section of the word box. 3. After modeling this activity to the point of overlearning for students, have students begin trying it themselves, providing feedback and correction as needed. 4. At the completion of each word box lesson, present the same passage and provide students with appropriate time to read it orally. 5. During the following session, a different passage should be presented using the same procedures previously described.
Figure 5.26 Word Boxes
s
n
a
k
e
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 173
The Drastic Strategy Age Range: 5-8 Standard: ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.3.C Read common high-frequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does). PURPOSE An effective strategy for teaching students to remember high-frequency sight words involves word recognition instruction. Many teachers will remember from their days as elementary students Horn’s (1926) strategy for remembering word spellings.
• See the word. • Say the word. • Spell the word. • Write the word. • Check the word. Cunningham (1990) elaborated on this basic memory strategy for word spellings when she created the “drastic strategy” for remembering what she called “four-letter words” that were difficult to decode, highly frequent, and have abstract or no meanings that were difficult to remember, such as were, with, that, or what. The drastic strategy as described by Cunningham (1980) adds elements of oral language use, cutting words into letters and spelling, as well as highlighting words in written contexts and writing words from dictation. In this way a new word becomes part of the child’s listening, speaking, reading and writing vocabularies to ensure permanent learning. A lesson plan for a high-frequency sight word lesson related to the drastic strategy is found in Figure 5.27. The steps are appropriate for a whole class or a small group of students. During dictation time writing the word the, have the students use lapboards, whiteboards, or another type of writing surface and ask for choral responses in which students show their dictations after each word or group of words. Watch for students who copy from others and make quick notes about those who are not able to write words from dictation for follow-up instruction.
Figure 5.27 High Frequency Sight-Word Lesson Explanation. Today we will be learning how to remember words we read and write often. Remembering words we read and write man times is a very important part of learning how to read and write. Being able to read and write words we see often is one of the many important abilities you will learn in school to help you discover things in school and life. Modeling. I will model for you how to remember a word we read and write often. To remember a word I read and write often, I use a memory strategy. For example, if I want to remember the word the, I would go through the following steps to put that word into my memory. 1. See the word—the 2. Say the word—the 3. Spell the word—t-h-e 4. Visualize the word (take a picture in your mind)—the 5. Cover the word—the 6. Verbally spell the word—t-h-e 7. Uncover and check the word—the 8. Look at the word again and verbally spell the word—t-h-e 9. Cover the word—the 10. Write the word—the 11. Uncover and check the word—the 12. Cut up the word the on a 3 X 5 index card, mix and manipulate letters of the word to spell the word (two or three times), checking the spelling after each time. 13. Find the word the in print such as a copied book page or newspaper and color or highlight. 14. Write the word the three times. SOURCE: REUTZEL, D. RAY; COOTER, ROBERT B., TEACHING CHILDREN TO READ: THE TEACHER MAKES THE DIFFERENCE (SUBSCRIPTION), 8th Ed., ©2019. Reprinted and Electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, NY.
174 Chapter 5 An instructional chart for displaying this strategy for committing high-frequency words to memory is found in Figure 5.28. Teaching students to recognize words fluently essentially boils down to repeatedly modeling and having students use the three strategies—blending, segmenting, and sight word recognition —as presented in this section on effective phonics and word recognition instruction. If teachers will explicitly teach and then guide students in the practice and use of phonics and sight-word recognition strategies in reading decodable, leveled, and appropriately challenging trade books as well as using these in their writing and spelling, they will develop students who can and do read and write words accurately and fluently, making the comprehension of increasingly complex texts possible a required under the Core State Standards (CCSS).
Using Technology to Teach Decoding and Word Recognition Age Range: 5-8 Standard: ELA-LITERACY.RF.K.3.C Read common high-frequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does). ELA-LITERACY.RF.1.3 Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words. PURPOSE Gambrell (2007) argues that technology is the way that many of today’s “digital learners” engage to decode and recognize words in print. Today’s teachers are increasingly instructing students who are more wired than they are, having been drenched in digital environments from birth onward (Hughes, 2010; Roblyer & Doering, 2013; Suh & Gerson, 2013).
Figure 5.28 High Frequency Sight-Word Strategy the word. the word. Spell the word. Cover the word. Spell the word. Uncover the word and
it!
at the word again. Spell the word again. Cover the word. the word. Uncover the word and
it!
the word into letters. Scramble the letters. Spell the word. Do this
times.
Find the word on a paper or in a Highlight it or
.
it.
the word. Do this
times.
SOURCE: REUTZEL, D. RAY; COOTER, ROBERT B., TEACHING CHILDREN TO READ: THE TEACHER MAKES THE DIFFERENCE (SUBSCRIPTION), 8th Ed., ©2019. Reprinted and Electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, NY.
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 175
MATERIALS Fortunately, teachers today have ready access to Internet-connected computers and other digital devices that provide easy and free access to phonics and decoding lessons and word recognition teaching materials. Many schools also have computer projectors and document cameras that can bring online material to larger groups. In addition, computer programs with interactive gaming environments for students to work with decoding and word recognition activities are increasingly found on school computers. Examples include the Leapster GS or Leapster Explorer game systems and the Leapster Learning System [link to: leapfrog.com]. Do a web search using the term “Synthetic Phonics” for more online phonics activities that can be used to teach struggling readers. Many classrooms now have Smartboards that allow teachers to work from the front of the class and interact with students’ computers to highlight, type, write by hand, and otherwise operate directly on the computer image projected on students’ screens. Programs like PowerPoint can also enhance sight-word lessons by adding movement, as a sight word might fly in from the left, drop from the top, or disintegrate to add more spice to learning. Some simple but effective free Internet-based phonics games can be accessed through Super Simple Learning. The free reading instruction website Starfall provides teachers and children access to a variety of phonics games and phonic readers, including ABCs: Let’s Get Ready to Read and Learn to Read: Zac the Rat and other Tales. The world-renowned toy maker Fisher-Price also sponsors a website with several phonics games emphasizing letter names, sounds, and other sorting and selection activities. Video Resources for Additional Practice This section provides additional videos of students reading orally, as well as a copy of the passages they are reading. These videos can be used for additional practice with administering, interpreting, and Running Records. Note: These videos and passages do not include the teacher’s analysis.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource : The Big Bad Wolf (Reading Passage)
MyLab Education
Video Example 5.4 Alejandro Reads The Big Bad Wolf
MyLab Education Teacher Resource : Casey and the Tidepool (Reading Passage)
MyLab Education
Video Example 5.5 Charlotte Reads Casey and the Tidepool
(Continued)
176 Chapter 5
MyLab Education Teacher Resource : New Clothes (Reading Passage)
MyLab Education
Video Example 5.6 Charlotte Reads New Clothes
MyLab Education
Video Example 5.7 Yousuf Reads New Clothes
MyLab Education Teacher Resource : Bugs for Kids (Reading Passage)
MyLab Education
Video Example 5.8 Sofia Reads Bugs for Kids
Phonics, Decoding and Word Recognition Skills 177
Recommended Resources Horn, E. (1926). A basic vocabulary of 10,000 words most commonly used in writing. Iowa City: University of Iowa. Kress, J. E., & Fry, E. B. (2015). The reading teacher’s book of lists (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Invernizzi, M., Johnston, R., Templeton, S., & Bear, D. R. (2016). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Leu, D.J., & Kinzer, C.K. (2017). Phonics, phonemic awareness, and word analysis for teachers: An interactive tutorial (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Moats, L. C., & Rosow, B. (2013). Speech to print workbook: Language exercises for teachers (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. O’Connor, R. E. (2007). Teaching word recognition: Effective strategies for students with learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Chapter 6
Reading Fluency Mikhal, a third grader, walked reluctantly toward the chair placed next to his teacher, Mrs. Smith. He carried a tattered copy of his favorite book. He had practiced reading several pages in preparation for his regularly scheduled individual reading conference. “Mikhal, I’m so glad I get to spend some time today listening to you read. Are you ready?” asked Mrs. Smith. “Yeah, I think so,” answered Mikhal. “So, what story are you going to read for me today?” “I have a book called The Boy Who Owned the School I’d like to share,” answered Mikhal. “Great! I have my recording device here. I’m ready for you to read now, Mikhal. Where are you going to start reading?” “I’m going to start on page 7, Chapter 2. It’s called ‘The Joys of Home Life.’ ” “Okay then, start when you are ready.” Mrs. Smith starts the digital recorder, and Mikhal begins reading. “His father was a mechanical engineer who designed or invented a new drill bit for oil drilling, a selfcleaning, self-sharpening bit.” When Mikhal finished his reading, Mrs. Smith praised him on how well he had done. “Mikhal, you are reading very fluently. You sound just like you are speaking!” Mikhal beamed with pride. “Thanks,” he said quietly. “Can you tell me what you remember from the pages you read?” “I think so,” responded Mikhal. Mrs. Smith turned the recorder back on. When Mikhal finished, Mrs. Smith praised him again and then asked, “Would you like to hear what you said and add anything to it?” “Uh-huh.” Mrs. Smith played the recording for Mikhal, and he added one more detail he had remembered as he listened to his oral retelling of his own reading. That afternoon, Mrs. Smith looked at the record she had made from Mikhal’s earlier oral reading. He had read the text with 97% accuracy, so she knew that decoding this text was not a problem for Mikhal. Next, she timed his reading and figured out Mikhal’s reading rate in words read correctly per minute, and compared this against a chart showing expected reading rate ranges by grade level. Mikhal was on the upper end of the range for his grade level. Next, Mrs. Smith listened to Mikhal’s reading recording again, noting any problems with expression, pacing, smoothness, and phrasing. Again, Mikhal had performed well. Finally, Mrs. Smith listened to Mikhal’s oral retelling of the pages he had read aloud. He had remembered the major ideas and a good number of the details, evidencing his comprehension of the text. There was no doubt in Mrs. Smith’s mind that Mikhal was progressing well toward the goal of becoming a fluent reader!
Background Briefing for Teachers Reading fluency, the ability to read aloud smoothly at a reasonable rate and with expression, is acknowledged by researchers as an important goal in becoming a proficient and strategic reader (e.g., National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000;
178
Reading Fluency 179
Rasinski, 2012; Rasinski, Reutzel, Chard, & Linan-Thompson, 2011). However, a visit to many elementary school classrooms today would reveal that fluency development is sometimes left out of contemporary reading instruction and assessment (Rasinski, 2012). In this chapter we provide assessment and teaching strategies for delivering quality fluency instruction for every child. How can teachers assist all students in becoming fluent readers? First they must understand how children develop fluency in reading. Second, teachers must be able to assess fluency to determine which aspects of fluent reading require instruction and practice. Finally, teachers should know how to implement effective fluency instruction and practice so that all children develop fluent reading behaviors.
What is Fluency? Teachers and reading researchers agree that fluency involves (1) accurate, automatic and effortless decoding (automaticity); (2) age- or grade-level appropriate reading speed or rate; (3) appropriate use of volume and expression (i.e., pitch, juncture, and stress) or prosody in one’s voice; and (4) appropriate text phrasing or chunking (e.g., National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Paige, 2011; Samuels, 2012; Silverman et al., 2013). Thus, fluent readers decode words smoothly, effortlessly at an appropriate speed and do so with appropriate voice intonation-- all of which contribute to good comprehension. Figure 6.1 shows a flowchart describing reading fluency and its connection to improved comprehension (Cooter, 2015).
Figure 6.1 Reading Fluency Flow Chart Automaticity Automaticity is a quick and accurate level of word recognition with little conscious attention.
Fluency Fluency is the flow of a reader’s delivery in an oral reading. It involves a combination of rate, accuracy, and prosody.
Prosody Prosody includes expression, appropriate phrasing, and attention to punctuation. • The reader accurately adjusts the tone, intonation, speed, and fluency to match the intended message of a passage. • The reader reads aloud with appropriate pauses, stops, and starts. • The rate and speed are well-coordinated and enable the oral reading to sound natural.
Comprehension Fluent readers are able to focus attention on understanding the text.
MyLab Education
Video Example 6.1: Why Fluency?
https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=z3U8pjX4p2c In this video, you will learn why oral reading fluency is important for students to develop reading comprehension.
180 Chapter 6 Reading researchers (e.g., Rasinski & Padak, 1996; Reutzel, 2006; Worthy & Broaddus, 2002; Shanahan, Fisher, & Frey, 2012) agree on six effective instructional principles for providing effective fluency instruction: 1. repetition (repeated readings) 2. modeling 3. explicit instruction and feedback 4. support, scaffolding or assistance 5. phrasing practice 6. reading appropriately challenging materials. When students who lack decoding automaticity practice a single text repeatedly (three to five times per passage), oral reading becomes increasingly automatic. Observing, listening to, and imitating fluent reading models also help students learn how to become fluent readers themselves. Modeling fluent reading for students and pointing out specific behaviors as texts are read aloud, as well as providing informative feedback, can also help students become fluent. Teaching children explicitly what constitutes the chief characteristics of fluent reading, coupled with instruction on how to detect and fix fluency problems, is also critical in helping students become self-regulating readers (Reutzel, 2006). Supporting students with strategies like choral reading (Paige, 2011), buddy reading, and technology-assisted reading can be most effective in a wellconceived reading fluency program. Finally, providing readers with appropriately challenging reading materials for reading practice is essential for developing fluency. Understanding the nature, quantity, and quality of teacher feedback during oral reading is a crucial part of helping students become fluent readers (Shake, 1986). Self-assessment questions for teachers who provide students oral reading feedback are provided in Figure 6.2 to assist in this process.
Figure 6.2 Teacher Verbal Feedback “Think” Questions 1. Am I more often telling the word than providing a clue? 2. What is the average self-correction rate of my students? 3. Do I assist poor readers with unknown words more often than good readers? If so, why? 4. Am I correcting miscues even when they do not alter the meaning of the text? If so, why? 5. Does one reader group tend to engage in more self-correction than other groups? If so, why? 6. Does one reading group have more miscues that go unaddressed than other groups? 7. What types of cues for oral reading errors do I provide and why? 8. What is my ultimate goal in reading instruction? 9. How do I handle interruptions from other students during oral reading? Do I practice what I preach? 10. How does my feedback influence the self-correction behavior of students? 11. Does my feedback differ across reader groups? If so, how and why?
Reading Fluency 181
12. Would students benefit more from a form of feedback different from that which I normally offer? 13. Am I allowing students time to self-correct (3 to 5 seconds)? 14. Am I further confusing students with my feedback? 15. Do I digress into minilessons midsentence when students make a mistake? If so, why? 16. Do I analyze miscues to gain information about the reading strategies students employ? 17. Does the feedback I offer aid students in becoming independent, self-monitoring readers? If so, how? 18. Do I encourage students to ask themselves “Did that make sense?” when they are reading both orally and silently? If not, why not? 19. Do students need the kind of feedback I am offering them?
SOURCE: Adapted from “ “teacher interruptions during oral Reading instruction: Self-Monitoring as an impetus for Change in Corrective Feedback,” by M.
Shake, 1986, Remedial and Special Education, 7(5), 18–24. Copyright © 1986 by Sage publications inc. Journals.
Recent research on English learners’ (ELs) development of reading fluency suggests, as you might imagine, these students develop reading fluency (accuracy and rate) similar to children who speak English as their first language (August & Shanahan, 2006; Fitzgerald, Amendum, & Guthrie, 2008; Gutiérrez & Vanderwood, 2013). That said, much more research is needed at this point on how ELs develop phonemic awareness, prosody, and comprehension as a part of developing reading fluency (Gutiérrez & Vanderwood, 2013).
Fluency and the Common Core State Standards Reading fluency is contained in the English Language Arts (ELA) component of the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) under “Reading Foundational Skills” for grades K–-5. In Table 6.1 we present these standards by grade level. Unfortunately, you will find the language is vague and will not provide you with much to go on in terms of assessment and instruction. However, in the next section we provide you with concrete indicators.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Verbal Feedback “Think” Questions
Table 6.1 Fluency Skills Progression (K–5): CCSS English Language Arts Standards—Reading Foundational Skills Grade Level
CCSS Standards
Description
K
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.4
Read emergent-reader texts with purpose and understanding.
1
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.1.4
Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. (a) Read grade-level text with purpose and understanding. (b) Read grade-level text orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings. (c) Use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition and understanding, rereading as necessary.
2
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.4
Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension (a) Read grade-level text with purpose and understanding. (b) Read grade-level text orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings. (c) Use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition and understanding, rereading as necessary. (Continued)
182 Chapter 6
Table 6.1 (Continued) Grade Level 3
CCSS Standards
Description
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.4
Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension (a) Read grade-level text with purpose and understanding. (b) Read grade-level prose and poetry orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings. (c) Use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition and understanding, rereading as necessary.
4
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.4.4
Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension (a) Read grade-level text with purpose and understanding. (b) Read grade-level prose and poetry orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings. (c) Use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition and understanding, rereading as necessary.
5
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.5.4
Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension (a) Read grade-level text with purpose and understanding. (b) Read grade-level prose and poetry orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings. (c) Use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition and understanding, rereading as necessary.
Assessing Children’s Reading Fluency Fluency assessment has for many years focused somewhat exclusively on how quickly students could read a given text. This is known as reading rate or reading speed. Reading teachers have historically used words correct per minute (wcpm) to measure reading rate. Although wcpm is one indicator of fluent oral reading, it is only one. To adequately assess fluent oral reading, one should consider at least four different components: (1) accurate decoding of text; (2) reading rate or speed; (3) prosody, or the use of volume, stress, pitch, and juncture; and (4) mature phrasing or chunking of text. In the assessment strategies that follow we address these aspects of reading fluency.
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) Test (Grades 1.5 and Up) PURPOSE One of the simplest and most useful means of collecting reading fluency data is the use of a 1-minute reading sample (Rasinski, 2003) that measures words correct per minute or wcpm. The DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency fluency test (DORF) is available online in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) battery (Good & Kaminski, 2002). Passages and procedures in the DIBELS ORF measure are based on the research and development of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) of reading by Stan Deno and his colleagues (Wesson, King, & Deno, 1984) at the University of Minnesota and procedures described by Shinn (1989). According to the DIBELS Administration and Scoring Guide (Good & Kaminski, 2002), evidence of technical adequacy (reliability and validity) of this measure is drawn from a series of studies based on the CBM reading procedures in general. Technical reports show that test–-retest reliabilities for elementary students ranged from .92 to .97, and alternate-form reliability of different reading passages drawn from the same level ranged from .89 to .94 (Tindal, Marston, & Deno, 1983). In addition, criterion-related validity studied in eight separate studies in the past two decades ranged from .52 to .91 (Good & Jefferson, 1988; Good, Simmons, & Kameenui, 2001). On a cautionary note, many express concern that 1-minute reading assessments sometimes lead teachers to focus reading fluency instruction almost exclusively on increasing reading speed without attention to expression (prosody) or comprehension.
Reading Fluency 183
MATERIALS • Digital recorder or, if not available, have one blank audiocassette tape per student (-120-minute length strongly suggested) and the next two items that follow.
• A portable audiocassette recorder with an internal microphone • An audiocassette tape storage case for the class set • DIBELS grade-level passage • DIBELS administration and scoring directions • A timer can count down from 60 seconds to zero with an alarm sounding at zero • Pencil for marking the DIBELS passage PROCEDURE To administer the DORF measure, children are asked to read three passages aloud (one passage only for progress-monitoring purposes) that are at their grade level for 1 minute. Words omitted, words substituted, or hesitations of more than 3 seconds are scored as errors. Words self-corrected within 3 seconds are scored as accurate. The number of words read correctly in 1 minute is the reading rate. By using wcpm, reading rate is corrected for the accuracy of the reading. If a student is unable to read correctly any of the words in the first line of print of the grade-level passage, or if the student reads less than 10 words correctly in a passage, the student DORF test is discontinued. Full directions for using the DORF measurement can be obtained by going to the DIBELS website [link to: http://dibels.uoregon.edu], registering as a user (registration is free), and downloading the grade-level passages and the administration and scoring procedures. To minimize time spent by the teacher monitoring progress using DIBELS gradelevel passages, many teachers have found the use of an audiocassette recording tape for each child to be quite handy if a digital recorder is not available.
MyLab Education
Video Example 6.2: DIBELS NEXT: Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=M2N5-IBkt4o In this video, you will learn how to administer this reading fluency assessment. When you are finished, describe what teachers can learn about students’ reading fluency from administering DORF.
1. Set up the grade-level DIBELS passage to be read, with a line for the student’s name at the top, in a quiet section of the classroom where each student’s recorded reading can be completed along with the timer and a pencil. 2. Assign when students go to this area, testing roughly three or four students per day. 3. Students will put their personal audiocassette tapes into the recorder, set the time for one minute, turn on the record button, and start the timer. 4. Students then begin reading the DIBELS passage into the recorder and record the 1-minute reading sample (DIBELS passage). 5. When the 1-minute timer rings, students stop the audio recorder and mark the point where they stopped reading onto the DIBELS passage using the pencil. 6. Students turn in this paper copy of the DIBELS passage and the recorded reading into the teacher for analysis and feedback. 7. Listen to the four taped 1-minute samples per day, making note of each student’s wcpm rate and accuracy rates. 8. Give feedback from this analysis to students in written form when they are in the intermediate grades or orally during a very brief individual reading conference for primary-grade students. Teachers who have done this find the requirements of monitoring oral reading fluency growth to be much easier and a normal part of the daily routine in a classroom.
One-Minute of Reading Test Plus Prosody PURPOSE The 1-minute of reading test plus prosody is similar to the oral reading fluency test (ORF) mentioned previously, with three exceptions:
1. Teachers use their own graded classroom passages from the adopted core reading program or leveled books.
MyLab Education Application Exercise 6.1: Mr. Clancy and Chang Hu Case Study
184 Chapter 6 2. Teachers use a norm-referenced table established by Hasbrouck and Tindal (2006) to determine student progress in terms of wcpm. 3. Teachers consider prosody in determining students’ overall reading fluency development based on the work of Benjamin colleagues (2013). The purposes for assessing oral reading fluency are varied. Some reasons include the following: • Screening students for special program eligibility • Setting instructional goals and objectives • Assigning students to specific groups for instruction • Monitoring academic progress toward established goals • Diagnosing special needs for assistance or instruction MATERIALS
• A teacher-selected passage of 200 to 300 words • Curriculum-based measurement procedures for assessing and scoring oral reading fluency • Audio recorder • Oral Reading Fluency Norms for Grades 1–8 (see Table 6.2) PROCEDURE
1. Have the student read aloud for 1 minute from an unpracticed core reading passage. For screening decisions, the core reading passage is at the student’s grade level. For diagnostic or progress-monitoring decisions, the difficulty level of the passage may need to be at either the student’s instructional or goal level. 2. As the student reads, records errors. 3. Analyze the student’s wcpm and prosody. Errors are recorded as follows: • A word that is mispronounced or substituted for another word or an omitted word is counted as an error. • Words transposed in a phrase count as two errors (reading “jumped and ran” instead of “ran and jumped”). • A word read incorrectly more than once is counted as an error each time. • Words read correctly repeated more than once, errors self-corrected by the student, and words mispronounced due to dialect or speech impairments are not counted as errors. • An inserted word (one that does not appear in the text) is not counted as an error because the final score is an indication of the number of words that were in the text that were read correctly by the student within the 1-minute time period.
Analysis of the 1 Minute of Oral Reading There are two points to consider as you analyze the student’s 1 minute of oral reading: wcpm and the student’s use of good prosody. After 1 minute of oral reading, the teacher subtracts the total number of errors from the number of words read by the student to obtain a score of wcpm. To determine what constitutes a word reading error, refer back to the previous section for examples. Using more than one passage to assess fluency rates helps to control for any textbased or genre-type differences or variations. The final wcpm score can then be compared to established norms for making screening, diagnostic, or progress-monitoring
Reading Fluency 185
decisions. Reading rate norms for grades 1 through 8 have been established by H asbrouck and Tindal (2006), thus providing you with evidence-based benchmarks for determining reading rate (wcpm). We present these Oral Reading Fluency Norms for Grades 1–8 in Table 6.2. You might also consider the student’s prosody during oral reading before making a final judgment about their fluency. In research by Benjamin and colleagues (2013), they developed criteria for evaluating reading expression or prosody in two ways—expressive intonation and natural pausing. Table 6.3 shows an example of Benjamin colleagues’ (2013) reading expression scale as applied to second grade students in their study. When you play back the student’s reading on your recorder, focus on the student’s pauses and intonation using the four-item scale in Table 6.3 to judge prosody characteristics. Consider adjusting your estimate of the student’s reading fluency, up or down, based on prosody characteristics and problems observed. For example, a student who reads quickly but with poor prosody (e.g., reads with poor or no intonation or who may not attend to periods and commas with appropriate intonation changes) might be considered a bit lower in fluency development and require instruction to improve prosody as part of Tier 1 and 2 instructional adjustments.
Components of Fluency Assessment PURPOSE The Components of Fluency Assessment (CFA) was developed by the authors of this text as a practical classroom friendly measurement of students’ oral
Table 6.2 Grades 1–8 Oral Reading Fluency Norms (ORFN) for Words Correct Per Minute (wcpm)* Percentile
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Video Example 6.3: One-Minute Reading Test with Prosody(Adelia) In this video, Dr. Margaret Hudson conducts a One Minute Reading Test Plus Prosody with Adelia (age 6). At the end of the video, Dr. Hudson provides analysis of Adelia’s performance on this task.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
Age Range: 6 years -14 years
GRADE
MyLab Education
Fall
Winter
Spring
90
N. A.
81
111
50
N. A.
23
56
25
N. A.
12
28
90
106
125
142
50
51
72
89
25
25
42
61
90
128
146
162
50
71
92
107
25
44
62
78
90
145
166
180
50
94
112
123
25
68
87
98
90
166
182
194
50
110
127
139
25
85
99
109
90
177
195
204
50
127
140
150
25
98
111
122
90
180
192
202
50
128
136
150
25
102
109
123
90
185
199
199
50
133
146
151
25
106
115
124
WCPM: Words correct per minute * Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (2006). “Oral Reading Fluency Norms: A Valuable Assessment Tool for Reading Teachers.” The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636–645; Behavioral Research & Teaching (2005, January). Oral Reading Fluency: 90 Years of Assessment.
Dr. Hudson’s Scoring of Adelia’s One-Minute Reading Test
186 Chapter 6
Table 6.3 Prosody Considerations in Determining Students’ Reading Fluency: A Second Grade Example
Reading Rate/ Accuracy (wcpm)
Rating
Expressive Intonation
Natural Pausing
117 or more wcpm
4
• Varies pitch, stress, and juncture appropriately to communication meaning • Ends sentences with appropriate intonation • Pauses convey meaning
• Within-sentence pauses to convey meanings are evident • Natural between sentence pauses as appropriate
89–116 wcpm
3
• Varies pitch much of the time appropriately • Tries to correct prosody as needed to match texts • Drops pitch at end of sentences
• May have some long pauses within and between sentences that momentarily disrupt text flow • Pauses used primarily to mark phrases and sentences
61–88 wcpm
2
• Flat intonation or fails to match meaning or phrasing of texts • May not end sentences with appropriate intonation
• Pauses often within and between sentences
Fewer than 61 wcpm
1
• Reading with poor or no intonation • Does not attend to periods, commas with appropriate intonation changes
• Choppy reading with many pauses throughout
SOURCE: Adapted from Benjamin, R.G., Schwanenflugel, P.J., Meisinger, E.B., Groff, C., Kuhn, M.R. & Steiner, L. (2013). A spectrographically grounded scale for evaluating reading expressiveness. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 105–133.
reading fluency. The CFA provides research-based and valid information about the four components of fluent reading: 1) automatic decoding, 2) appropriate reading rate (speed) according to established grade-level norms (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006), 3) reading with expression (prosody), and 4) use of proper text phrasing (chunking). The CFA is appropriate for diagnosis, screening, or progress monitoring assessments. MATERIALS
• A teacher-selected passage for a 1-minute oral reading sample. The type of text used depends on your reading assessment purposes. For example, you may need to check students’ ability to read fluently independent-level narrative (story) texts in the core reading program to measure general reading fluency. Or, you may want to check students’ fluency when reading the adopted science and social studies textbooks. MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Components of Fluency Form
• A paper copy of the Components of Fluency Assessment (CFA) form is provided in Figure 6.3) • Audio recorder PROCEDURE
1. Set student up for a 1-minute passage using the selected text. 2. Have the student read the passage selected and record the reading for later analysis.
Reading Fluency 187
Figure 6.3 Components of Fluency Assessment (CFA) Form Date: Student Name: Text:
Grade Level: Examiner: Text Level
Component
Standard
Automatic decoding (Automaticity)
Independent Level- Decodes words with 95% or better accuracy.
Student’s Performance
Notes/Next Steps
Instructional Level – Decodes words with 90-94% accuracy. (Needs instructional support) Frustration Level- Decodes words with 89% or less accuracy. (Poor decoding)
Reading rate (speed)* *Use “1-minute of reading” procedure
Able to read this passage with words correct per minute (wcpm) at the 50th percentile or better according to norms table (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006).
Reading with Expression (prosody)
Proficient- Reads with appropriate expression according to the text’s message and punctuation. Developing- Read some parts of the text with appropriate expression according to the text’s message and punctuation. Unacceptable- Read with little or no expression (monotone).
Text Phrasing (chunking)
Reads passage in meaningful phrases. Example of good text phrasing: The child…was swimming…in the lake. Example of poor text phrasing: The… child…was swimming…in…the…lake.
3. Replay the student’s reading during your planning time and rate each component of fluency using the CFA. 4. Analyze the performance of the student and then decide on next steps for instruction. The CFA can also be used to rate group performances such as plays, readers’ theater, and radio readings (Reutzel & Cooter, 2015). For radio readings, students can also prepare a text for reading and recording, complete with sound effects if they wish. In Figure 6.4, we summarize the fluency assessment procedures and tests we have discussed thus far and provide summary information about federally related assessment purposes (i.e., screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, or outcomes assessment), as well as type of test or procedure and psychometric evidence of test or procedure scores (any available reliability and validity evidence).
MyLab Education Application Exercise 6.2: One-Minute Reading Test with Prosody and Components of Fluency Assessment
188 Chapter 6
Figure 6.4 Summary Matrix of Fluency Assessment Procedures or Tests ASSESSMENT STRATEGY(S)
ASSESSMENT PURPOSE(S): SCREENING (S), DIAGNOSTIC (D), PROGRESS MONITORING (M), OUTCOMES (O)
RELIABILITY (R), VALIDITY (V) EVIDENCE
One-Minute of Reading Test Plus Prosody
S, D, M, O
R: Not available V: Not available
FLUENCY SKILLS AUTOMATICITY Student uses adequate decoding for comprehension with grade level texts
READING RATE Student reads at an appropriate rate/speed for the grade level * see Table 6.2: Hasbrouck & Tindal (2006) Oral Reading Norms
PROSODY Student reads with appropriate expression and volume for the grade level
PHRASING Student reads with appropriate (chunking) for the grade level
Note: Hasbrouck & Tindal (2006) report that the validity and reliability of words correct per minute (wcpm) measures, including in one-minute of reading tests, have been well established in a body of research over nearly three decades. Components of Fluency Assessment (CFA)
S, D, M, O
R: Reported test-retest reliability of .99 V: Criterion-related validity for fluency components
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) Test
S, O
R: Test-retest reliabilities for elementary students ranged from .92 - .97; alternate form reliabilities using different passages drawn from the same level ranged from .89 - .94 V: Criterion-related validity ranged from .51 - .94
One-Minute of Reading Test Plus Prosody
S, D, M, O
See notes above
One-Minute of Reading Test Plus Prosody
S, D, M, O
See notes above
Components of Fluency Assessment (CFA)
S, D, M, O
R: Reported test-retest reliability of .99 V: Criterion-related validity for fluency components
One-Minute of Reading Test Plus Prosody
S, D, M, O
See notes above
Components of Fluency Assessment (CFA)
S, D, M, O
R: Reported test-retest reliability of .99 V: Criterion-related validity for fluency components
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Classroom Profile Form-Reading Fluency Skills
After reviewing evidence-based research as well as the Common Core foundational skills for reading fluency, we constructed a classroom profile for your use to summarize fluency skill development for each student, and to help identify which learners may need to work in pairs or in teacher-led small group instruction. In Table 6.4 we provide for your use our CLASSROOM PROFILE FORM: READING FLUENCY SKILLS. In Table 6.5 we provide a partial example of the Classroom Profile Form for second grade students with data recorded.
Connecting Assessment Findings to Teaching Strategies Before discussing fluency intervention strategies, we provide an If-Then Chart connecting assessment to intervention and strategy choices. It is our intention to help you select the most appropriate instructional interventions and strategies to meet your students’ fluency development needs based on assessment data. Most fluency development activities tend to fall into differing types of practice strategies. In the If-Then Chart shown in Table 6.6 we have listed the teaching strategies that appear in the next section and link them to key areas of need that your fluency assessments have revealed.
STUDENT NAME
AUTOMATICITY (A) Standard: Student uses adequate decoding for comprehension with grade level texts Directions: Record highest grade level of reading materials at which student reads with 95% or better word identification accuracy.
READING RATE (RR) Standard: Student reads at an appropriate rate/speed for the grade level Directions: Record highest grade level at which the student achieves the 50th percentile or better in WCPM according to the Oral Reading Fluency Norms (see Table 6.2).
Table 6.4 Classroom Profile Form: Reading Fluency Skills PROSODY Standard: Student reads with appropriate expression and volume for the grade level Directions: Using the column “Expressive Intonation” in Table 6.3, rate the student from 1-4. Teacher judgment may also be used/ substituted. PHRASING Standard: Student reads with appropriate phrasing while reading (chunking) for the grade level. Directions: Using the column “Natural Pausing” in Table 6.3, rate the student from 1-4. Teacher judgment may also be used/ substituted.
NEXT STEPS: SUMMARY OF STUDENT’S INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS
Reading Fluency 189
42 wcpm = mid 1st grade level
73 wcpm = mid 2nd grade
90 wcpm = mid 3rd grade
GR/Grade = L/High 2nd grade*
GR/Grade = K/Mid 2nd grade*
GR/Grade = K/Mid 2nd grade*
Sofia
Dak
Cole
3
4
2
PROSODY (P) Standard: Student reads with appropriate expression and volume for the grade level Directions: Using the column “Expressive Intonation” in Table 6.3, rate the student from 1-4. Teacher judgment may also be used/substituted.
2nd grade (GR level K)
4
2
PHRASING (PHR) Standard: Student reads with appropriate phrasing while reading (chunking) for the grade level. Directions: Using the column “Natural Pausing” in Table 6.3, rate the student from 1-4. Teacher judgment may also be used/ substituted.
A: On level RR: Above level P: Prosody is improving, but Cole still tends to use incorrect intonation after many sentences. PHR: Appropriate pauses and chunking with level K materials. Continue on-level developmental instruction in fluency on level M and N.
A: On level RR: On level P: Good prosody with on-level materials PHR: Appropriate pauses and chunking of phrases. Continue on-level developmental instruction in fluency on level M and N.
I think Sofia needs repeated reading practice with a buddy focusing on expression. This should help RR and prosody.
A: On level RR: About one year below level. P: Reads with a monotone and sometimes ends sentence with incorrect tone (ex. Question tone when the sent. Ends in a period). PHR: Choppy reading with lots of pauses.
NEXT STEPS: SUMMARY OF STUDENT’S INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS
Note: For automaticity, the teacher in this example is using Guided Reading (GR) levels to indicate reading levels and also translated GR levels to approximate reading grade levels via a leveling chart (many are available online: search using “translation of guided reading level to grade level”).
READING RATE (RR) Standard: Student reads at an appropriate rate/speed for the grade level Directions: Using the Oral Reading Fluency Norms (see Table 6.2), record highest-grade level at which the student achieves the 50th percentile or better in WCPM.
AUTOMATICITY (A) Standard: Student uses adequate decoding for comprehension with grade level texts Directions: Record highest grade level of reading materials at which student reads with 95% or better word identification accuracy.
STUDENT NAME
Table 6.5 Classroom Profile Form: Reading Fluency Skills -- Partial 2nd Grade Example (Administered in Winter)
190 Chapter 6
Reading Fluency 191
Table 6.6 If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide: Readingh Fluency “IF” your assessment show that a student needs to learn this skill . . .
“THEN” use this teaching strategy(s) first (and page #)
Alternate Teaching Strategy(s) That Are Appropriate (and page #)
Automaticity
Choral Reading
Repeated Readings Assisted and Partner Reading Closed-Caption Television
Reading Rate
Repeated Readings
Scaffolded Silent Reading (ScSR) Choral Reading Assisted and Partner Reading
Prosody
Explicit Fluency Instruction Fluency-Oriented Reading Instruction
Fluency-Oriented Reading Instruction Readers’ Theater Radio Reading
Phrasing/”Chunking”
Oral Recitation Lesson
Explicit Fluency Instruction Neurological Impress
Developing Reading Fluency for Each Student After a careful assessment of a student’s reading fluency as outlined previously, one or more of the following fluency development strategies or integrated fluency lesson frameworks may be appropriately applied. Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that children with poorly developed fluency must receive regular opportunities to read and reread for authentic and motivating reasons, such as to gather information, to present a dramatization, or simply to reread a favorite story. The strategies described in this section offer effective and varied means to help learners become more fluent readers in authentic, effective, and motivating ways.
Oral Recitation Lesson Age Range: 6 years -12 years Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.2.4 through CCSS. ELA- Literacy.RF 5.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. PURPOSE The oral recitation lesson (ORL) format is drawn from the one-room schoolhouse period of American education (Hoffman, 1987). During these early years of American education, teachers modeled reading aloud and students were then assigned all or part of the text for practice, which they later read aloud to the class using a practice called recitation. The ORL shares many important theoretical and practical characteristics with the shared book approach strategy described in Chapter 4. According to Rasinski (1990), the shared book approach and the ORL are similar in respect to teacher modeling, repeated readings of text, independent reading, and the use of predictable and meaningful materials. Thus, the shared book approach may be seen in many respects as a less formalized approach to developing fluency with children (Nelson & Morris, 1986). However, for some readers (and teachers), the ORL offers a degree of security through providing a predictable lesson structure for planning. MATERIALS
• Student self-selected books appropriate for reading aloud PROCEDURE The oral recitation lesson incorporates two basic components, with each made up of several routines as delineated in the following outline:
I. Direct instruction A. Comprehension B. Practice C. Performance
192 Chapter 6 II. Indirect instruction A. Fluency practice B. Demonstrate expert reading Direct instruction consists of three subroutines: a comprehension phase, a practice phase, and a performance phase. A. Comprehension: 1. The teacher begins an oral recitation lesson by reading a story aloud. 2. The teacher then leads the students through an analysis of the story’s content with the aid of a story grammar map to help frame a discussion of the major elements of the story, such as setting, characters, goals, plans, events, and resolution. 3. Students are asked to tell what they remember about these parts of the story. 4. The teacher records their responses on the story grammar map. 5. At the conclusion of this discussion, the story grammar map is used as an outline for students to write a story summary. B. Practice: During the second subroutine, practice, the teacher works with students to improve their oral reading expression. 1. The teacher models fluent reading aloud with parts of the text. 2. Then the students individually or chorally practice imitating the teacher’s oral expressions. Choral readings of texts can be accomplished in a number of ways (for example, see the discussion of four-way oral reading in the “Choral Reading” section of this chapter). Text segments modeled by the teacher during the practice phase may begin with only one or two sentences and gradually move toward modeling and practicing whole pages of text. C. Performance The third subroutine is the performance phase. 1. Students select and perform a part of the text for others in the group. 2. Then listeners are encouraged to comment positively on the performance by stating what they liked about the oral reading by their peers. 3. The teacher then asks questions about parts of the reading students liked less. Teacher modeling is very important with this latter activity. For instance, the teacher may model a question about a strange rendition of the Big Bad Wolf in the Three Pigs story by saying, “I noticed that your voice had a nice and friendly tone when you read the Big Bad Wolf’s part. I’m curious, why did you choose to read his part that way when so many other readers choose to use a mean-sounding voice for that character?” Many times the student has a perfectly logical reason for irregular intonation or other anomalies. Sometimes it is simply a matter of not enough practice time. If so, this regular format helps students be aware that there is some accountability for these lessons. The second major component of the ORL is an indirect instruction phase. During this part of the lesson, students practice a single story until they become expert readers. 1. For 10 minutes each day, students practice reading a story or text segment in a soft or mumble reading fashion. 2. Teachers use this time to check on students individually—what we term house calls—for story mastery before the student moves on to another story.
Reading Fluency 193
Hoffman (1987) defined expert reader as one who reads with 98% accuracy and 75 wcpm. The direct instruction component creates a pool of stories from which the students can select for expert reading activities in the indirect instruction phase. In summary, the ORL provides teachers with a workable strategy to break away from the traditional practice of round-robin oral reading.
Fluency-Oriented Reading Instruction Age Range: 6 years -12 years Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.4 through CCSS. ELA-Literacy.RF 5.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. PURPOSE Fluency-oriented reading instruction (FORI), based on repeated reading research, is an integrated lesson framework for providing comprehensive instruction and practice in fluency in the elementary school (Stahl, Heubach, & Cramond, 1997). FORI consists of three interlocking aspects, according to its authors: (1) a redesigned core reading program lesson, (2) a buddy-reading period at school, and (3) a home reading program. Recent research on the effects of FORI showed that children receiving FORI instruction significantly outperformed a control group comparison (Kuhn & Schwanenflugel, 2008; Stahl & Heubach, 2006; Stahl et al., 2003). MATERIALS
• Core reading program text • Richly appointed classroom library for free reading at school and home • Extension activities drawn from the core reading program text • Teacher-prepared graphic organizer of the text in the core or basal program • Teacher-prepared audio for assisted reading practice PROCEDURE On the first day of a FORI lesson:
1. The teacher begins by reading the core reading program story or text aloud to the class. 2. Following the reading by the teacher, the students and teacher interactively discuss the text to place reading comprehension up front as an important goal to be achieved in reading any text. 3. Following this discussion, the teacher teaches vocabulary words and uses graphic organizers and other comprehension activities focused around the story or text the teacher has read aloud. On the second day of a FORI lesson: 1. Teachers can choose to have children echo read the core reading program text with the teacher or have children read only a part of the story repeatedly for practice with a partner or with the teacher. 2. Following this practice session, the story or text is sent home for the child to read with parents, older siblings, or other caregivers. On the third and fourth days of a FORI lesson: 1. Children receive additional practice. 2. Children then participate in vocabulary and comprehension exercises around the story. 3. Children are also given decoding instructions on difficult words in the core reading story or text.
194 Chapter 6 On the fifth and final day of the FORI lesson: 1. Children are asked to give a written response to the story to cement their comprehension of the text. In addition to the core reading program instruction to develop fluency found in the FORI framework, the teachers provide additional in-school free-reading practice with easy books that students read alone (if they are strong readers) or with partners (buddy reading) for between 15 and 30 minutes per day. At the beginning of the year, the time allocated to this portion of a FORI lesson is closer to 15 minutes; the time increases throughout the year to 30 minutes. As a part of their homework assignment in the FORI framework, children are expected to read at home 15 minutes a day at least 4 days per week. This outside reading is monitored through the use of reading logs.
Repeated Readings Age Range: 6 years -12 years Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.4 through CCSS. ELA-Literacy.RF 5.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Rate and Accuracy Tracking Graphs
PURPOSE Repeated readings engage students in reading short (100- to 200-word) passages orally over and over again. The essential purpose (and benefit) of repeated readings is to enhance students’ reading automaticity—rate and accuracy (Dowhower, 1989; Rasinski et al., 2005; Samuels, 1979). Although it may seem that reading a text again and again could lead to boredom, it can actually have just the opposite effect, especially for younger readers. Repeated readings help students by expanding the total number of words they can recognize instantaneously and, as previously mentioned, help improve students’ comprehension and oral elocution (performance) with each succeeding attempt. Improved performance quickly leads students to improved confidence regarding reading aloud and positive attitudes toward the act of reading. Additionally, because high-frequency words (the, and, but, was, and so on) occur in literally all reading situations, the increase in automatic sight word knowledge developed through repeated readings transfers far beyond the practiced texts. In the beginning, texts selected for repeated readings should be short, predictable, and easy. Examples of poetry we recommend for repeated readings with at-risk readers include those authored by Shel Silverstein and Jack Prelutsky. Stories by Bill Martin, such as Brown Bear, Brown Bear or Eric Carle’s The Very Hungry Caterpillar, are also wonderful places to start this activity. When students attain adequate speed and accuracy with easy texts, the length and difficulty of the stories and poems can gradually be increased. MATERIALS
• Short texts of varying difficulty • Tracking graph for each student (Figure 6.5) • One or more audio recording devices PROCEDURE In this exercise, each reading is timed and recorded on a chart or graph. Students compete with themselves, trying to better their own reading rate and cut down on errors with each successive attempt. With each attempt, students’ comprehension and prosody improve (Dowhower, 1987; Reutzel & Hollingsworth, 1993, Ring, Barefoot, Avrit, Brown & Black, 2012). Students with reading problems find it reinforcing to see visible evidence of improvement. Figure 6.5 illustrates a tracking graph of student progress in repeated readings. To increase reading rate, all students must learn to recognize words without having to sound them out. Both the amount of time it took to read the
Reading Fluency 195
Figure 6.5 Rate and Accuracy Tracking Graphs Oral Reading Errors
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
35 30 25 20 15 10 5
Dates
Jan 31
Dec 30
Dec 15
Nov 30
Nov 15
Oct 31
Jan 31
Dec 30
Nov 30
Dec 15
Nov 15
Oct 31
Oct 15
0 Oct 15
Words per Minute
35
Dates
selection and the number of oral reading errors that occurred during each trial day can be graphed by the teacher. One way of supporting readers during repeated readings is to use a recorded version of the story or poem. 1. Students can read along with a recording to develop fluency similar to the model. 2. Also, students can record their oral reading performance as a source of immediate feedback. If two digital recorders are available, ask students to listen to and read along with the recorded version of the text using headphones. At the same time, use the second recorder for recording the student’s oral reading. 3. The child can then either replay his or her version simultaneously with the teacherrecorded version to compare or simply listen to his or her own rendition alone. Either way, the feedback can be both instant and effective. You may use recordings of repeated readings for further analysis of each reader’s improvement in fluency and comprehension. Also, using a recording frees the teacher to work with other students, thereby conserving precious instructional time and leaving behind an audit trail of student readings for later assessment and documentation. On occasion, teachers should listen to the recording with the reader present. During this time, the teacher and student can discuss effective ways of reducing word-recognition errors and increasing reading rate.
Assisted and Partner Reading Age Range: 6 years -12 years Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.4 through CCSS. ELA-Literacy.RF 5.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. PURPOSE Assisted reading can be accomplished in one of two ways: (1) with human support or (2) with technology support. When human support is provided, this is usually called partner reading (also called buddy, dyad, peer, or paired reading). Partner reading involves two students reading the same text aloud in unison for mutual support or one listening and one reading for informative feedback and guidance (Eldredge & Quinn, 1988; Greene, 1970; Lefever-Davis & Pearman, 2005; Rasinski, Reutzel, Chard, & LinanThompson, 2011; Topping, 2006; Topping & Ehly, 1998). When technology support is provided, this is usually called computer-assisted reading. Two excellent but somewhat expensive computer-assisted programs are Read Naturally (Ihnot, 1997) and Insights: Reading Fluency (Adams, 2002). You can learn more about these two programs by going to their websites: www.readnaturally.com and www.charlesbridge-fluency.com.
196 Chapter 6 MATERIALS
• Appropriately challenging practice passages (typically on the student’s instructional level); for partner reading sessions, materials that are equally familiar and motivating for both students PROCEDURE Computer-assisted reading involves students listening to a recording of a passage or book multiple times for practice. Computer-assisted reading can be complex or simple depending on the software employed. In most cases, computer-assisted reading is much like tape-assisted reading with the exception that the text is presented on the computer screen. As children read the words, the computer program often backlights or highlights the words with a color. If students do not know a word after a predetermined period of time, the computer will say the word. Some more expensive and complex computer-assisted programs even have voice-recognition software and maintain an individual student record of each student’s fluency development over multiple rereadings. In partner reading, students are paired according to their general reading level; just as important, they should be paired according to their ability to work well with one another. A spirit of teamwork and cooperation must be present so that when one reader stumbles, the other lends assistance. The partner reading practice sessions can be recorded and played back for the students and teachers to evaluate. Discussions of replays should center not only on word recognition accuracy but also on reading rate, pausing, volume, intonation, expressive oral interpretation, and comprehension of the text.
Readers’ Theater Age Range: 6 years -12 years Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.2.4 through CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF 5.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. PURPOSE Readers’ theater is a strategy whereby students practice reading from a script and then share their oral reading with classmates and selected audiences (Opitz & Rasinski, 2008; Sloyer, 1982). Unlike a play, students do not memorize lines or use elaborate stage sets to make their presentations. Emphasis is placed on presenting an interpretation of literature read in a dramatic style for an audience who imagines setting and actions. Readers’ theater has been widely used, and reports indicate that it is an effective practice strategy for increasing students’ reading fluency at a variety of ages (Flynn, 2005; Griffith & Rasinski, 2004; Martinez, Roser, & Strecker, 1999). MATERIALS
• Readers’ theater scripts • Minimal props (masks, hats, simple costumes) PROCEDURE We strongly recommend that scripts obtained for readers’ theater be drawn from tales originating from the oral tradition, poetry, or quality picture books designed to be read aloud by children. Selections should be packed with action and have an element of suspense; they should also comprise an entire, meaningful story or episode. Moreover, texts selected for use in readers’ theater should contain sufficient dialogue to make reading and preparing the text a challenge, as well as involving several children as characters. A few examples of such texts include Martin and Archambault’s Knots on a Counting Rope (1987), Viorst’s Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day (1972), and Barbara Robinson’s The Best Christmas Pageant Ever (1972). Several websites make many excellent readers’ theater scripts readily available to classroom teachers: www.aaronshep.com/rt/index.html, www .readinglady.com,
Reading Fluency 197
and http://-readers-theatre.com. Commercially published readers’ theater scripts are now available for the same script at differing levels of difficulty, allowing all children to participate in a readers’ theater performance at their own level. Sundance Publishing Company is one of the first groups to publish leveled readers’ theater scripts (Flynn, 2005; Griffith & Rasinski, 2004; Martinez et al., 1999). If a story is selected for reading, students are assigned to read characters’ parts. If poems are selected, students may read alternating lines or groups of lines. . Students often benefit from a discussion prior to reading a readers’ theater script. The purpose of this discussion is to help students make connections between their own background experiences and the text to be read. Also, struggling students benefit from listening to a previously recorded performance of the text as a model prior to the initial reading of the script. Hennings (1974) described a simplified procedure for preparing readers’ theater scripts for classroom performance. 1. The text to be performed is read silently by the individual students. 2. The text is read again orally, sometimes using choral reading in a group. 3. After the second reading, children choose their parts or the teacher assigns parts to the children. We suggest that students be allowed to write their three most desired parts on a slip of paper submitted to the teacher and that teachers do everything possible to assign one of these three choices to the requesting student. 4. The third reading is also an oral reading with students reading their parts with scripts in hand. There may be several rehearsal readings as students prepare for the final reading or performance in front of the class or a selected audience. Readers’ theater offers students a unique opportunity to participate in reading along with other, perhaps more-skilled readers. Participating in the mainstream classroom with better readers helps students having reading problems feel a part of their peer group while providing them with ready models of good reading and demonstrating how good readers, through practice, become even better readers. Working together with other readers fosters a sense of teamwork, support, and pride in personal and group accomplishment. Readers’ theater in the round, in which readers stand around the perimeter of the room and the audience is in the center surrounded by the readers, is a fun and interesting variation for both the performers and audience
Radio Reading Age Range: 6 years -12 years Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.2.4 through CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RF 5.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. PURPOSE A variation on repeated reading and readers’ theater, radio reading (Greene, 1979; Searfoss, 1975) is a procedure for developing oral reading fluency in a group setting intended to provide an alternative to the old and now discredited approach to oral reading called round robin, in which students were assigned by the teacher to take turns reading aloud while all of the other students in the circle or small group listened and presumably followed along in the text (Eldredge, Reutzel, & Hollingsworth, 1996). We have found radio reading to be most effectively used with short selections from information texts threaded together to make a news broadcast performance. MATERIALS
• News story “scripts” for each student drawn from any print media, such as newspapers, magazines, or any print source that can be converted into a news story, such as short selections from articles or sections in information books
198 Chapter 6 PROCEDURE
1. Select a short selection from an information book on weather, volcanoes, spiders, sports figures, and so on to be presented as a short report by various reporters during a news broadcast. 2. Select students to fill the roles of broadcast news anchor and the various reporters. 3. Help students to write a script for the anchor to thread the various news reports together in a cohesive fashion. 4. Students rehearse the selections repeatedly with a partner or the teacher until they gain confidence and can read the script with proper volume, accuracy, rate, phrasing, and expression. Emphasis is first placed on the meaning of the text segments so that the students can paraphrase any difficult portions of the text if needed during the presentation. Students are encouraged to keep the ideas flowing in the same way a reporter or news anchor would. 5. Students perform the radio reading for an audience. Only the radio readers and the teacher have copies of the scripts. Because other students have no script to follow, minor word-recognition errors will go unnoticed if the text is well presented.
Scaffolded Silent Reading (ScSR) Age Range: 8 years -12 years Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.2.4 through CCSS. ELA-Literacy.RF 5.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. PURPOSE Scaffolded silent reading (ScSR) is silent reading practice that redesigns practice conditions to deal affirmatively with past concerns and criticisms surrounding traditionally implemented silent sustained reading (SSR). ScSR is intended to provide students with necessary support, guidance, structure, accountability, and monitoring that will assist them in transferring their oral reading skills to successful and effective silent reading practice (Hiebert, 2006; Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, & Smith, 2008, Reutzel & Juth, 2014). MATERIALS
• A classroom book collection arranged in tubs or crates containing different genres • Genre wheel • Computer projector and erasable markers PROCEDURE
1. Carefully arrange the classroom library to support and guide children’s book reading choices toward appropriately challenging books at the independent reading level. 2. Place color-coded cloth tape on the book bindings or stickers in the upper right-hand corners of the covers to show the difficulty levels of books within the classroom library. The opportunity to choose their reading materials increases students’ motivation to read (Gambrell, 1996; Guthrie & Wigfield, 1997; Turner & Paris, 1995). Unguided choice, on the other hand, can often lead to selections of inappropriately difficult books for reading practice (Donovan, Smolkin, & Lomax, 2000; Fresch, 1995). 3. Organize books into tubs or crates of different genres. Recent research suggests that wide reading is effective in promoting children’s reading choices as well as fluency and comprehension development (Kuhn, 2005).
Reading Fluency 199
4. Give students brief lessons about book selection strategies, including: (1) orienting students to the classroom library, (2) book talks and getting children excited about books, (3) selecting a book in the classroom library, (4) selecting a “just right” or appropriately leveled book from the classroom library, and (5) checking the reading levels of books. 5. Teach students the “three finger” rule, which, as described by Allington (2006), involves indicating with a finger each word they don’t recognize on a page of print. If there are three or more fingers extended for a page of print, the text is considered to be too difficult. 6. Begin ScSR practice each day with a short (usually about 5 to 8 minutes) explanation and modeling of an aspect or element of fluent reading or how to use a comprehension strategy with a teacher-selected text. For example, a teacher wanting to help students become more expressive through effective phrasing might provide a lesson on observing the punctuation in the text. Displaying a text on the overhead projector, the teacher might color code the commas with yellow and the terminal punctuation marks with red. The teacher then would model how to use the punctuation marks to phrase the text appropriately. He might also demonstrate how the same text would sound if the punctuation marks were ignored while reading. The teacher might also invite students to join with him in a quick rereading of the overhead displayed text in a choral reading. 7. As students silently read appropriately challenging books from different genres, make monitoring visits called individual teacher–student reading conferences. During each individual reading conference, ask the student to read aloud from his or her book while making a running record analysis of the reading. 8. After the student reads aloud for 1 to 2 minutes, initiate a brief, 2-minute discussion about the book the student is reading. To monitor comprehension, the teacher can ask, “Please tell me about what you just read.” A follow-up might involve asking students to answer general story structure questions if the book is narrative. For informational books, students can answer questions about facts related to the topics. 9. Finally, ask the student to set a goal for a date to finish the book and to think about how they might share what the book is about from a displayed menu of “book response projects,” such as drawing and labeling a character wanted poster, making a story map, or filling in a blank graphic organizer. 10. After each individual reading conference, record the running record score, comprehension retell and question answers, the goal for book completion, and the selected book response project to be completed after finishing the book.
Explicit Fluency Instruction Age Range: 6 years -12 years Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.1.4 through CCSS.-ELA- Literacy.RF 5.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. PURPOSE The primary purposes of explicit fluency instruction are twofold: (1) to teach students to clearly understand what is meant by fluency, and (2) to teach students how to self-monitor, evaluate, self-regulate, and otherwise “fix up” their own fluency problems over time. “Some students struggle with reading because they lack information about what they are trying to do and how to do it. They look around at their fellow students who are learning to read [fluently and well] and say to themselves, ‘How are they doing that?’ In short they are mystified about how to do what other students seem to do with ease” (Duffy, 2004, p. 9).
200 Chapter 6
Sample Lesson: Teaching an Explicit Fluency Lesson Teach this lesson to a K or 1st grade student or small group of students. Note two things: 1) the level of motivation the strategy engenders, and 2) the attention students pay to punctuation marks in print to facilitate reading fluency development. Objective: Students will be able to read “A Very Important Day” with appropriate phrasing. Supplies: Textbook Book copies; markers (red, yellow, green, blue); document camera; student books for choral unison reading. Text Types: Narrative ( ) Information Books ( ) Poetry ( ) Hybrid (X) Explanation: • What is to be taught: Today boys and girls we will be learning about phrasing when we read. Important parts of phrasing are reading to the punctuation without pausing or stopping. Marks on the page called punctuation marks (point to) help us to know when we need to pause or stop. When we come to punctuation, we need to remember to raise or lower our pitch as we read. Pitch is how high or low the sounds are that we make with our voices (demonstrate high and low pitch). • Why it is important to learn: Phrasing in reading is important because it helps you and your listeners understand and enjoy the story. • When/Where will it be used: Phrasing is always an important part of reading. Modeling: • How you think about this or do it: Appropriate Model (What it is!): First I am going to read this page with good phrasing paying attention to what the punctuation tells me to do, such as pause or stop. Please look at the page on the board. Notice that I have colored each punctuation mark with a different color to help you see them more clearly. Red is for periods which tells us to stop and lower our pitch. Yellow is for commas which tell us to take a quick breath, our pitch goes down and then we read on. Blue is for exclamation points which tell us to stop and raise our pitch. Green is for quotation marks. Quotation marks mean someone is talking, so we change our voice to sound like someone else. Follow what I read with your eyes. Listen very carefully to see if I stop or pause with each punctuation mark. Inappropriate Model (What it is not!) Next I am going to read this page with poor phrasing paying no or little attention to what the punctuation tells me to do. I won’t pause or stop. Please look at the page on the board. Notice that I have colored each punctuation mark with a different color to help you see them more clearly. Follow what I read with your eyes. Listen very carefully and watch to see where I should have stopped or paused at the punctuation. Brief Discussion of what the children observe. Guided Practice: Now that I have shown you how and how not to read this page, let’s practice it using unison reading. This means we stay together. (Point) Watch my pen so that we can all stay together. Reminder: Phrasing when we read means to read to the punctuation without pausing or stopping. This element of fluent reading, phrasing, is to be applied in allocated reading practice time (oral or silent) with a partner or independently.
It is often difficult for teachers to provide explicit explanations for how to read fluently. To do so, they must become aware of the processes they use. However, because teachers are already fluent readers, they do not think deeply about the processes they use to read text fluently (Duffy, 2004; Reutzel, 2006; Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, & Smith, 2008). MATERIALS
• Sample explicit fluency lesson plan template (see Figure 6.6) • Selections from among several sources representing at least the genres of information, story, and poem, segmented into practice texts of 100 to 300 words at grade level for whole-class lessons and practice
Reading Fluency 201
Figure 6.6 Explicit Fluency Lesson Plan Template Objective: Children will pay attention to punctuation to help them read expressively. Supplies • Book—In a Tree, pp. 18–19 • Overhead transparency • Overhead projector • Three colored pens (overhead) • Text Types: Narrative () Information Books (x) Poetry () Explain • What Today, boys and girls, we are going to be learning about how to read expressively. Important parts of reading expressively are pausing, stopping, or raising or lowering our pitch as we read. Pitch is how high or low the sounds are that we make with our voices (demonstrate high and low pitch). Stopping means we quit reading for a moment like this . . . Pausing means we take a breath and keep reading. Marks on the page called punctuation marks (point to) help us to know when we need to pause, stop, or raise or lower our pitch. • Why We need to read expressively with pauses or stops so that we can show that we understand what we are reading. Punctuation tells us what we need to know about how to express the words, phrases, and sentences with the right pauses, stops, and pitch. • When/Where Whenever we read, we should pay attention to the punctuation so that we know where to pause, stop, and raise or lower our pitch. Modeling • Example First, I am going to read this page with good expression paying attention to what the punctuation tells me to do, such as pause, stop, or raise or lower my pitch. Please look at the page on the overhead. Notice that I have colored each punctuation mark with a different color to help you see them more clearly. Follow what I read with your eyes. Listen very carefully to see if I stop, pause, or change my pitch where I should. • Non-Example Next, I am going to read this page with poor expression paying no or little attention to what the punctuation tells me to do. I won’t pause, stop, or raise or lower my pitch. Please look at the page on the overhead. Notice that I have colored each punctuation mark with a different color to help you see them more clearly. Follow what I read with your eyes. Listen very carefully to see where I should have changed my reading to stop, pause, or raise or lower my pitch. Scaffolding: (Me, You and Me, You) • Whole Group (Me and You)
Now that I have shown you how and how not to read this page, let’s practice it together! We will begin reading this page all together. (Point) Watch my pen so that we can all stay together. Next, we will read this again using echo reading. How many of you have ever heard an echo? So if I say, Hello, the echo will say Hello. So now I will read and you will echo me. Let’s begin.
• Small Group/Partners/Teams (Me and You) Now turn to your neighbor. One person will read and the other will echo. • Individual (You) Next, take the fluency phone and read this again to yourself listening carefully to see where you are stopping, pausing, or raising or lowering your pitch. Now, take your fluency phone and read this again to yourself listening carefully to see where you are stopping, pausing, or raising or lowering your pitch. Assess • Rubric for assessment • Set personal goals • Graph progress Reflect • What went well? • How would you change the lesson?
202 Chapter 6 • Means to enlarge text (board, charts, computer projector, or overhead projector) • Assessment rubric (Figure 6.7) • Fluency fix-up strategies document (Figure 6.8) PROCEDURE Teaching an explicit fluency lesson requires a framework and template lesson plan. Reutzel (2006) has developed an explicit lesson framework called EMS— explanation, model, scaffold—based on the expectation that teachers will explicitly explain what fluency is composed of (accuracy, rate, and expression) as well as what each of these three concepts entails.
• For example, explicit fluency lessons are taught on accurate reading, reading at the proper rate, and expression that includes smoothness, volume, expression, and phrasing. Explanations include what is to be learned, where and when it is to be used, and why it is important. • Modeling demonstrates how an aspect of fluency, like expression, is to be done (and, for some students, not done).
Figure 6.7 Assessment Rubric of the Elements of Oral Reading Fluency MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
Accurate Reading
Assessment Rubric for Oral Reading Fluency
Speed or Rate
Expression
Figure 6.8 Fluency Fix-Up Strategies for Major Fluency Elements Accuracy 1. Slow your reading speed down. 2. Look carefully at the words and the letters in the words you didn’t read correctly on the page. 3. Think about if you know this word or parts of this word. Try saying the word or word parts. 4. Make the sound of each letter from left to right and blend the sounds together quickly to say the word.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
5. Listen carefully to see if the word you said makes sense.
Fluency Fix-up Strategies
7. After saying the word, you may use pictures to help you make sure you have the right word.
6. Try reading the word in the sentence again. 8. If the word still doesn’t make sense, then ask someone to help you. Rate 1. Adjust your reading speed to go slower when the text is difficult or unfamiliar or if you need to read to get detailed information. 2. Adjust your reading speed to go faster when the text is easy, familiar, or you are reading to just enjoy this book. Expression 1. Try to read three or more words together before pausing, stopping, or taking a breath. 2. Take a big breath and try to read to the comma or end punctuation without stopping for another breath. 3. Be sure to raise or lower your pitch when you see punctuation marks at the ends of
Reading Fluency 203
• Finally, teachers gradually release, through a series of guided practice experiences, the reading of the class text to individual application through a process we call You (teacher model), You and Me (teacher and student share fluency reading in whole class and with partners), and Me (student reads independently). A template explicit fluency lesson is found in Figure 6.6 to demonstrate each part of the EMS explicit fluency lesson. Finally, students are also taught how to monitor, assess, and “fix up” their fluency through the use of a simple assessment rubric of the elements of oral reading fluency found in Figure 6.7 and through explicit fluency lessons on using the fluency fix-up strategies found in Figure 6.8.
Neurological Impress Method Age Range: 6 years -12 years Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.2.4 through CCSS. ELA-Literacy.RF 5.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. PURPOSE The neurological impress method (NIM) involves the student and the teacher in reading the same text aloud simultaneously (Heckleman, 1966, 1969; Hollingsworth, 1970, 1978). The use of multiple sensory systems is thought to “impress” upon the student the fluid reading patterns of the teacher through direct modeling. It is assumed that exposing students to numerous examples of texts (read in a more sophisticated way than the at-risk students could achieve on their own) will enable them to learn the patterns of letter–sound correspondence in the language more naturally. This assumption stands to reason when viewed in light of well-established advances in learning theory, especially those espoused by Vygotsky (1978). MATERIALS
• Easy and predictable reading material that makes sense for the reader (for the first few sessions); more challenging materials for later sessions • Audio recording equipment PROCEDURE Each NIM session is aimed at reading as much material as is possible in 10 minutes.
1. Have the student sit slightly in front of and to one side of you. 2. Hold up the text and move your finger beneath the words as they are spoken in near-unison fashion. 3. Try to maintain a comfortably brisk, continuous rate of oral reading. Try to keep the pace when the student starts to slow down. Pausing for analyzing unknown words is not permitted. The teacher’s voice is directed at the student’s ear so that the words are seen, heard, and said simultaneously. In the first few NIM sessions, students should become acquainted with the process by practicing on short, familiar texts. Most students with reading problems typically take some time to adjust to the NIM, and, because most of them have not read at an accelerated pace before, their first efforts often have a mumbling quality. However, within a few sessions they start to feel at ease. Many students with reading problems say they enjoy the NIM because it allows them to read more challenging and interesting material like “good readers.” At first, the teacher’s voice will dominate the oral reading, but in later sessions it should be reduced gradually. This will eventually allow the student to assume the vocal lead naturally. Usually three sessions per week are sufficient to obtain noticeable results. The routine should be followed for a minimum of 10 consecutive weeks (Henk, 1983).
204 Chapter 6 The NIM can also be adapted for group use (Hollingsworth, 1970, 1978) in the following way: 1. Record 10 minutes of oral reading in advance. 2. Have individual students read along with the recording while following the text independently. 3. Or, use the recording in a listening center to spend individual time with each student as others participate in reading with the recording. Despite the advantages of the prerecorded format, teachers’ one-to-one interactions with individual students result in a better instructional experience.
English Language Learners Closed-Caption Television Age Range: 6 years -12 years Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.2.4 through CCSS. ELA-Literacy.RF 5.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. PURPOSE Several researchers (Koskinen, Wilson, & Jensema, 1985; Neuman & Koskinen, 1992) have found that closed-caption television is a particularly effective tool for motivating ELLs to improve fluency and comprehension. Closed-caption television, which uses written subtitles, provides students with meaningful and motivating reading material. MATERIALS
• Carefully selected high-interest television programs PROCEDURE Seven steps should be considered in a successful closed-caption lesson.
1. Record and preview programs to make a final selection. 2. Introduce the programs to students with attention to vocabulary and prior knowledge factors (Koskinen et al., 1985). 3. Watch a part of the captioned television program together as a group (5 to 10 minutes). 4. Stop the recording and ask students to predict what will happen next in the program. 5. Then, continue showing the program so that students can check their predictions. 6. Watch a segment of the program that has examples of certain kinds of phonics patterns, word uses, or punctuation. For example, students can be alerted to the use of quotation marks and the fact that these marks signal dialogue. Students can then watch the remainder of the program to identify the dialogue using their knowledge of quotation marks. 7. Finally, have students practice reading aloud along with the captions. If necessary, both the auditory portion and the closed captioning can be played simultaneously to provide students that have fluency problems with support through their initial attempts to read. 8. At some later point, allow students to practice reading the captioning without the auditory portion of the program. Koskinen et al. (1985) added that they “do not recommend that the sound be turned off if this, in effect, turns off the children. The major advantage of captioned television is the multisensory stimulation of viewing the drama, hearing the sound, and seeing the captions” (p. 6).
Reading Fluency 205
Read Naturally® Age Range: 6 years -12 years Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.2.4 through CCSS. ELA-Literacy.RF 5.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. PURPOSE Evidence suggests there is likely a causal link between fluency instruction and increases in comprehension (Reutzel & Hollingsworth, 1993). When a student reads fluently, that student is likely to comprehend what he or she is reading. Consequently, teachers need to develop their students’ fluency. Read Naturally® is an online and CD-based reading program that is intended to develop reading fluency through teacher modeling, repeated reading, and progress monitoring. For more information on this program, the reader is encouraged to search the web for the terms – Read Naturally. Each student works at his or her own pace in an appropriate level of text. The student practices the text by reading along with an audio presentation. Practice continues until the student can read the text fluently and with comprehension. The Read Naturally® program online tracks student progress automatically. Poor reading fluency is a self-perpetuating problem. Struggling readers read so few words during reading time that the gap between the number of words they read and the number of words their peers read continually widens. Struggling readers need targeted help to achieve reading fluency. MATERIALS
• Read Naturally® programs are available either live, online or CD-based, offline PROCEDURES
Preparation Phase: 1. To use the Read Naturally® program, a student begins by selecting the text he or she wants to read. 2. The student reads key words and their definitions that are important for understanding the text while listening to an audio recording. 3. In the Phonics series of the Read Naturally® program, the student listens to a phonics lesson and reads words that have the featured phonics patterns. 4. Finally in preparation for reading the text, the student uses the title, picture, and key words to write a prediction of what he or she thinks the text will be about. Cold Timing Phase: After this preparation phase, the student is ready for the cold read timing step. 1. The student reads the text for one minute. The teacher may time the cold read or the student may complete this step independently. 2. The student clicks unknown words while reading, and then clicks the last word read during the timing. 3. Read Naturally Live® subtracts the unknown words from the total number of words attempted to obtain a cold read-timing score and displays it on a graph. This step establishes a baseline for progress monitoring, the component of the Read Naturally® Strategy that motivates the student to improve. Practice Phase: 1. Next the student reads along quietly with a recording of the text, typically three times. This step is the modeling component.
206 Chapter 6 2. Then the student practices reading the story without audio support at least three times until he or she is able to read it accurately, with expression, and at the goal rate. This step is the repeated-reading component. 3. After practicing the reading of the text at least three times, the student takes a quiz aabout the text by answering questions. Taking a quiz holds the student accountable for meaning, develops the ability to answer many types of questions, and provides teachers with information about how well the student comprehends the story. 4. In the Sequenced and Idioms series of Read Naturally®, the student retells or summarizes the story to improve comprehension. 5. In the Phonics series, the student works on decoding skills by practicing the word list until able to read it accurately at a predetermined rate. Hot Read Phase: 1. Finally, the student does a hot read of practiced read of the text for the teacher to show that he or she can read it at the goal rate, with appropriate expression, and with three or fewer errors. 2. The teacher evaluates answers to the comprehension questions and the retelling of the story (if applicable). 3. The teacher then reviews the results with the student. 4. In the Phonics series, the student also reads a word list to show that he or she can read it with three or fewer errors at the goal rate. A graph shows how much the student’s fluency has improved since the cold read timing.
Choral Reading Age Range: 6 years -12 years
MyLab Education
Video Example 6.4: Choral Reading
In this video, you will learn how to conduct unison choral reading in a classroom. When you are finished, describe the steps teachers should use in choral reading. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=KukJVZIcx7Q
Standard: ELA-Literacy.RF.2.4 through CCSS. ELA-Literacy.RF 5.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. ELA-Literacy.RF.1.4 through CCSS. ELA-Literacy.RF 5.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. PURPOSE Choral reading is one of the most commonly used research-based fluency development strategies (Paige, 2011). In many classrooms, students are asked to read aloud in a solo, barbershop, or round-robin fashion. However, note that roundrobin oral reading carries with it significant instructional, emotional, and psychological risks for all children, but most especially for struggling readers (Eldredge, Reutzel, & Hollingsworth, 1996; Opitz & Rasinski, 2008). Homan, Klesius, and Hite (1993) found that choral reading practice yields excellent gains in fluency and comprehension for all children. All choral reading strategies may be done in whole groups, small groups, and with students working in pairs. Echo reading can also be done between children and their parents at home. In the classroom, the same text may be used each time for four or five sessions in repeated reading, or you may decide to use a variety of texts. There are actually three choral reading strategies for teachers to choose from: unison, echo, and antiphonal.
• Unison: The teacher and students read the same text passage together. • Echo: The teacher reads a passage aloud and then students repeat it. • Antiphonal: Derived from ancient monastic traditions, antiphonal reading involves two groups. The first reading group (or person, if they are reading in pairs) reads a section of a passage aloud (usually a sentence or two), and the second group reads the next section. The groups continue alternating passages in this way.
Reading Fluency 207
MATERIALS
• One copy of a passage from any text genre, including poetry, nonfiction (e.g., science, social studies), fiction, or even songs PROCEDURE For teachers who are new to using choral reading, Cooter (2009) has developed an implementation plan that may be used over the course of a week and only takes 5 to 10 minutes per day. This particular example is for use with core-content texts (e.g., science, social studies). This plan begins with unison reading and then expands into echo and antiphonal reading to provide variety. You will see that this plan uses explicit instruction elements as well as the gradual release of responsibility. PRETEACHING PREPARATIONS
1. Identify a unit of study (at least 1 to 2 weeks ahead in your curriculum). 2. Identify an important text selection of about 250 words you will use for whole-class choral reading. (Planning tip: Try using a chapter introduction or summary for this activity.) TEACHING STUDENTS HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN WHOLECLASS CHORAL READING STRATEGY STEPS: MONDAY
1. Introducing new words. Briefly review the correct pronunciations and meanings of words that may be unfamiliar to students. 2. Teacher modeling and first reading. Ask students to pay attention to how the teacher uses punctuation and phrasing (commas, question marks, etc.) for correct prosody or voice intonation while reading the selected passage aloud. Students are asked to read along silently from their copy of the text selection while the teacher is reading aloud. 3. Second reading. After completing Step 2, inform students that they will begin reading aloud and in unison (the whole class together) and that they should start after the teacher counts down from 3. • Teacher then says “Begin reading in 3–-2–-1.” • Teacher leads the students by reading aloud in a strong voice, being careful to read at a moderate speed so that everyone can keep up. • While reading aloud, the teacher should walk about the room to ensure that everyone is reading and should also listen for any words or phrases that students have difficulty with for possible reteaching (such as those reviewed in Step 1). 4. New word review. After the first whole-class reading, the teacher should review any ords or phrases with which students are having difficulty. 5. Third reading. The teacher explains to students that we will be reading the same text another time and that they should read a little louder this time because the teacher will be reading a little softer. The teacher begins the class reading with a 3–-2–-1 countdown and monitors class reading while walking the room. Strategy Steps: Tuesday through Friday • The same passage is to be read once each day by the whole class. • You may use echo or antiphonal reading on Wednesday through Friday, if desired. TEACHER EVALUATION: CHORAL READING Teachers, like students, go through stages of expertise development in the implementation of new teaching strategies.
MyLab Education
Video Example 6.5: Practical Discussion of Choral Reading In this video, a teacher explains how she typically uses choral reading in her classroom.
208 Chapter 6 Cooter (2009) has developed a kind of rubric, or continuum, for implementing choral reading to help you monitor your own use of choral reading and discover ways to deepen its use in your classroom (see Figure 6.9). To add additional variety to choral reading, Karen Wood (1983) has suggested an approach for reading a story orally in a group. In four-way oral reading, the reading of a text should be varied by using four different types of oral reading: (1) unison choral reading, (2) echoic or imitative reading, (3) paired reading, and (4) mumble reading (Wood, 1983). All of these approaches to oral reading, except mumble reading, are described elsewhere in this chapter. Mumble reading, or reading quietly aloud, is typically heard among young readers as they are initially told to read silently. These young readers tend to “mumble” as they attempt to read silently. Teachers should model this approach to oral reading before asking students to mumble read (reading with a soft voice no one else can hear).
Figure 6.9 Implementation Continuum for Whole-Class Choral Reading • Passages of about 250 worlds are selected from the adopted textbook. • The passage selected should be at least 1 to 3 weeks ahead of the teacher’s curriculum. • The same passage is used each time for five consecutive days. Exemplary A
Above Average B
Acceptable C
Early Implementation D
Traditional Instruction E
Teacher conducts a preassessment to gain some understanding of the range of students’ reading abilities with on‑level textbook readings (e.g., timed reading, cloze passages, maze passages). Data used to decide whether supplemental readings may be needed for some students (i.e., differentiating instruction).
Teacher conducts a preassessment to gain some understanding of the range of students’ reading abilities with on‑level textbook readings.
Teacher introduces and explains the purpose of choral reading.
Teacher introduces one of the choral reading activities (unison, echo, or antiphonal).
Uses “round robin” or “popcorn reading” for oral reading practice.
Teacher and students practice reading a passage from their textbook together.
When students read aloud, they do so without previewing the text or having it modeled.
Teacher has 5‑minute choral reading practice one to three times per week using the current unit of study.
Teacher remains in one place during oral reading practice.
Puts the text selection in context and explains the purpose of choral reading. New academic and other challenging words from the text are pronounced. Models the reading, attending to punctuation and using appropriate prosody (voice, intonation, volume, and reading speed). Students are given an opportunity for further vocabulary decoding or pronunciation. Teacher uses a “countdown” queuing system (e.g., 3–2–1) so that students begin together. Teacher travels about the room during the reading to attend to reading miscues or other difficulties, and makes mental notes for reteaching or clarifying. Teacher reviews difficult words and phrases after each subsequent reading. On the second and third day using choral reading, teacher uses the same passage from the textbook as before. Each day, the teacher’s voice becomes less loud/dominant as students become familiar with the passage. Teacher uses the same passage as before, but may now use either antiphonal reading or echo reading. The passage selected is at least 1 to 3 weeks ahead of the teacher’s curriculum.
Models the reading, attending to punctuation and using appropriate prosody (voice, intonation), volume, and reading speed). Teacher uses a “countdown” queuing system (e.g., 3–2–1) so that students begin together. Teacher travels about the room during the reading to attend to reading difficulties and makes mental notes for reteaching or clarifying. Teacher reviews difficult words and phrases after one of the readings. Teacher has a 5‑minute choral reading practice each day using the same text selection. The passage selected is at least 1 to 3 weeks ahead of the teacher’s curriculum.
New or unfamiliar academic words from the text are pronounced. Models the choral reading strategy with a reasonably loud voice. Teacher uses a “countdown” queuing system (e.g., 3–2–1) so that students began together. Teacher travels about the room during the reading. Teacher uses the same passage from the textbook for each choral reading session during the week. Teacher has 5‑minute choral reading practice for at least four days during the week using the same text selection. The passage selected is at least 1 to 3 weeks ahead of the teacher’s curriculum.
Reading Fluency 209
To use four-way oral reading, Wood (1983) suggests that the teacher introduce the story content and the varied methods to be used in reading it. The teacher should pause briefly during the oral reading of the story to help students reflect on the story and predict ahead to focus and improve comprehension. During four-way oral reading, students are called on in random order to read but none of them are put on the spot because none of the four-way oral reading strategies requires that students read solo. Because of this, all students participate repeatedly throughout the oral reading of the story, thus helping them remain actively involved and keep their place in the story. Also, students read together, often providing many minutes of reading aloud for pleasure and practice to support readers with special needs in becoming more fluent.
Video Resources for Additional Practice This section provides additional videos of students reading orally, as well as a copy of the passages they are reading. These videos can be used for additional practice with administering, interpreting, and analyzing the One-Minute Reading Test Plus Prosody and/or the Components of Fluency Assessment. Note: These videos and passages do not include the teacher’s analysis.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource : The Big Bad Wolf (Reading Passage)
MyLab Education
Video Example 6.6: Alejandro Reads The Big Bad Wolf
MyLab Education Teacher Resource : Casey and the Tidepool (Reading Passage)
MyLab Education
Video Example 6.7: Charlotte Reads Casey and the Tidepool MyLab Education Teacher Resource : New Clothes (Reading Passage)
MyLab Education
Video Example 6.8: Charlotte Reads New Clothes
MyLab Education
Video Example 6.9: Yousuf Reads New Clothes
MyLab Education
MyLab Education
Video Example 6.10: Sofia Reads Bugs for Kids
Teacher Resource : Bugs for Kids (Reading Passage)
210 Chapter 6
Recommended Resources Opitz, M. F., & Rasinski, T. V. (2007). Good-bye round robin: 25 effective oral reading strategies, Updated Edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Osborn, J. Lehr, F., & Hiebert, E. H. (2003). Focus on fluency. Available at http://textproject.org/assets/library/ resources/Osborn-Lehr-Hiebert-2003-A-Focus-onFluency-booklet.pdf. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning (PREL).
Raskinski, T.V. (2010). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension, 2nd Edition. NY: Scholastic, Inc. Rasinski, T.V., & Smith, M.C. (2018). The megabook of fluency: Strategies and texts to engage all readers. NY: Scholastic. Rasinski, T. V., Blachowicz, C., & Lems, K. (2012). Fluency Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices, 2nd Edition. New York: Guilford Press.
Chapter 7
Reading Vocabulary The sun was streaming into the classroom on a crisp October morning as Mr. Roberts sat with her group of fifth-grade students. They were about to begin studying the rainforests of the Amazon. Tomorrow they would embark on an interactive online exploration at a site called passporttoknowledge.com, so Mr. Roberts thought a vocabulary lesson would help the kids get the most out of the experience. Because they lived in an urban setting in a desert region of the West, he knew there would be some fairly alien notions for his students. The teacher wrote the following words on the easel chart—Amazon River, South America, biodiversity, canopy, Brazil, photosynthesis, species, and then said, “As I mentioned this morning, we’re going to begin an exciting unit of study on the rainforests of the Amazon. These are a few of the words from the lesson guide that will be coming up in our online experiences, so I thought we should talk about them a little. Let’s begin with the basics—who can tell me where South America is?” James eagerly responded, “I think it’s near Orlando.” LaJean retorted, “I don’t think so. It’s where Chile is, isn’t it?” Mr. Roberts said, “Very good, LaJean. Let’s all take a look at the map and see exactly where South America is compared to where we are now. I’ll use Google Earth on the Internet so we can take an even better look at South America from space!” He then proceeded with a short geography lesson using the Google Earth map, moving around the continent and finally ending up tracing the Amazon River. Regularly, Mr. Roberts would cross-reference images the children were seeing on Google Earth with the large map so they could see how the two matched and yet served different purposes, such as the map showing boundaries. Roberts then returned to the vocabulary words he had written on the easel chart. “Okay, then, can anyone tell me something about the word biodiversity? I’ll give you a hint: If you break away the first part of the word, bio, which means ‘life,’ that leaves you with a pretty familiar word—diversity. What does diversity mean?” After a long silence and a few blank stares, Mr. Roberts tried another tack. “OK, forget that one for now. What about the word canopy?” Again, no takers. Finally, Julio took a chance, “Isn’t canopy the stuff they make tents out of?” “Well, a tent is a kind of canopy, but some kinds of canopy aren’t necessarily tents. I think Julio may have given us a kind of riddle we will need to solve!” Clearly, most of his students did not have the slightest notion what these words meant, so some serious vocabulary development was in order. Fortunately, Mr. Roberts had prepared for this possibility. “Well, it just so happens that I have a few games we can that will help us solve the canopy riddle and also get us ready to explore the rainforests.”
211
212 Chapter 7
Background Briefing for Teachers Vocabulary, for our purposes here, refers to word meanings people need to know to communicate effectively in reading, writing, listening and speaking (Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2008). It is clear from research that children to come to school knowing the meaning of lots of words are at a distinct advantage, while children from more language-deprived backgrounds may be at risk of school failure whether they speak English as a first or second language (Eckerth & Tavakoli, 2012; Lervag & Auhrust, 2010; Goldstein, Ziolkowski, Bojczyk, Marty, Schneider, et al., 2017; Graves, August, & Mancilla-Martinez, 2013). Indeed, students having limited vocabularies must receive immediate attention if they are to have any real chance at reading success (National Research Council, 1998; Neuman, Newman, & Dwyer, 2011; Reutzel & Cooter, 2019).
There Are Four Types of Vocabulary To Be Learned There are actually four types of vocabulary students must learn: listening, speaking, reading, and writing vocabularies. 1. Listening vocabulary, the largest, is made up of words we can hear and understand. All other vocabularies are subsets of our listening vocabulary. 2. The second-largest vocabulary, speaking vocabulary, is composed of words we use appropriately when we speak. 3. Next is our reading vocabulary, those words we can identify and understand when we read. 4. The smallest vocabulary is our writing vocabulary— words we know and can use appropriately in writing. These four vocabularies are continually nurtured in the effective teacher’s classroom.
Morphology Teaching the meanings of words and word parts is a critical aspect of vocabulary instruction (Swanson, Vaughn, & Wexler, 2017). Morphology is the study of morphemes or word parts that carry meaning such as common prefixes, suffixes, and root words (sometimes called base words). Prefixes and suffixes cannot stand alone since they must be attached to a root word in order to carry meaning. Root words are usually words that can stand alone. Examples of prefixes and their meanings include pre- before
mis- wrong, incorrect
un- not, opposite of
non- not
in- into
re- back, again
Latin and Greek roots are especially important in teaching academic vocabulary and multisyllabic words. It has been estimated that upwards of 90 percent of words in English having more than one syllable have their origins in Latin and the remaining multisyllable words have Greek origins (Padak, Newton, E., Rasinski, & Newton, R. M., 2008). Here are a few examples used in mathematics vocabulary having Latin roots (Rasinski, Padak, & Newton, 2017, p. 43): angl-, angul- = angle, corner (L) dia- and per- = through, across, thorough (L) frag-, fract- = break, broken (L) graph-, gram- = write, draw (G) integer-, integr- = whole (L)
Reading Vocabulary 213
Levels of Vocabulary Learning As with most new learning, new vocabulary words and concepts are mastered by degree. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) describe three levels of vocabulary words that children should learn to hear, speak, read and write: Tiers 1, 2, and 3. • Tier 1 words are the most basic words that occur frequently in our language (e.g., clock, dog, farm), • Tier 2 words are fairly high frequency in adult language and are found across a variety of knowledge domains (e.g., catastrophe, particle, languid, etc.), and • Tier 3 words are low frequency words usually found in specific knowledge domains such as science and mathematics (e.g., sea urchin, integer, scree, economy, etc.) (Reutzel & Cooter, 2019). Definitions for these three levels of vocabulary are presented in Figure 7.1. These levels of vocabulary knowledge apply to each of the four types of vocabularies every individual possesses: listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
How Students Learn New Vocabulary It turns out that children learn most new vocabulary indirectly through everyday experiences(Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2008). This includes such activities as • conversations with adults who use new and interesting words, • listening to books read aloud, most especially nonfiction books having loads of new words and concepts (e.g., architecture, dark matter, pioneers, migration, etc.), and • children reading lots of books on their own. However, we as teachers we cannot leave something as critical as vocabulary learning to chance. Explicit instruction of some vocabulary is required to insure student success in academic subject reading, understanding the correct meaning of words spoken to them, and appropriate usage of words in their speech (Kelley, 2017). Teachers often employ direct instruction of specific words when they 1. introduce new vocabulary to students prior to reading a new text, 2. provide multiple, meaningful exposures to new words over time to reinforce their learning of specific words and their meanings (Kennedy, Rodgers, Romig, Lloyd, & Brownell, 2017), 3. distribute practice of targeted vocabulary over time (weeks and months) to deepen knowledge of the words (Swanson, Vaughn, & Wexler, 2017), and 4) teach word learning strategies students can use independently throughout their lives (e.g., context clues, analyzing word parts, etc.).
Figure 7.1 Levels of Vocabulary Learning Defining Levels of Word Knowledge Unknown
The word is completely unfamiliar and its meaning is unknown.
Acquainted
The word is somewhat familiar; the student has some idea of its basic meaning.
Established
The word is very familiar; the student can immediately recognize its meaning and use the word correctly.
SOURCE: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS.
(2001). Put reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read (N/A). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
214 Chapter 7 Learning new vocabulary is not as simple as knowing and not knowing a word. There are actually three levels of word knowledge: unknown, acquainted, and established. Unknown words are completely unfamiliar to the student and, therefore, its meaning is not known. Acquainted words are slightly familiar and the reader has some idea as to its meaning. Established words, as you might assume, are completely familiar to the student, its meaning is known, and the learner is able to use it correctly in her speech.
MyLab Education
Video Example 7.1: Explicit Instruction of Vocabulary In this video, an expert and a classroom teacher explain how to lead students into understanding Tier 3 words to increase their academic vocabulary. When you are finished, outline the steps taken by the teacher in offering explicit vocabulary instruction to her students.
Reading Vocabulary and State Standards The State Standards for English Language Arts have increased expectations for learners at every grade level. Children are now expected to read more challenging texts and do so in earlier grades and this makes the role of effective vocabulary instruction more important than ever (McLaughlin & Overturf, 2012). At each grade level text complexity is expected to increase—a kind of “staircase” of text complexity containing new and novel vocabulary and concepts used in varying contexts (Hiebert, 2013). Students are also expected to understand words having multiple meanings depending on contxt, as well as the many nuances words may carry. In Table 7.1 we present the Vocabulary Acquisition and Use Standards from the Common Core for kindergarten through grade 5. To summarize, the term vocabulary refers to the words people must learn to communicate with others in the various language modes—listening, speaking, reading and writing. Readers use their listening and speaking vocabularies to make sense of what they see in print, therefore, vocabulary is directly linked to reading comprehension. Vocabulary is learned both indirectly when students communicate with others, and directly when they are explicitly taught in the classroom (Kelley, 2017). In the next section we discover ways of assessing students’ vocabulary knowledge to guide our direct instruction efforts in the classroom based on student needs.
Assessing Students’ Vocabulary Knowledge and Needs Vocabulary assessment begins with the understanding that words are the symbols we use to express ideas—captions, you might say, that describe life experiences. Vocabulary learning is a process that goes on throughout life and can be enhanced in the classroom through enticing literacy and learning experiences. Most children (with the exception of those from low SES backgrounds or those who have learning or cognitive disabilities) acquire a vocabulary of over 10,000 words during the first 5 years of their lives (Smith, 1987). Most schoolchildren learn between 2,000 and 3,600 words per year, although estimates vary from 1,500 to more than 8,000 (Johnson, 2001). We also know that there is a vocabulary–comprehension connection (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). That is, in order for comprehension of literature to occur, skilled readers retrieve word meanings from their internal lexicons (their cognitive file cabinets), attach meaning, and then interpret the author’s message. Therefore, assessing children’s vocabulary is indispensible for understanding what we can do as teachers to increase that vocabulary. Much of vocabulary assessment done by master teachers is through careful classroom observations of student reading behaviors. As teachers work with their pupils each day in needs-based group instruction they discover important, high-utility words that seem to cause trouble for one or more students. Teachers can work these words into vocabulary instruction activities like those featured later in this chapter. This is not to suggest that more cannot be done early in the school year to discover which words most of your students need to learn. Following are a few classroom-proven ideas to help with the assessment process.
Reading Vocabulary 215
Table 7.1 Vocabulary Acquisition and Use Standards Vocabulary Acquisition and Use Grade Level: K
Language Standards
L.K.4 Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on kindergarten reading and content. (a) Identify new meanings for familiar words and apply them accurately (e.g., knowing duck is a bird and learning the verb to duck). (b) Use the most frequently occurring inflections and affixes (e.g., -ed, ‑s, re-, un-, pre-, -ful, -less) as a clue to the meaning of an unknown word. L.K.5 With guidance and support from adults, explore word relationships and nuances in word meanings. (a) Sort common objects into categories (e.g., shapes, foods) to gain a sense of the concepts the categories represent. (b) Demonstrate understanding of frequently occurring verbs and adjectives by relating them to their opposites (antonyms). (c) Identify real-life connections between words and their use (e.g., note places at school that are colorful). (d) Distinguish shades of meaning among verbs describing the same general action (e.g., walk, march, strut, prance) by acting out the meanings. L.K.6 Use words and phrases acquired through conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to texts. Vocabulary Acquisition and Use
Grade Level: 1
Language Standards
L.1.4 Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on grade 1 reading and content, choosing flexibly from an array of strategies. (a) Use sentence-level context as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase. (b) Use frequently occurring affixes as a clue to the meaning of a word. (c) Identify frequently occurring root words (e.g., look) and their inflectional forms (e.g., looks, looked, looking). L.1.5 With guidance and support from adults, demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings. (a) Sort words into categories (e.g., colors, clothing) to gain a sense of the concepts the categories represent. (b) Define words by category and by one or more key attributes (e.g., a duck is a bird that swims; a tiger is a large cat with stripes). (c) Identify real-life connections between words and their use (e.g., note places at home that are cozy). (d) Distinguish shades of meaning among verbs differing in manner (e.g., look, peek, glance, stare, glare, scowl) and adjectives differing in intensity (e.g., large, gigantic) by defining or choosing them or by acting out the meanings. L.1.6 Use words and phrases acquired through conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to texts, including using frequently occurring conjunctions to signal simple relationships (e.g., because). Vocabulary Acquisition and Use
Grade Level: 2
Language Standards
L.2.4 Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on grade 2 reading and content, choosing flexibly from an array of strategies. (a) Use sentence-level context as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase. (b) Determine the meaning of the new word formed when a known prefix is added to a known word (e.g., happy/unhappy, tell/retell). (c) Use a known root word as a clue to the meaning of an unknown word with the same root (e.g., addition, additional ). (d) Use knowledge of the meaning of individual words to predict the meaning of compound words (e.g., birdhouse, lighthouse, housefly; bookshelf, notebook, bookmark). (e) Use glossaries and beginning dictionaries, both print and digital, to determine or clarify the meaning of words and phrases. L.2.5 Demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings. (a) Identify real-life connections between words and their use (e.g., describe foods that are spicy or juicy). (b) Distinguish shades of meaning among closely related verbs (e.g., toss, throw, hurl) and closely related adjectives (e.g., thin, slender, skinny, scrawny). L.2.6 Use words and phrases acquired through conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to texts, including using adjectives and adverbs to describe (e.g., When other kids are happy that makes me happy).
216 Chapter 7
Table 7.1 (Continued) Vocabulary Acquisition and Use Grade Level: 3
Language Standards
L.3.4 Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning word and phrases based on grade 3 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies. (a) Use sentence-level context as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase. (b) Determine the meaning of the new word formed when a known affix is added to a known word (e.g., agreeable/disagreeable, comfortable/uncomfortable, care/careless, heat/preheat). (c) Use a known root word as a clue to the meaning of an unknown word with the same root (e.g., company, companion). (d) Use glossaries or beginning dictionaries, both print and digital, to determine or clarify the precise meaning of key words and phrases. L.3.5 Demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings. (a) Distinguish the literal and nonliteral meanings of words and phrases in context (e.g., take steps). (b) Identify real-life connections between words and their use (e.g., describe people who are friendly or helpful). (c) Distinguish shades of meaning among related words that describe states of mind or degrees of certainty (e.g., knew, believed, suspected, heard, wondered). L.3.6 Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate conversational, general academic, and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal spatial and temporal relationships (the simultaneity or ordering in time of events) (e.g., After dinner that night we went looking for them). Vocabulary Acquisition and Use
Grade Level: 4
Language Standards
L.4.4 Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on grade 4 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies. (a) Use context (e.g., definitions, examples, or restatements in text) as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase. (b) Use common, grade-appropriate Greek and Latin affixes and roots as clues to the meaning of a word (e.g., telegraph, photograph, autograph). Greek and Latin Prefixes and Elements: inter-, sub-, over-, micro-,mega- Greek Root Words: graph, meter, phon Latin Root Words: spect, port, dic, aud, rupt, tract, mot, ject, man, cred (c) Consult reference materials (e.g., dictionaries, glossaries, thesauruses), both print and digital, to find the pronunciation and determine or clarify the precise meaning of key words and phrases. L.4.5 Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings. (a) Explain the meaning of simple similes and metaphors (e.g., as pretty as a picture) in context. (b) Recognize and explain the meaning of common idioms, adages, and proverbs. (e.g. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, All bark and no bite, Bite your tongue, Curiosity killed the cat, etc.) (c) Demonstrate understanding of words by relating them to their opposites (antonyms) and to words with similar but not identical meanings (synonyms). L.4.6 Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal precise actions, emotions, or states of being (e.g., quizzed, whined, stammered) and that are basic to a particular topic (e.g., wildlife, conservation, and endangered when discussing animal preservation). Vocabulary Acquisition and Use
Grade Level: 5
Language Standards
L.5.4 Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on grade 5 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies. (a) Use context (e.g., cause/effect relationships and comparisons in text) as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase. (b) Use common, grade-appropriate Greek and Latin affixes and roots as clues to the meaning of a word (e.g., photograph, photosynthesis). Greek and Latin Prefixes and Elements: super-, hyper-, cap, ped, corp Greek Root Words: photo, tele Latin Root Words: vid/vis, scrib/script, jud, leg, flu, spire, sist, sign, sect, vert/vers, form (c) Consult reference materials (e.g., dictionaries, glossaries, thesauruses), both print and digital, to find the pronunciation and determine or clarify the precise meaning of key words and phrases. L.5.5 Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings. (a) Interpret figurative language, including similes and metaphors, in context. (b) Recognize and explain the meaning of common idioms, adages, and proverbs. (e.g. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, All bark and no bite, Bite your tongue, Curiosity killed the cat, etc.) (c) Use the relationship between particular words (e.g., synonyms, antonyms, homographs) to better understand each of the words. L.5.6 Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal contrast, addition, and other logical relationships (e.g., however, although, nevertheless, similarly, moreover, in addition).
SOURCE: Adapted from National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards: English Language Arts Standards. Washington, DC: Author. Copyright © 2010, National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.
Reading Vocabulary 217
Interactive Highlighting of Unknown Vocabulary (Real Time Technology) Age Range: 7–17 Standards: ELA-Literacy.L.2.5: Demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings.
MyLab Education
ELA-Literacy.L.3.5: Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings.
Reading Vocabulary Case Study
ELA-Literacy.L.4.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal precise actions, emotions, or states of being (e.g., quizzed, whined, stammered) and that are basic to a particular topic (e.g., wildlife, conservation, and endangered when discussing animal preservation). ELA-Literacy.L.5.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal contrast, addition, and other logical relationships (e.g., however, although, nevertheless, similarly, moreover, in addition). PURPOSE Interactive highlighting of unknown vocabulary (Ponce, Mayer, Figueroa, & Lopez, 2018) is a simple and effective strategy shown to improve student learning of important Tier 3 vocabulary and improve reading comprehension. This assessment strategy has students self-identify and highlight unknown words in a target passage(s) to be used in future instruction. The passage is presented on a computer or e-tablet screen, but if adequate technology is not available this task may be completed by providing students with a photocopy of the passage and a highlighting marker. Using either a software program or manually collating results, the teacher reviews difficult words identified by most students and targets those vocabulary for whole group instruction. MATERIALS
• Copies of passages to be used in instruction drawn (fiction or nonfiction) that can be presented via PC or e-tablet. • If technology is limited, then the teacher may use print copies and provide highlighting markers for each student. PROCEDURE
1. Ask students to read the passage once on their own. 2. Ask students to reread the passage and, using the highlighting feature in their computer program, highlight any words they do not know or are unsure of their meanings. 3. Using an appropriate software program, collate and rank order the words that are problematic for your students. 4. Words that are unknown or partly known by 30 percent or more of your students should betaught through direct, whole-class direct instruction. Those words that are unknown to less than 30 percent of students should be taught via small group direct instruction.
Application Exercise 7.1:
218 Chapter 7
Oral Reading Assessment Age Range: 6–17 Standards: ELA-Literacy.L.1.4: Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiplemeaning words and phrases based on grade 1 reading and content, choosing flexibly from an array of strategies. ELA-Literacy.L.2.5: Demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.3.5: Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.4.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal precise actions, emotions, or states of being (e.g., quizzed, whined, stammered) and that are basic to a particular topic (e.g., wildlife, conservation, and endangered when discussing animal preservation). ELA-Literacy.L.5.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal contrast, addition, and other logical relationships (e.g., however, although, nevertheless, similarly, moreover, in addition). PURPOSE Teachers use oral reading assessment for identifying vocabulary problem areas in a quick and efficient manner. It has its roots in the running record style of assessment frequently used to note reading miscues. Ideally, the passages used should be sufficiently challenging so that students will have trouble with about 5 to 10% of the words. It will be necessary for you to do a quick word count to determine whether the passages are appropriate once the student has read them. It is also essential that you have passages that range in difficulty to account for the vast differences among students’ reading abilities. (Note: A student who pronounces fewer than 10% of the words correctly may not be getting enough context from the passages for adequate comprehension.) MATERIALS
• Photocopies of three or four passages drawn from reading materials (fiction or nonfiction) commonly used in your classroom curriculum that you believe to be at the student’s instructional or frustration reading level (two copies each). PROCEDURE
1. Give the student a copy of the first passage to be read and keep one for yourself. 2. Ask the student to read the passage aloud. 3. Note any words that the student either does not know or mispronounces. 4. Repeat the procedure until the student has read all of the passages. We recommend that you discontinue a passage if the student consistently has trouble with more than one or two words in any one sentence. 5. After the student has finished, tally the number of miscalled words and determine whether the passage is acceptable for analysis (no more than about 10% miscalled or unknown words). 6. List any words that seem to be problematic for the student. 7. Repeat this procedure with all of your students during the first week or so of the new school year.
Reading Vocabulary 219
8. Create a master list of words that seem to be problematic and determine the number of students in the class who seem to find each word difficult or unknown. 9. Use the more frequent problem words as part of your vocabulary instruction program.
Vocabulary Definition Age Range: 6–17 Standards: ELA-Literacy.L.2.5: Demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.3.5: Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.4.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal precise actions, emotions, or states of being (e.g., quizzed, whined, stammered) and that are basic to a particular topic (e.g., wildlife, conservation, and endangered when discussing animal preservation). ELA-Literacy.L.5.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal contrast, addition, and other logical relationships (e.g., however, although, nevertheless, similarly, moreover, in addition). PURPOSE Vocabulary definition (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2013; Gomes-Koban, Simpson, Valle, & Defior, 2017) can be used either as a whole-group screening assessment or for individual (one-on-one teacher and student) assessment. The idea is to identify key words to be learned and then ask students to complete an assessment grid like the one shown in Figure 7.2, in which they describe their knowledge of each word. Once students have completed this quick self-assessment, teachers can plot each student’s results to create a profile similar to Figure 7.3. From this classroom profile, small-group instruction can be planned based on student needs. Notice that individual student responses are rated in terms of how well students may know word meanings consistent with the research-based terms reported earlier: established, acquainted, and unknown. MATERIALS
• A narrative or expository text to be read by the student(s) • A list of new key words selected from your target passage.
Figure 7.2 Vocabulary Definition Student Sheet Name______________________________Betheny_______________________________________________ Words
I know it well (E: Established)
I know something about it, and can relate it to something (A: Acquainted)
Tyranny Sensitive
I do not really know this word (U: Unknown)
✓ ✓
Dubious
✓
Purport
✓
Revolution
✓
Traitor Passage
✓
SOURCE: Adapted from Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
220 Chapter 7
Figure 7.3 Vocabulary Definition Student Profile Key Words
Shannon
Randy
Julie
Eddie
Betheny
Jake U
Tyranny
U
E
U
A
A
Sensitive
E
E
A
A
E
A
Dubious
A
A
U
U
U
U
Purport
U
U
U
U
U
U
Revolution
A
E
A
A
A
U
Traitor
A
A
A
U
A
A
KEY: U = Unknown, A = Acquainted, E = Established
• Vocabulary definition student sheet similar to the one shown in Figure 7.2 • Vocabulary definition student profile sheet (see Figure 7.3) with your students’ names across the top and the target words along the side PROCEDURE
1. Introduce your students to the vocabulary definitions activity using examples on the whiteboard. 2. Explain the levels of word knowledge (i.e., established, acquainted, and unknown) and then provide several examples in which you model how you would complete the form. Use words previously learned, such as those found on your word wall. 3. Once you are confident students understand the task, distribute the vocabulary definition sheet you have produced. 4. When the task is completed, collate the results using the vocabulary definition student profile sheet you have created for this purpose. 5. With this information you can now form small groups for instruction based on specific needs.
Word Map Age Range: 7–17 Standards: ELA-Literacy.L.1.4: Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiplemeaning words and phrases based on grade 1 reading and content, choosing flexibly from an array of strategies. ELA-Literacy.L.2.5: Demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.3.5: Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.4.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal precise actions, emotions, or states of being (e.g., quizzed, whined, stammered) and that are basic to a particular topic (e.g., wildlife, conservation, and endangered when discussing animal preservation). ELA-Literacy.L.5.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal contrast, addition, and other logical relationships (e.g., however, although, nevertheless, similarly, moreover, in addition). PURPOSE A word map (also called a semantic map, word web, or concept map) (Craig, 2017; Johnson & Johnson, 2011; Schwartz & Raphael, 1985) is a kind of graphic organizer
Reading Vocabulary 221
that shows the nature of a word’s meaning relationships. Word maps were found to be informative and easy to implement in urban middle schools serving underprivileged students in a federally funded research study (Cooter & Cooter, 2010). A good alternative to the word definition strategy described previously, word maps ask students to answer three important questions about target words: What is it? What is it like? What are some examples? Answers to these questions are valuable because they help children link the new word or concept to their prior knowledge and world experiences, a process known to have a beneficial effect on reading comprehension. MATERIALS
• A list of targeted words from a passage you plan to use • Create student word map sheets similar to the one shown in Figure 7.4 • Create a word map summary sheet similar to the one shown in Figure 7.5 for collating results
Figure 7.4 Word Map
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
What is it?
Word Map
What is it like?
What are some examples?
Figure 7.5 Word Map Summary Sheet Key Terms
Background Knowledge Item
1. republic
What is it?
✓
What is it like? (1)
✓
Shannon
Randy
Julie
Eddie
Betheny
Jake
✓ ✓
✓
What is it like? (2)
✓
✓
What is it like? (3) Example 1
✓
Example 2
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Example 3 NOTES: For most of these students the term “republic” is either unknown or they are somewhat acquainted with the term. Two students, Shannon and Eddie, have nearly mastered (i.e., have “republic” as an established term in their background knowledge).
222 Chapter 7 PROCEDURE
1. To get started, Cooter and Cooter (2010) recommend that you carefully review an upcoming unit of study. Identify the most important words or concepts and select 5 to 10 of these to use in your assessment. 2. Explain the task to students and provide several examples in which you model how you would complete the form. Use words previously learned, such as those found on your word wall. 3. Once you are confident that students understand the task, distribute the word map student sheets you have produced, using one map for each word (see Figure 7.4). This will help you better understand the background knowledge students have about each word before you begin instruction. 4. Use a word map summary sheet like the one shown in Figure 7.5 to summarize your students’ results. A check mark indicates an acceptable response.
Multiple Dimensions of Word Knowledge Age Range: 8–17 Standards: ELA-Literacy.L.1.4: Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiplemeaning words and phrases based on grade 1 reading and content, choosing flexibly from an array of strategies. ELA-Literacy.L.2.5: Demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.3.5: Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.4.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal precise actions, emotions, or states of being (e.g., quizzed, whined, stammered) and that are basic to a particular topic (e.g., wildlife, conservation, and endangered when discussing animal preservation). ELA-Literacy.L.5.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal contrast, addition, and other logical relationships (e.g., however, although, nevertheless, similarly, moreover, in addition). PURPOSE For quickly assessing students’ knowledge of vocabulary, Cervetti, Tilson, Caster, Bravo, and Trainin (2012) have researched an assessment strategy they refer to as multiple dimensions of word knowledge. Their assessment tool was a multiple-choice test originally used with third and fourth grade students that included items for six knowledge types—recognition, definition, classification/example, context, application, and interrelatedness. MATERIALS
• A text you plan to use for instruction • List of important vocabulary and concepts you wish to emphasize drawn from the -targeted narrative text • A student form you have created showing the multiple dimensions of word knowledge you are targeting from the narrative passage (see example in Figure 7.6) PROCEDURE
1. First, explain the task to your students and provide several examples in which you model how you would complete the form. Use words previously learned, such as those found on your word wall.
Reading Vocabulary 223
Figure 7.6 Multiple Dimensions of Word Knowledge: Narrative Text Example Sample Items for Assessing Student Knowledge of the Word Scoundrel Word Knowledge Dimension
Item
Recognition
How well do you know the word scoundrel? ______ I have not heard of or seen this word before. ______ I think I have seen or heard this word before, but have no idea what it means. ______ I have seen or heard this word before, but I think I know what it means. ______ I am very familiar with this word and I know what it means.
Definition
What does scoundrel mean? ______ It is a similar to a rascal or cheater. ______ It is a tool used for plumbing. ______ It is a nice person, like a hero. ______ It is a place in a Europe.
Example
Which of these is an example of a scoundrel? ______ A person who tricks old people out of their money. ______ Superman. ______ Paris, France. ______ A monkey wrench.
Context
Which sentence below uses the word scoundrel correctly? ______ When all of our lunches from home were missing, we thought a scoundrel must have played a trick on us. ______ Like all scoundrels, Batman does good deeds. ______ Whenever we have a plumbing problem in our house, we naturally call a scoundrel to help us.
Application
Is a nice person a scoundrel? ____ Yes ____ No Is Goldielocks a scoundrel when she goes into the Bears home uninvited? ____ Yes ____ No Is Lord Voldemort in Harry Potter a scoundrel? ____ Yes ____ No Is a hammer capable of being a scoundrel? ____ Yes ____ No
Relatedness
Which two words are similar in meaning to scoundrel? (Choose two) ______ Crook ______ Saint ______ Rascal ______ Hero
2. Once you are confident students understand the task, distribute the multiple dimensions of word knowledge student sheets you have produced (see Figure 7.6). This will help you better understand the depth of knowledge students have about each word before you begin instruction.
Cloze Test (Modified for Academic Vocabulary Assessment) Age Range: 7 and above ELA-Literacy.L.1.4 and L.2.5: Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on grade 1 reading and content, choosing flexibly from an array of strategies. ELA-Literacy.L.4.6 and L.5.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal contrast, addition, and other logical relationships (e.g., however, although, nevertheless, similarly, moreover, in addition). PURPOSE Traditional cloze tests are short (no more than 250 words) screening assessment passages drawn from reading materials found in your instructional program. The purpose of a traditional cloze test is to determine whether the passage is on an instructional or independent reading level for students. However, we have modified the cloze test in this instance for the purpose of assessing vocabulary knowledge of academic vocabulary critical to comprehending a particular unit of study. Although they are often drawn from fiction texts, we feel their best use is with adopted subject-area
224 Chapter 7 textbooks that all students are required to read because of the relatively high frequency of unusual words. When used as a vocabulary assessment, cloze tests have key words (e.g., content vocabulary, and/or some Tier 2 or 3 words) deleted and replaced with a blank line (Johnson, 2001). Students are asked to read the cloze passage(s) and fill in missing words based on what they believe makes sense using context clues. Students guess the missing words based on knowledge of a subject, understanding of basic syntax (word order relationships), and word or sentence meaning (semantics). Cloze tests have distinct advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps the major advantage is that they can be administered to a group of students all at once rather than to one individual at a time. Another advantage is the emphasis on context and, therefore, comprehension. On the other hand, cloze tests can be pretty frustrating to kids since they tend to miss quite a few items compared to, say, multiple choice tests. However, you can soften the frustration problem, especially with struggling readers, by using a maze test as an alternative (discussed in the next section). MATERIALS
• Cloze tests based on nonfiction/core subject area textbook or other passages in your curriculum. PROCEDURE
1. Begin by identifying three passages of about 250 words each from the book you plan to use for instruction (e.g., science, social studies, supplemental texts). One passage should be selected near the beginning of the textbook chapter or passage, a second from around the middle, and the third from the end. 2. Type each of the three selections using the Arial font (or a similar font)since this tends to be easier for students to read. 3. Once you have created your three text documents, edit them as follows: • Leave the first sentence intact (no changes). • Beginning with the second sentence, delete one of the target/content words and replace it with an underlined blank space large enough for students to write in the word they think is missing. • Continue to delete and replace about every fifth word thereafter that is an important academic content term with an underlined blank space until you have no more than 50 blanks. • After the last blank/missing term has been reached, simply leave the remaining part of that sentence intact (no deletions). • Include another sentence or two at the end of the cloze passage. Your cloze passage is now ready. 4. Follow the same steps to compose your other two cloze passages. Refer to Figure 7.7 for an example of a partial cloze passage. Scoring Cloze Passages With cloze passages, students must guess the exact missing word to get the response correct. However, misspellings are not counted as errors. Students tend to make many errors on cloze passages, so do not be alarmed. The scoring criteria reflect this requirement:
• Independent level = 50% or more correct • Instructional level = 33–49% • Frustration level = 0–32%
Reading Vocabulary 225
Figure 7.7 Cloze Test Modified for Academic and Tier 2 Vocabulary Assessment (Partial Example) Popcorn There are three major types of corn grown in this country. First, there is the type of corn ______ eat most of the time. It is called sweet corn because of its ______ flavor. Second, there is field corn, ______ is used mainly for feeding ______. Sometimes people eat field corn too. ______, its taste is not as good as sweet corn and its______ are not as full. The third ______ of corn, often called Indian corn, is popcorn. Popcorn is grown ______ in the United States because the average American eats almost two ______ of popcorn a year, according to various ______. When America was ______ by Columbus, Native ______ had been eating popcorn for thousands of years. They ______ it several different ways. One way was to ______ the ear of corn on a stick and place it over a campfire. Any ______ that popped out of the fire were ______ up and eaten . . . SOURCE: Cooter, R.B., Flynt, E.S., & Cooter, K.S. (in press). The Comprehensive Reading Inventory, 3rd Ed(CRI-3).Columbus, OH: Pearson Education. Used with
permission of Pearson Education.
If you administer three cloze passages from each textbook as recommended, average the results to determine each student’s overall reading level for the screening assessment. HOW DOES THIS PROCESS DIFFER FROM A TRADITIONAL CLOZE PASSAGE? Traditional cloze passages are used to determine whether passages are above the reading level (too hard) for students to read without intervention from the teacher using materials with an easier readability. When used for this purpose, cloze passages have every fifth word deleted and replaced with a blank starting with the second sentence and continue until 50 blanks have been substituted for words in the passage. Thus, specialized academic words are not targeted as we have done in this modified version of cloze, as well as with the maze procedure that follows.
Maze Test Age Range: 7 and above Standards: ELA-Literacy.L.1.4 and L.2.5: Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on grade 1 reading and content, choosing flexibly from an array of strategies. ELA-Literacy.L.4.6 and L.5.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal contrast, addition, and other logical relationships (e.g., however, although, nevertheless, similarly, moreover, in addition). PURPOSE The maze test (Guthrie et al., 1974) is essentially the same in purpose and format as the cloze test with one exception. Children are given passages constructed in the same way as the cloze test, but there are three choices for students to choose from for each blank. This reduces student stress, but also requires a different scoring scale. MATERIALS
• Maze tests in this example are primarily based on nonfiction/core subject-area textbooks because of the relatively high frequency of unusual words. PROCEDURE Follow the same steps in creating maze passages just described for creating modified cloze passages, except give three choices for replacing the deleted word (Alexander & Heathington, 1988):
1. The correct word 2. An incorrect word that is the same part of speech 3. An incorrect word that is a different part of speech
226 Chapter 7
Table 7.2 Summary Matrix of Vocabulary Assessment Procedures
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY(S) (WITH PAGE #)
VOCABULARY SKILLS/ABILITIES ASSESSED*
Interactive highlighting of unknown vocabulary
ASSESSMENT PURPOSE(S): SCREENING (S), DIAGNOSTIC (D), PROGRESS MONITORING (M), OUTCOMES (O)
RELIABILITY (R), VALIDITY (V) EVIDENCE
S, D
R- Not available V- Curricular
Oral Reading Assessment
Ability to determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple meaning words Able to determine word relationships and nuances in word meanings
M
R- Not available V- Curricular
Vocabulary Definition
Knowledge of academic vocabulary
S, D, M, O
R- Not available V- Curricular
Word map
Knowledge of academic vocabulary
S, D, M, O
R- Not available V- Curricular
Multiple Dimensions of Word Knowledge
Use of new words acquired through conversations and reading
D, M, O
R- Not available V- Curricular
Cloze (Modified)
Ability to determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple meaning words Knowledge of academic vocabulary
S, M, O
R- Not available V- Curricular
Maze (Modified)
Ability to determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple meaning words Knowledge of academic vocabulary
S, M, O
R- Not available V- Curricular
*All vocabulary skills/standards are based on grade-appropriate reading materials.
Maze Sample Sentence Gem diamonds’ quality is _________ on weight, purity, color, and cut. (based, stored, seem) Scoring Maze Tests The criteria for assessing maze tests is as follows (Bradley et al., 1978):
Independent level = 85% or more correct (43 or more correct out of 50) Instructional level = 50–84% (−25–42 correct) Frustration level = 0–49% (−0–24 correct) If you administer three maze passages from each textbook passage as recommended, average the results to determine each student’s overall reading level. In Table 7.2 we summarize the vocabulary assessment procedures we have discussed thus far and provide summary information about their purposes (i.e., screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, or outcomes assessment), as well as type of test or procedure and psychometric evidence of test or procedure scores (i.e., any available reliability and validity evidence).
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
Classroom Profile Form – Reading Vocabulary Learning Skills
Using Student Assessment Data to Guide Instruction: A Classroom Profile and an If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide After reviewing evidence-based research as well as the Common Core foundational skills for reading fluency, we constructed a classroom profile for your use to summarize vocabulary skill development for each student. In Table 7.3 we provide for your use our CLASSROOM PROFILE FORM: READING VOCABULARY LEARNING SKILLS.
Reading Vocabulary 227
Table 7.3 Classroom Profile Form: Reading Vocabulary Learning Skills & Needs
STUDENT NAME
Ability to determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple meaning words (Tiers 2 and 3) Specific Vocabulary Identified for Instruction
Able to determine word relationships and nuances in word meanings (Tiers 1, 2 and 3) Specific Vocabulary Identified for Instruction
Knowledge of academic vocabulary (Tiers 2 and 3) Specific Vocabulary Identified for Instruction
Use of new words acquired through conversations and reading (Tiers 1, 2 and 3) Specific Vocabulary Identified for Instruction
VOCABULARY TO TEACH WHOLE- CLASS
Table 7.4 If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide: Reading Vocabulary “IF” your assessment show that a student needs to learn this skill . . .
“THEN” use this teaching strategy(s) first
Alternate Teaching Strategy(s) that are appropriate
Ability to determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple meaning words (Tiers 2 and 3)
Vocabulary Cluster Think-Pair-Share
Frayer Model Making Words
Able to determine word relationships and nuances in word meanings (Tiers 1, 2 and 3)
Think-Pair-Share Word Wall
Word Wall
• Word sorts
• Flashlight Fun
Knowledge of academic vocabulary (Tiers 2 and 3)
Five-Step Method Frayer Model
Think-Pair-Share Vocabulary BINGO! DECENT Stories
Use of new words acquired through conversations and reading (Tiers 1, 2 and 3)
Think-Pair-Share Making Words
Word Wall • Rhymes • Snowman • Clap, chant, write
Connecting Assessment Findings to Teaching Strategies Before discussing fluency intervention strategies, we provide an If-Then Chart connecting assessment to intervention and strategy choices. It is our intention to help you select the most appropriate instructional interventions and strategies to meet your students’ fluency development needs based on assessment data. Most fluency development activities tend to fall into differing types of practice strategies. In the If-Then Chart shown in Table 7.4 we have listed the teaching strategies that appear in the next section and link them to key areas of need that your fluency assessments have revealed.
Teaching Strategies for Vocabulary Development There are four fundamental types of word learning around which vocabulary instruction is organized (Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2008). First is helping students learn a new meaning for a known word. For example, students are well acquainted with the word “run” as a verb as in “moving about quickly” as opposed to walking. But the word run has some 645 different meanings depending on context and syntax. A few of these
228 Chapter 7
MyLab Education
Video Example 7.2: Teaching Words Having Multiple Meanings In this video, a teacher sets up experiences that help students understand how some words carry different leanings depending on their context. When you are finished, describe the steps used by this teacher in orchestrating rich vocabulary development for her students.
might include: Marvin had a run of bad luck; Mother did the school run today since it was her turn in the car pool; Jen had a run in her stocking; and Birch Avenue runs from the cobble stones down to the harbor. So, part of the teacher’s job is to show how some words have multiple meanings. A second type of word learning involves learning the meaning of a new word for an already known concept. For example, students may understand that some things in life are relatively commonplace like McDonald’s restaurants, soccer games, and schools. But they may not know that another word for things pervasive in everyday life is ubiquitous. The third type of vocabulary instruction has students learning the meaning of a new word or term for an unknown concept. As an example, a student may not know the term water cycle or the process it represents. This type of Tier 2 and Tier 3 vocabulary is common in the subject areas and is known as academic vocabulary (Picot, 2017). Academic vocabulary to be taught is typically identified in the adopted curriculum for each subject area (mathematics, science, social studies, English language arts). There are also resources you can tap online such as Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List (AWL) available at vocabulary.com and other websites. Finally, clarifying and enriching the meaning of a known word is the fourth type of word learning. This often involves learning more subtle differences in words related to a similar concept. For example, a student may learn the differences between kayak, schooner, canoe, skiff, ferry, and outrigger when thinking about boats and their different purposes. The teaching strategies that follow may be used to satisfy one or more of these four types of word learning according to the needs of your students. There is no better place to start than with word walls because of their great flexibility of use and purpose.
Word Walls Age Range: 5–17 Standards: ELA-Literacy.L.1.5: With guidance and support from adults, demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.2.5: Demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.3.4: Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiplemeaning word and phrases based on grade 3 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies. **Appropriate for Vocabulary Tiers Two & Three Words PURPOSE Word walls are a common feature in elementary classrooms that generally have two different purposes: 1) providing a space where students can practice word identification skills (decoding) regarding high frequency words (Cunningham, 2000), and 2) as a tool for word recognition (i.e., understanding word meanings and concepts). In this chapter we suggest word walls for the latter purpose . . . helping students deepen their understanding of new vocabulary and concepts. This is primarily done using word sorts to help students link new words and concepts to those already known through instructional conversations and writing activities (Ganske, 2018). In general, word wall activities involve the teacher introducing, posting, and leading conversations about important Tier 2 and Tier 3 words on a section of wall, a pocket chart, on an easel (our preference), or on a bulletin board. Students should also have copies of words from the word wall at their desk for sorting and writing activities. These words are then categorized and sorted in order to help students understand their various meanings and nuanced meanings depending on the context. It is very important that any word wall allow for words to be easily moved, grouped, or removed. The materials need not be costly.
Reading Vocabulary 229
MATERIALS
• Pocket chart on an easel, blank section of the classroom wall, or a blank bulletin board • Card stock (approximately 5 × 8 inches each) for writing individual words and longer pieces for sentence strips. If you are using part of your classroom wall, you will also need something (tape, Velcro) for attaching words and that allows students to move the words around for activities that follow • Black markers (dry-erase markers for whiteboards) • Text and supplemental readings for your required unit of study • A list of vocabulary you plan to target PROCEDURE Based on years of experimentation in urban schools having a great deal of diversity, the following procedure is a good way to begin using word walls.
1. It is important that word walls are group generated (i.e., teachers and students work together, at least partly, in selecting words to go on the wall). Begin with students working in small groups provided with the text and/or supplemental texts you plan to use in a new literature unit. 2. Ask them to identify in their groups three to five words in the text selection that are: • Known words • Familiar words (i.e., words I have heard before, but don’t know very well) • Unknown words (i.e., words I have never heard before or don’t know what they mean) 3. Ask each group to write these three word types on a sheet of paper and be prepared to share their findings with the class. (Note: If students should come across new or interesting general vocabulary as they preview the text materials, they can include these in their list, too.) 4. Ask each group to take turns sharing and discussing their words with the class. If general vocabulary words are mentioned, they may be discussed and linked to other words and concepts about which students are aware. 5. After the groups have finished their presentations, ask the class to help you identify words that should go onto a master list or the group-generated word wall. 6. Help students notice the words they had in common by underlining or circling them. 7. The first words to go onto the word wall should be ones that two or more groups had in common. Write these words on card stock large enough for all students to see and post on your word wall. Word Sorts The key to success in teaching vocabulary is to provide students with multiple, meaningful exposures to new words and lots of conversation about their meanings (Kennedy, Rodgers, Romig, Lloyd, & Brownell, 2017). Word sorts are a key strategy for teachers to use with their word walls to develop word recognition—that is, being able to instantly decode the word AND know its leaning. For example, word sorts that have the students categorize, compare and contrast words with similar meanings, and/or link new words to known concepts are the kind of activities that provide deep learning of new vocabulary (Ganske, 2018).As a rule of thumb, students usually need from 12 to 20 meaningful exposures for words to be truly learned. We have found that having students sort words on a daily basis for just 5 to 10 minutes, and then talking about why these new arrangements of words make sense, will help your students learn and succeed. There are many ways words can be sorted and talked about with your students, and you may be able to invent some of your own. The purpose of doing word sorts
MyLab Education
Video Example 7.3: Word Wall Activity
In this video, a teacher works with a small group of 1st graders identifying word wall words using rhyming clues.
230 Chapter 7 with your word walls is to get students to group, discuss, regroup, and further discuss important vocabulary in your area of study. Following are three of the most basic word sort strategies that may be used with your students. • Closed word sorts. With closed word sorts, students are told in advance the categories in which they must arrange their vocabulary cards.
MyLab Education
Video Example 7.4: Word Sort Activity
In this video, pay particular attention the content-focused conversations used by 2nd grade students as they work through an open word sort using vocabulary from their study of plants. Notice how the teacher only assists as needed.
• Open word sorts. With open word sorts, students are required to group words from the academic word wall according to how they think they are related and then provide their own label for each group of words. The label may be an important concept in your unit of study, a relationship, or a common characteristic the words share. • Speed sorts. Open or closed sorts are used (teacher’s choice) and students have to complete them within a certain amount of time (e.g., 1-minute sort, 2-minute sort). This is a great review or assessment activity. Students should be expected to explain or justify why they think specific words belong under a label or category. This creates an opportunity for students to talk about the words, explore their meanings, and retell what they have learned. Word sort activities using academic word walls are ideal for either whole-class discussions or smallgroup instruction. OTHER POPULAR WORD WALL ACTIVITIES We now share a few more activities found to be popular in urban schools participating in our research.
• Password. Divide the class into two teams. One person from each team sits in a chair in front of the class. Those two people receive a card with a vocabulary word from the word wall. The first person gives a one-word clue to his or her team. If no one from the team can guess the word, the second person gives a clue to his or her team. This alternates back and forth until someone from one of the teams guesses the word, or until a specified number of clues have been given. • Snowman. Snowman is a simple vocabulary review activity. Proceed according to the following easy steps substituting words and details as needed for those used in this example, which are from a unit on the moon for the target word crater: 1. On a whiteboard or chart paper, draw three circles in the shape of a snowman, but do not add any other features (like eyes, nose, etc.). Below the snowman, draw the number of spaces representing each letter of the target word. 2. Say, “I’m thinking of a word on our academic word wall that has six letters and has something to do with an impact.” 3. The students guess one letter at a time. As a correct letter is guessed, write the letter in the corresponding blank. For each incorrect guess, draw one part of the snowman in this order—eyes, nose, mouth, one arm, then the next arm, and ending with a top hat. If the whole body is drawn due to incorrect responses, the snowman is complete, and the teacher/partner supplies the correct answer.
Reading Vocabulary 231
Five-Step Method Age Range: 6–17 Standards: ELA-Literacy.L.1.4: Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiplemeaning words and phrases based on grade 1 reading and content, choosing flexibly from an array of strategies. ELA-Literacy.L.2.5: Demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.3.5: Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.4.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal precise actions, emotions, or states of being (e.g., quizzed, whined, stammered) and that are basic to a particular topic (e.g., wildlife, conservation, and endangered when discussing animal preservation). ELA-Literacy.L.5.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal contrast, addition, and other logical relationships (e.g., however, although, nevertheless, similarly, moreover, in addition). PURPOSE Smith and Johnson (1980) suggested a five-step method of teaching new vocabulary for instant recognition we feel is appropriate for vocabulary tiers two and three words. It uses multiple modalities to help students bring new words into the four vocabularies: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. MATERIALS
• Adry-erase board, whiteboard, or smartboard • Flash cards • Different color markers PROCEDURE
1. Seeing. The new vocabulary word is shown on the smartboard, whiteboard, ordry-erase board in the context of a sentence or (better) a short paragraph. 2. Listening. The teacher next discusses the word with students and verifies that they understand its meaning. 3. Discussing. Students are asked to create their own sentences using the new word or, perhaps, to think of a synonym or antonym for the word. This is done orally. 4. Defining. Students try to create their own definitions for the new word. This is often much more difficult than using it in a sentence and may not even be possible for some words (is, the, if, etc.). Sometimes it is helpful to ask students questions such as “What does this word mean?” or “What does this word do in the sentence?”
232 Chapter 7 5. Writing. We advocate using word banks or student-made dictionaries in grades K to 3. Students, sometimes requiring help, add each new word to their word bank and file it in alphabetical order. Each word is listed in isolation on one side of an index card and in the context of a sentence on the reverse side. Emergent readers may want to draw a picture clue on a “word bank” card to remind them of the word’s meaning.
Making Words (Modified for Academic Vocabulary) Age Range: 6–12 Standards: ELA-Literacy.L.1.5: With guidance and support from adults, demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings. PURPOSE Making Words is a popular hands-on activity that helps students discover how adding and removing letters changes word meanings. In this modification of making words, we focus on meaning elements in words (root words, prefixes and suffixes) for reviewing Tiers 2 and 3words found in academic vocabulary. MATERIALS
• A pocket chart • Index cards • Markers • Scissors PROCEDURE
1. Choose the vocabulary from your curriculum or text you want to emphasize. These should be Tier 2 and/or Tier 3 words. For example, let’s say you are working with a science text to be read by your students about the human heart. The target words include: cardiac cardiology cardiologist cardiogram electrocardiograph electrocardiogram The morphemes to be reviewed as part of this activity example include: cardi- cardio-s -gram -graph electro-ologist -ology 2. Using index cards for your pocket chart, write each of the morphemes on a separate card. You should also have available blank cards and markers for adding any missing letters or word elements that may be needed (e.g., -ac for cardiac). 3. Prepare questions/definitions for each target word that may be used in your making words activity. Here are some examples for this sample activity:
Reading Vocabulary 233
Question 1: This is a kind of picture of a person’s heart activity and is sometimes called an EKG or ECG. (electrocardiogram) Question 2: Keeping part of the word electrocardiogram, create a new word by that is the branch of medicine that deals with diseases of the heart. (cardiology) Question 3: What is the word part in the first two words we created and what do you think it means? (cardio-, heart). Question 4: Now create the word meaning two doctors who specialize in the study and treatment of heart disease. (cardiologists) 4. Before beginning the activity, place your word parts on the pocket chart or word wall and ask students to make a copy to use at their desks. They may do this on their own or with a partner. 5. Begin the activity using the questions/statements you have created. Again, this may be done in groups of two (dyads) to stimulate conversation about the topic. 6. After you have completed your questions/statements, challenge students to see if they can discover other words using these same word parts. For example, using some of the affixes in this sample lesson, students might generate other words such as: biology, biologist, telegram, telegraph, electromagnetic.
Frayer Model Age Range: 7–17 Standards: ELA-Literacy.L.1.4: Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiplemeaning words and phrases based on grade 1 reading and content, choosing flexibly from an array of strategies. ELA-Literacy.L.2.5: Demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.3.5: Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.4.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal precise actions, emotions, or states of being (e.g., quizzed, whined, stammered) and that are basic to a particular topic (e.g., wildlife, conservation, and endangered when discussing animal preservation). ELA-Literacy.L.5.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal contrast, addition, and other logical relationships (e.g., however, although, nevertheless, similarly, moreover, in addition). PURPOSE The Frayer Model (Frayer, Frederick, & Klausmeir, 1969) is a classic strategy that helps students understand new vocabulary and concepts in relation to what is already known. Frayer model activities present essential and nonessential information related to the term, as well as examples and nonexamples. We feel the Frayer model is appropriate for vocabulary tiers two and three words. MATERIALS
• Blank Frayer Model form that can be projected • A classroom projection system for demonstration purposes • Paper and pencils for student note taking
MyLab Education Video Example 7.5: The Frayer Model
In this video, a teacher uses the Frayer Model to teach upper grade students an important Tier 3 mathematics term. When you are finished, describe how the teacher was able to get students to participate in the discussion and discover the key word’s meaning
234 Chapter 7
Figure 7.8 Frayer Model: Mammals Concept: MAMMALS Essential Information or Attributes:
Examples:
1. higher-order vertebrates
1. dogs
2. nourish young with milk from mammary glands
2. humans
3. warm blooded
3. monkeys
4. have skin covered with hair Nonessential Information or Attributes:
4. whales Non-examples:
1. size of the mammal
1. spiders
2. number of young born
2. fish
3. where the mammal lives (i.e., water, land, etc.)
3. reptiles
PROCEDURE The teacher uses the Frayer Model to help students determine essential and nonessential information along with examples and nonexamples of a concept. This also helps them identify coordinate and subordinate relationships of the concept. This classification procedure can be done as a group, in dyads, or individually. Figure 7.8 shows an example for the concept of mammals.
Vocabulary Cluster: English Learners Age Range: 7–17 Standards: ELA-Literacy.L.1.4: Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiplemeaning words and phrases based on grade 1 reading and content, choosing flexibly from an array of strategies. ELA-Literacy.L.2.5: Demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.3.5: Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.4.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal precise actions, emotions, or states of being (e.g., quizzed, whined, stammered) and that are basic to a particular topic (e.g., wildlife, conservation, and endangered when discussing animal preservation). ELA-Literacy.L.5.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal contrast, addition, and other logical relationships (e.g., however, although, nevertheless, similarly, moreover, in addition). PURPOSE It is especially important that students who struggle with reading use the context of a passage with vocabulary they know to understand new words in print. This activity is appropriate for vocabulary tiers two and three words. ELLs and students who have vocabulary deficiencies due to poverty are two groups of students who benefit from direct instruction of this kind (Peregoy & Boyle, 2000). With the vocabulary cluster strategy, students are helped to read a passage, gather context clues, and then predict the meaning of a new word you have targeted for learning. MATERIALS
• Multiple copies of a text students are to read • A classroom projection system or smart board for demonstration purposes
Reading Vocabulary 235
Figure 7.9 Vocabulary Cluster with Target Word “Village” Clothing cost money, and there was very little money in the log-cabin, or indeed in the whole settlement, if settlement it can be called. There was no house within a mile, and the ______________ a mile and a half away contained only a school-house, a grist-mill, and a little log store and dwelling.
town
parish
city
?
settlement
hamlet
community
PROCEDURE
1. Select vocabulary you want to teach from a text the students will be reading. This could be a poem, a song, a novel, a nonfiction textbook, or other appropriate reading. 2. Gather the students around and draw their attention to the example you have prepared. The example should contain an excerpt from the text with sufficient context to help students predict what the unknown word may be. 3. The target word is deleted and replaced with a blank line, much the same as with a cloze passage. In Figure 7.9 you will find a passage prepared in this way, along with a vocabulary cluster supporting the new word to be learned. This example is an excerpt based on Chapter 1 in the free e-book released in 2005 by Project G utenberg From Canal Boy to President; Or, The Boyhood and Manhood of James A. Garfield by Horatio Alger, Jr. 4. Through discussion, you will lead students into predicting what the unknown word may be. If the word is not already in students’ listening vocabulary, as with ELL students or those with otherwise limited vocabularies, then you will be able to introduce the new word quite well using the context and synonyms provided in the vocabulary cluster.
Vocabulary Bingo! Age Range: 7–17 Standards: ELA-Literacy.L.2.5: Demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings.
236 Chapter 7 ELA-Literacy.L.3.5: Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.4.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal precise actions, emotions, or states of being (e.g., quizzed, whined, stammered) and that are basic to a particular topic (e.g., wildlife, conservation, and endangered when discussing animal preservation). ELA-Literacy.L.5.5: Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings. ELA-Literacy.L.5.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal contrast, addition, and other logical relationships (e.g., however, although, nevertheless, similarly, moreover, in addition). PURPOSE Vocabulary Bingo (Spencer, 1997) is a whole-group word review activity in the format of the popular game Bingo. This activity is an especially useful review for students learning English as a second language (ESL) and students in language enrichment programs, as well as for students whose first language is English. This activity is appropriate for teaching vocabulary tiers two and three words. MATERIALS
• Vocabulary Bingo boards on which you have printed new words learned in reading and writing activities during the year or chosen from a classroom word bank • Definitions for each word found on the cards written on slips of paper for the caller to read aloud during the game PROCEDURE Unlike traditional Bingo games in which participants cover spaces on their boards when a number such as B23 is called, students playing Vocabulary Bingo cover board spaces showing review vocabulary words matching the definitions that are read aloud by a caller. Boards can all be the same or can differ from one another, depending on the size of the group and the abilities of the learners. When all spaces in a row are covered, the student calls out “Bingo!” An example of a Vocabulary Bingo card is shown in Figure 7.10.
Think-Pair-Share Age Range: 5–17 Standards: ELA-Literacy.RI.K.7-9 through ELA-Literacy.RI.5.7-9; Integration of Knowledge and Ideas. PURPOSE Lyman and McTighe’s (1988) think-pair-share strategy (TPS) is a collaborative learning strategy that has students work together to solve a problem, answer a question, or explain a concept. TPS takes advantage of student conversations as a way
Figure 7.10 Vocabulary BINGO! Card Example VOCABULARY BINGO! silo
desert
umpire
dromedary
elevator
aviatrix
conifer
photography
precious
caravan
financier
meteoric
flank
declaration
cleats
maladjusted
payee
odoriferous
seizure
oasis
biannual
proceed
semicircle
humorous
proverb
Reading Vocabulary 237
Figure 7.11 Think–Pair–Share Think-Pair-Share 1. Teacher Asks a Question.
2. Students Think.
?
3. Pair.
4. Share with the Whole Group. Share Discuss
of discovering word and passage meanings. It has students think about a posed question and possible answers, pair with a classmate to compare their answers and decide on a final response, and then share their conclusions in a group conversation about the question. This strategy may be used before, during, or after reading a text. MATERIALS
• A poster that describes the expectations and processes of the think-pair-share strategy, as shown in Figure 7.11. PROCEDURE
1. The process begins with the teacher instructing students to listen to a question or problem that uses one or more important vocabulary Tier 2 or 3 words. Example: In a study of government in a fifth grade class, the teacher has introduced several Latin (L) and Greek (G) roots including –archy (G. meaning “leader, first”), -cracy (G. meaning “rule, ruler”), gyn (o)- (L. meaning “woman, female”), and ro(G. meaning “man”) and dem (o)- (G. meaning “the people”). 2. The teacher poses this question: “Using what you know about word parts, what do you think is the meaning of the word gynecocracy? When you think you know the answer that question, please give an example of a gynecocracy. You have three minutes to think of your responses.” 3. Think. Students are given time to think of a response. 4. Pair. Students are asked to share their responses with a peer (i.e., an “elbow partner”). 5. Share. Finally, students are encouraged to share their responses with the whole group. A time limit is typically set for each segment of the think-pair-share strategy. By the way, in this example the word gynecocracy, when broken down into its roots—gyne- (woman) and –ocracy (rule), yields a meaning along the lines of “government by women” or “political supremacy of women.” The Amazons would be one ancient example of a gynecocracy.
238 Chapter 7
Decent Stories Age Range: 8–17 Standards: ELA-Literacy.L.4.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal precise actions, emotions, or states of being (e.g., quizzed, whined, stammered) and that are basic to a particular topic (e.g., wildlife, conservation, and endangered when discussing animal preservation). ELA-Literacy.L.5.6: Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, including those that signal contrast, addition, and other logical relationships (e.g., however, although, nevertheless, similarly, moreover, in addition). PURPOSE DECENT Stories (Lee, Roberts, & Coffey, 2017), an acronym for Directive and Explicit Contexts in Elaborated Narrative Texts (DECENT) Stories, is a research-based strategy for teaching Tier 2 academic vocabulary. In this strategy teachers team up to create stories to teach the meanings of selected words in a rich context. The stories are then used as part of a four-step process to help students learn the targeted vocabulary permanently. MATERIALS
• Blank cards to be used a flash cards • Colored markers • Sentence strips • Teacher-constructed DECENT story • Dry erase board and markers PROCEDURE Part 1: Guidelines For Creating A DECENT Story (Lee, Roberts, & Coffey, 2017, p. 306)
1. Select one Tier 2 target 2. Decide on a theme for your story that would be a familiar situation or context for your learners. 3. Include an explicitly stated definition of the target word at least once. It should be written on students’ reading comprehension levels (we suggest using the Lexile Analyzer for this [www.lexile.com]) and consistent with the context of the story. 4. Provide context clues for the target words in your story before and after the target word appears and after the target word appears. 5. Each target word should appear five or more times in the story to insure repeated exposure of the target word. 6. Once the DECENT story is written, prepare flash cards for the target words (one word on each card). Part 2: Teaching Using DECENT Stories We recommend using a four-step process for teaching targeted Tier 2 academic vocabulary from the DECENT story you created. 1. Introduce the new words using either the flashcards you created, on a smartboard, ordry-erase board in the context of a sentence or paragraph from the DECENT story. 2. Discuss each word with students and to verify that they understand its meaning.
Reading Vocabulary 239
3. Now, ask students working in pairs to create their own sentences using the new word(s). You might also ask them to think of a synonym or antonym for the word. Once they have had a few minutes to do these activities, ask student groups to report out. 4. Next, ask students working in pairs to create their own definitions for each new word. Once they have had a few minutes to do these activities, ask student groups to write their definitions on sentence strips and share with the group (or write their definitions on the dry erase board).
Recommended Resources Allen, J. (2014). Tools for teaching academic vocabulary. New York: Stenhouse. Beck, I., McKeown, M.; & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Marzano, R. (2009). Teaching basic and advanced vocabulary: A framework for direct instruction. New York: Cengage Overturf, B.J. (2013).Word nerds: Teaching all students to learn & love vocabulary. New York: Stenhouse.
Chapter 8
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts Gather around, boys and girls,” Mrs. Jensen spoke gently. “I have a new book to read to you today. How many of you know the story of Peter Cottontail?” “Teacher, I know what a cottontail is, it’s a tiny bunny with a tail that looks like a cotton ball,” exclaims Julianna. “Very good thinking, Julianna, but this story isn’t really so much about a bunny. It is a story about something that all little boys and girls need to learn. Have any of you ever disobeyed your parents? Can you share with us what it was you did and what happened when you disobeyed?” “Oh, once my Mom told me not to ride my scooter off jumps or I would wreck and hurt myself. I didn’t listen and did it anyway. One day I made a big jump off a wooden ramp at Georgio’s house and landed sideways and fell over. I put my hand out to stop from falling and broke my wrist real bad. It had to be in a cast for 6 weeks,” explained José. “Well, that is a very good example, José. Our story today tells us about a little rabbit named Peter, who always liked to stop in the best garden in the country for a snack on the way home from school—Mr. McGregor’s garden. And Mr. McGregor didn’t like having bunnies in his garden patch eating his prize vegetables. Peter’s mom bought him some nice new clothes and reminded him not to go into Mr. McGregor’s garden. What do you think might have happened?” “Before we read, girls and boys,” intones Mrs. Jensen, “let’s think of some questions we might ask about Peter’s adventure in Mr. McGregor’s garden. Turn to your neighbor on the rug and talk about one question you might want to have answered as we read the story of Peter Cottontail. I will give you 2 minutes to think of a question. Then, when you are ready, fold your arms so that I know you have a question to ask. When everyone is ready, I will call on one person in your pair to tell me your question. I will write the questions on this large piece of chart paper. I’ll leave a space for filling in the answers as we read,” said Mrs. Jensen. Mrs. Jensen skillfully introduced this age-old tale, helping the children connect to experiences they or others have had when disobeying their parents’ instructions. By asking the right questions, Mrs. Jensen helped her students activate the appropriate prior knowledge related to the message of the story—disobedience—rather than activating knowledge related to the topic—rabbits—to help guide their comprehension of the text. To motivate children to read with a purpose, Mrs. Jensen invited the children in collaboration with a partner to choose questions they would like to have answered by reading the story. As they read, they will discuss the answers to the questions that are displayed on the chart paper. This is an excellent way to help children begin to monitor their understanding of a text. They soon realize that reading should result in getting answers to their own questions and that they should monitor whether they are getting the answers to their
240
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 241
questions as they go along in reading. Mrs. Jensen is one of those rare primary-grade teachers who help students understand from the outset of reading instruction that comprehension is the ultimate goal!
Background Briefing for Teachers Reading comprehension with regard to narrative and expository texts has to do with the ability to construct meaning from written language (Santos, Cadime, Viana, ChavesSousa, Gayo, et al., 2017). Comprehension has for many decades been regarded as the “essence” of reading (Durkin, 1993; Shapiro, Gebhardt, Flatley, Guard, Qiong, et al., 2017). Narrative texts are in many ways a form of artistic representation depicting people, groups, imaginary characters, or cultural events that are real or imaginary (Botsas, 2017). In our opinion, the writing of literature, or narrative text, is equal parts creativity, storytelling, and discipline. “Great or classic literature” (a term best defined by the reader) has the potential of speaking to us in ways that fact-based texts typically cannot attain. Words introduced to readers in literature are often used to express common and not-so-common life experiences in unique ways. Perhaps this is one reason why students tend to find comprehension of narrative texts easier than expository texts (e.g., Schimmel & Ness, 2017).
What Research Says About Reading Comprehension The Report of the National Reading Panel in 2000 launched a new era in education emphasizing like never before the need for research-based teaching practices in American classrooms. Though some of its methods may have been controversial, there is no question the bar had been raised in terms of expectations for literacy research. Since that time, researchers have continued to add to our knowledge base about reading comprehension and the other critical areas of literacy using gold standard practices. The National Reading Panel (NRP) (2000) illuminated three comprehension themes of evidence-based research that are still relevant today. Here is what we know from the NRP and a growing body of research since the report was issued: • Reading comprehension is a complex thinking process that is inextricably linked and influenced by vocabulary and reading fluency development. • Reading comprehension is an intentional process requiring thoughtful interaction between the reader and the text. We know that readers get meaning from text when they use problem-solving processes, and when they are able to relate the ideas presented in text to their own knowledge and experiences (i.e., linking the “new” with the “known”) to construct new memory structures called schemas in the brain. • Teachers must help students develop and apply reading comprehension strategies for them to succeed in all school subjects. Though students learn many comprehension skills informally, they also require the explicit or formal teaching of comprehension strategies to be fully prepared to tackle increasingly complex narrative texts (Toyama, Hiebert, & Pearson, 2017). Formal instruction insures that students are to think strategically when they have difficulty understanding what they are reading. The areas for explicit instruction include the following: Comprehension monitoring. Also known as metacognition, this is where readers pay attention to their understanding of the material and make adjustments (e.g., rereading) when necessary to insure good comprehension is happening; Cooperative learning. Where students practice applying reading strategies together to solve a text-based problem; Graphic organizers (including story maps). Students create illustrations or maps representing key ideas and concepts presented in the material to assist
242 Chapter 8 comprehension (e.g., maps, webs, graphs, charts, frames, or clusters, semantic maps and semantic webs); Question answering. Readers answer questions presented by the teacher and receive immediate feedback. These questions may require students to remember explicit (literal) details from the text, draw implicit (inferential) conclusions or “reading between the lines,” or require scriptal conclusions not found in the text but use the reader’s prior knowledge. Some examples of questions that are helpful include those that provide students with a reason or purpose for reading the selected text; focus readers’ attention on what we want them to learn from the text; and help students to relate the text content to what they already know; Question generation. Readers develop their own questions about various aspects of the story; Story structure. Students are taught to use the structure of a story to help them recall story content to answer questions and/or discuss what they have read; and Summarization. Students learn to integrate ideas and generalize from the text information to create written or verbal synopses such as identifying the main ideas in a passage; and connecting ideas and concepts. Finally, research confirms that teaching students to use a set or family of reading comprehension strategies is most effective. Not only does using a set or family of comprehension strategies assist in narrative reading comprehension, but it also can improve results on standardized comprehension tests. One set or family of four comprehension strategies proven effective is called “reciprocal teaching.” In this strategy students work together with their teacher to combine four of the comprehension strategies mentioned: (1) asking questions; (2) summarization of parts of a text; (3) using comprehension monitoring (e.g., rereading for context clues) to clarify meanings of words and sentences; and (4) question answering and/or question generation to predict what might occur next in the text. DIRECT EXPLANATION AND TRANSACTIONAL STRATEGY INSTRUCTION Not only do teachers need to have a firm grasp of a text’s content, but they also must have thorough knowledge of evidence-based comprehension strategies. Specifically, knowing which strategies best address comprehension obstacles in difficult or challenging text is the mark of expert reading comprehension instruction for teachers and strategic choice of strategies by students. It is important to note that students only need strategies to comprehension when text content, context, or structure become challenging; otherwise students have no need to apply strategies at all to comprehend most easy texts. We also know that master teachers are skillful in their instruction and are able to respond quickly to students’ needs by providing instructive feedback as they read. There are two fundamental approaches to narrative comprehension instruction: a Direct Explanation Approach and Transactional Strategy Instruction. A direct explanation approach, sometimes known as direct, explicit instruction, has the teacher explain the thinking processes involved in successful reading comprehension. Instead of teaching specific strategies in isolation, teachers help students
• understand that reading is a kind of problem-solving task that requires strategic and tactical thinking, and therefore • learn to think strategically about solving comprehension problems. A direct explanation approach has four main components: teacher explanation as to how a given strategy helps students comprehend and when it should be used, modeling by the teacher using “think-aloud” procedures to demonstrate how the strategy is used (Botsas, 2017), guided practice where students practice using the strategy with coaching from the teacher or another proficient reader until the student can use the strategy properly, and application exercises where the student demonstrates she is able to use the new strategy independently and with various types of text.
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 243
Transactional strategy instruction has teachers develop learning tasks fostering student collaborative discussions around interpretations of text and related problem solving. Not only do these activities deepen students’ comprehension of texts and encourage a spirit of inquiry, but these activities are also intrinsically motivating and increase student engagement. NARRATIVE TEXT FEATURES AND STRUCTURE Understanding the way in which authors organize and structure their ideas in texts is an important indicator of effective reading comprehension (Pearson & Duke, 2002; Pressley, 2000). Thus, we should obviously consider this in reading assessment because this is what children should be getting from literature readings. The major elements of story structure have been captured in a system of rules called story grammars (Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Stein & Glenn, 1979; Thorndyke, 1977). Story grammars are the rules or descriptions of the necessary elements to make a story and the expected sequence for these elements, an important comprehension skill (Gouldthorp, Katsipis, & Mueller, 2018). Researchers generally agree on the following elements and sequence in a story grammar: setting (including the characters), problem, goal, events, and resolution. Developing a sense of how stories are written and organized helps readers predict what is coming next with greater proficiency, store information in schemas more efficiently, and recall story elements with increased accuracy and completeness (National Reading Panel, 2000). Graesser and colleagues (1991) showed that there is strong research support showing that most students are more sensitive to narrative than to expository text structure. However, at-risk children and those with learning disabilities struggle to remember narrative texts because, as some researchers suggest, they have not completely internalized story structure (McNamara, Ozuru, Best, & O’Reilly, 2007). In the strategies that follow this background briefing for teachers, we provide assessment tools for analyzing student knowledge of narrative text features and structures. Also included are ideas for making anecdotal records, as well as digital management systems that will help you make the best use of your assessment data. A WORD ABOUT STATE STANDARDS AND NARRATIVE TEXT READING It is important that teachers know and understand the minimum expected outcomes for comprehension development, or end-of-year benchmark standards, at each grade level when implementing your state’s standards (Kim, 2016; Reutzel & Cooter, 2019). In Figure 8.1 we present CCSS Standard 10, comprehension expectations for grades K–12. Note that these are general standards and your state may present these a bit differently, so be sure to consult your state department of education’s website. We present more specific state standards applicable to the assessment and teaching strategies that follow in this chapter.
Assessing Students’ Narrative Text Comprehension Bloom’s Question Stems and Question Verbs Age Range: 7 years to 13 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.R.2.4: Recall major points in the text and make and modify predictions about forthcoming information. ELA-Literacy.RL.3.5: Refer to parts of stories, dramas, and poems when writing or speaking about a text, using terms such as chapter, scene, and stanza; describe how each successive part builds on earlier sections. ELA-Literacy.RL.3.6: Distinguish their own point of view from that of the narrator or those of the characters.
MyLab Education
Video Example 8.1: Modeling a Think-Aloud In this video, a teacher performs think-alouds to her students. When you are finished, describe how you might use think-alouds as part of the modeling phase of direct explanation of comprehension skills like predicting outcomes in a story.
244 Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Common Core Standard 10–General Comprehension End-of Year Benchmark Standards; Grades K–12 Grade(s)
Reading Standard 10 (individual text types omitted)
K
Actively engage in group reading activities with purpose and understanding.
1
With prompting and support, read prose and poetry [informational texts] of appropriate complexity for grade 1.
2
By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts] in the grades 2–3 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.
3
By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts] at the high end of the grades 2–3 text complexity band independently and proficiently.
4
By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts] in the grades 4–5 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.
5
By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts] at the high end of the grades 4–5 text complexity band independently and proficiently.
6
By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] in the grades 6–8 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.
7
By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] in the grades 6–8 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.
8
By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] at the high end of the grades 6–8 text complexity band independently and proficiently.
9–10
By the end of grade 9, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] in the grades 9–10 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range. By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] at the high end of the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently.
11–12
By the end of grade 11, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] in the grades 11–CCR text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range. By the end of grade 12, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] at the high end of the grades 11–CCR text complexity band independently and proficiently.
SOURCE: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards: Appendix A.
Washington, DC: Author. Copyright © 2010, National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.
ELA-Literacy.RL.4.1: Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text. ELA-Literacy.W.4.3.e: Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events. ELA-Literacy.W.5.3.e: Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events. ELA-Literacy.RL.6.5: Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot. PURPOSE Asking questions is one of the most used strategies in the classroom. We often ask questions after children have read a story or poem to check their understanding. As with most other assessments, questioning should follow a structure or framework to have diagnostic value. Scholars differ on what kinds of questions we should ask, however. Some argue that questioning to assess story comprehension should follow text structure logic in the following areas: character identification, setting, the central problem or plot, events that transpire to solve the problem, resolution, and the story’s theme (Beech, 2011). Others feel strongly that comprehension is a constructivist process that builds interconnected schema structures in the brain, so questioning should probe for student understanding of connections in text. Still others insist that questioning should be framed using the discrete skills identified in Bloom’s (1956) classic Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, or some derivative (e.g., Marzano, 2013). We do not see comprehension assessment as an either-or proposition and seek to assess comprehension using different paradigms to assemble a more comprehensive picture of student ability. In our work with teachers in large-scale urban literacy projects in Dallas and Memphis, we have found question stems to be a practical tool in real-world classrooms as assessments before, during, and after reading, as well as for anecdotal record data
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 245
points. Question stems are generic questions with blanks for teachers to fill in to match a selected narrative text selection. We also share what we call Bloom’s Question Verbs that can help you to craft your own questions at each level of the Bloom’s taxonomy. For more than 60 years, Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives has been widely used for comprehension assessment in classrooms everywhere as well for development of standardized texts in education. Bloom saw comprehension as hierarchical and linear, moving from lower levels of comprehension (knowledge, comprehension), to higher inferential levels or “reading between the lines” (application, analysis, synthesis), and the highest level (evaluation). Since its inception, teachers and core reading program designers have matched narrative text comprehension assessments and learning experiences around these six levels. However, in 1987, Cooter, Joseph, and Flynt (1986/87) found that time spent assessing and teaching the lowest literal comprehension levels was, frankly, a waste of time because students must draw on literal information in texts to answer higher-level comprehension questions (application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation). They called this almost subconscious mental process of drawing on factual in-text elements of story to answer higher-order questions the cognitive caboose effect. Thus, comprehension assessment questions should mostly focus on these levels for the sake of efficiency and validity, but some development of literal skills should be included to insure student success. MATERIALS
• Bloom’s Question Stems (Figure 8.2) [pdf icon] Click here to download a printable version of Figure 8.2.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Bloom’s Question Stems
• Bloom’s Question Verbs (Figure 8.3) [pdf icon] Click here to download a printable version of Figure 8.3.
Figure 8.2 Bloom’s Question Stems. LITERAL (LOW LEVEL) KNOWLEDGE—Identification and recall of information Who, what, when, where, how? Describe . . . COMPREHENSION—Organization and selection of facts and ideas. Retell ________ in your own words. What is the main idea of ________? INFERENTIAL LEVEL (HIGHER-ORDER THINKING) APPLICATION—Use of facts, rules, principles How is ________ an example of ________? How is ________ related to _________? Why is ________ significant? ANALYSIS—Separation of a whole into component parts What are the parts of features of ________? Classify ________ according to ________. Outline/diagram/web ________. How does ________ Compare/contrast with ________? What evidence can you list for ________? SYNTHESIS—Combinations of ideas to form a new whole What would you predict/infer from ________? How would you create/design a new ________? What might happen if you combined ________ with ________? What solutions would you suggest for ________? EVALUATIVE LEVEL (HIGHER-ORDER THINKING) EVALUATION—Development of opinions, judgments, or decisions Do you agree ________? What do you think about ________? What is the most important ________? How would you prioritize ________? How would you decide about ________? What criteria would you use to assess ________?
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Bloom’s Question Verbs
246 Chapter 8
Figure 8.3 Bloom’s Question Verbs Cognitive Level
Typical Student Actions “The student is expected to......”
Evaluation
Critical Thinking
• Making judgments
• • • • •
Conclude Rate Select Weigh Defend
• • • • • •
Combine Imagine Suppose Design Plan Revise
• • • • • • •
Compare Distinguish Analyze Categorize Draw conclusions Identify similarities and differences Determine important ideas
• • • • • • • •
Construct Discover Show Solve Classify Create Relate Order
Synthesis
• • • • •
Judge Choose Measure Decide Justify
Creative Thinking
• Putting things together into new forms • Combining separate elements to form a whole • Making connections
Analysis
• • • • • •
Compose Generate Create Develop Rearrange Reorganize
Critical Thinking
• Breaking down information into its parts to better understand the relationship of the parts to the whole
Application
• • • • • •
Contrast Determine Infer Examine Identify cause and effect Distinguish facts from opinions
Critical and Creative Thinking
• Using information from one source and applying it to a new situation
Comprehension
• • • • • • • •
Demonstrate Predict Organize Use Collect Explain List Illustrate
Literal and Critical Thinking
• Understanding information without having to have additional explanations or clarification • Grasping the meaning
• • • • • •
Describe Explain Interpret Summarize Clarify Order
Knowledge
• • • • • •
Discuss Retell Paraphrase Identify Recognize Give examples
Literal Thinking
• Remembering information • Recalling facts
• • • • • •
Define Label Match Recognize Recall Describe
• • • • • •
Identify List Name Repeat Find Tell
TEACHERS: Use these as prompts or directives for ..... • Discussing, analyzing and responding to ..... • Writing in response or connection to ..... • Thinking about ..... • Assessing Students’ comprehension of ..... • ..... Stories or Information.
PROCEDURES Figure 8.2 presents Bloom’s question stems for comprehension assessment. Note that there are blanks to be filled in by the teacher so as to customize questions to fit the narrative text being read. Note that the lowest “literal” levels are shaded to remind you that questioning on these levels is of minimal value. Focus your attention on the higher-level comprehension questions in the unshaded areas. Many teachers involved in our Reading Academy projects laminate a smaller version of this figure and carry it with them like a bookmark when in small-group assessment situations or when making “house calls” in the classroom. In Figure 8.3 we share Bloom’s question verbs, which is an extension of the question stem idea. These verbs are helpful to teachers as they construct their own comprehension assessment
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 247
questions. Typically, you will begin a question with one of the question verbs (e.g., contrast, suppose, list).
The Reading Strategy Use Scale (Modified) Age Range: 7 years to 13 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2: Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson. ELA-Literacy.R.2.4: Recall major points in the text and make and modify predictions about forthcoming information. ELA-Literacy.R.2.3: Make and confirm predictions about text by using prior knowledge and ideas presented in the text itself, including illustrations, titles, topic sentences, important words, and foreshadowing clues. ELA-Literacy.RL.4.1: Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text. ELA-Literacy.W.5.3.e: Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events. ELA-Literacy.RL.6.5: Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot. PURPOSE Metacognition refers to two important concepts related to reading comprehension: (1) a reader’s knowledge of the status of his or her own thinking and the appropriate strategies to facilitate ongoing comprehension, and (2) the executive control one has over one’s own thinking, including the use of comprehension strategies to facilitate or repair failing comprehension while reading (Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). For many readers, problems in comprehension result from failures related to one or both of these two important concepts. The purpose of metacognitive assessment is to gain insight into how students select strategies to use in comprehending text and how well they regulate the status of their own comprehension as they read. We have modified the Reading Strategy Use (RSU) Scale developed by Pereira-Laird and Deane (1997) for classroom application. Scores obtained from administering the Classroom-Modified Reading Strategy Use (CMRSU) Scale provide insights into how well students select, apply, and regulate their use of comprehension strategies. MATERIALS
• The Classroom-Modified Reading Strategy Use Scale shown in Figure 8.4 [pdf icon] Click here to download a printable version of Figure 8.4. PROCEDURE
1. The CMRSU Scale is group administered. Tell students that the CMRSU Scale is not a test and there are no right or wrong answers. 2. Ask students to fill in the personal information at the top of the CMRSU Scale. 3. Read the directions aloud and ask children if they have any questions about the nature of the responses to be given to each statement. 4. Once you are sure that the students understand, instruct them to read each item and circle the number under the response that best represents their behavior in relation to each statement. 5. When children finish the CMRSU Scale, ask them to remain in their seats. They should quietly take out a book, write, or draw so as not to disturb others who are still completing the scale.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Classroom-Modified Reading Strategy Use Scale
248 Chapter 8
Figure 8.4 Classroom-Modified Reading Strategy Use Scale Name: __________________________________________________________ Grade: ________________________________________________________ Teacher: ________________________________________________________ School: _______________________________________________________ Directions: Read each item and the number of the word that best describes how often you do what is stated. Let’s do number 1 together to make sure you understand how you are to respond to each item. 1. I read quickly through the story to get the general idea before I read the story closely. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
2. When I come to a part of the story that is hard to read, I slow my reading down. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
3. I am able to tell the difference between important story parts and less important details. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
4. When I read, I stop once in a while to go over in my head what I have been reading to see if it is making sense. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
5. I adjust the speed of my reading by deciding how difficult the story is to read. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
6. I stop once in a while and ask myself questions about the story to see how well I understand what I am reading. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
7. After reading a story, I sit and think about it for a while to check my memory of the story parts and the order of the story parts. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
8. When I get lost while reading, I go back to the place in the story where I first had trouble and reread. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
9. When I find I do not understand something when reading, I read it again and try to figure it out. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
10. When reading, I check how well I understand the meaning of the story by asking myself whether the ideas fit with the other information in the story. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
11. I find it hard to pay attention when I read.
12. To help me remember what I read, I sometimes draw a map or outline the story. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
13. To help me understand what I have read in a story, I try to retell it in my own words. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
14. I learn new words by trying to make a picture of the words in my mind. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
15. When reading about something, I try to relate it to my own experiences. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 249
6. Sum the response numbers circled and divide by the total of the 15 items in the CMRSU Scale to obtain the mean score. A mean score near 3 demonstrates the strong selection, use, and self-regulation of comprehension-monitoring strategies. A mean score near 2 indicates occasional selection and use of comprehension-monitoring strategies. The pattern of responses should be carefully studied to see which of the comprehension-monitoring strategies are in use and which are not to inform instructional planning for the future. A mean score near 1 indicates poorly developed selection, use, and self-regulation of comprehension-monitoring strategies. These students need explicit teacher explanation of (1) comprehension-monitoring strategies; (2) how, when, and why to use comprehension-monitoring strategies; (3) of comprehension-monitoring strategy use; and (4) guided practice applying selected comprehension-monitoring strategies during the reading and discussion of stories in the classroom.
Flynt/Cooter Reading Attitude Survey (Motivation) Age Range: 6 years to 13 years Standards: Not applicable PURPOSE The Flynt/Cooter Reading Attitude Survey (Cooter, Flynt, & Cooter, 2014) provides insights into students’ attitudes or feelings about reading narrative texts. Adapted in part from early work by Heathington and Alexander (1978) and the later work of McKenna and Kear (1990), the reading attitude inventory is quick and easy to administer. This version is found in the new Comprehensive Reading Inventory (CRI-2), Second Edition, (CRI-2) written by Cooter and colleagues (2014). MATERIALS
• Reproduce copies of the Flynt/Cooter Reading Attitude Survey found in Figure 8.5 for each of your students [pdf icon] Click here to download a printable version of Figure 8.5. PROCEDURES
1. Distribute copies of the reading attitude survey (Cooter, Flynt, & Cooter, 2014) to your students. 2. Discuss the first item with your students and check to make sure they understand the task. 3. Then, ask students to answer each of the questions by marking the face that best describes how they feel. 4. If this is administered one-on-one, encourage the student to explain how they feel and note any information you think may be helpful for planning instruction.
Self-Regulation Questionnaire—Reading Motivation PURPOSE De Naeghel and colleagues (2012) developed a validated questionnaire for assessing reading motivation called the Self-Regulation Questionnaire—Reading Motivation (SRQ). In Figure 8.6 we share with you a brief questionnaire drawn from the SRQ to use in your classroom. Notice that it differentiates between autonomous versus controlled reasons to read in both recreational and academic contexts. MATERIALS
• Produce copies of each part of the SRQ—Reading Motivation questionnaire you plan to use for student assessment. Feel free to innovate or revise the questions. [pdf icon] Click here to download a printable version of Figure 8.6.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Flynt/Cooter Reading Attitude Survey
250 Chapter 8
Figure 8.5 The Flynt/Cooter Reading Attitude Survey Student’s Name ______________________________________________ Age __________ Date: _________________________ Grade __________ Examiner ____________________ Directions: Ask the student to answer each of the following questions by marking the face that best describes how they feel. If this is adminis‑ tered one‑on‑one, encourage students to explain how they feel and note any information you think may be helpful for planning instruction. How do you feel when you find a book you want to read?
How do you feel when you have free time at school to read anything you want?
How do you feel about reading books or magazines at home?
How do you feel when you get a book as a gift?
How do you feel about starting to read a new book?
How do you feel about reading books in the summer when school is out?
How do you feel about reading classes at school?
How do you feel about using a dictionary?
How do you feel about the stories you read in reading class?
How do you feel when you read out loud in class?
How do you feel when the teacher asks you questions about what you read in class?
How do you feel about reading science and social studies books in school?
How do you feel when you are asked to complete worksheets and workbook pages at school?
How do you feel when you go to a bookstore?
Examiner’s Notes:
SOURCE: Cooter, R. B., Flynt, E. S., & Cooter, K. S. (2014). The Comprehensive Reading Inventory, Second Edition: Assessment of K–12 reading skills in English & Spanish. Boston, MA: Pearson. Used with permission of Pearson Education.
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 251
Figure 8.6 Self-Regulation Questionnaire—Reading Motivation Directions: Place an X in the boxes for all responses that apply to you.
Self-Directed (Autonomous) Reading Motivations—Recreational Reading (On My Own) I read in my free time because . . . I really like it. It’s fun to read. I enjoy reading. I think reading is fascinating. I think reading is interesting. I think reading is meaningful. I think it is very useful for me to read. It is important to me to be a reader. Self-Directed (Autonomous) Reading Motivations—Academic Reading (At School) I read at school because . . . I really like it. It’s fun to read. I enjoy reading. I think reading is fascinating. I think reading is interesting. I think reading is meaningful. I think it is very useful for me to read. It is important to me to be a reader. Controlled Reading Motivations—Recreational Reading at School (On My Own) I read in my free time at school because . . . I will feel ashamed of myself if I don’t read. I don’t want to disappoint others. I will feel guilty if I don’t read. I have to prove that I can get good reading grades. I will be proud of myself if I get good reading grades. This is what others expect me to do. Others think that I have to. Others will only reward me if I read. Others will punish me if I don’t read. Controlled Reading Motivations—Academic Reading (At School) I read at school because . . . I will feel ashamed f myself if I don’t read. I don’t want to disappoint others. I will feel guilty if I don’t read. I have to prove that I can get good reading grades. I will be proud of myself if I get good reading grades. This is what others expect me to do. Others think that I have to. Others will only reward me if I read. Others will punish me if I don’t read. SOURCE: Adapted from De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2012). The relation between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1006–1021. doi:10.1037/a0027800
252 Chapter 8 PROCEDURE
1. Ask students to read each statement and write an X by each one that describes them. MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Self-Regulation Questionnaire
2. Once completed, collect the questionnaires for analysis. De Naeghel and colleagues (2012) explain that recreational autonomous reading motivation is connected with more time spent in leisure-time reading, greater reading engagement, and improved reading comprehension. Therefore, interventions teachers implement for improving reading motivation can lead to increased student time-on-task reading and better reading performance.
Predictability Log (English Learners) Age Range: 6 years to 13 years Standards: Not applicable PURPOSE Lenski, Ehlers-Zavala, Dabiel, and Sun-Irminger (2010) recommend the use of predictability logs (PLs) to help teachers gain insights into English learners’ (ELs) knowledge base in traditional and nontraditional literacies. We often discover that ELs coming to us from other countries may be further along in their reading development than we first thought, depending on the similarity or differences between their first language (L1) and English. We know, for example, that there is much in common between Spanish and English phonology and comprehension that we can use in teaching the reading of English. Selecting appropriate questions from the PL can provide you with helpful starting points in English as a second language (ESL) instruction. MATERIALS MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
• Predictability log shown in Table 8.1 [pdf icon] Click here to download a printable version of Table 8.1
Predictability Log
TABLE 8.1 Predictability Log Language Usage • What is the student’s first language? • Are there other languages the student knows? • Does the student know the English alphabet? Background • What do we know about the student’s native culture? • What are the student’s out-of-school interests? Examples? • What are the recent significant events from the child’s life? • Can the child tell a story about a friend or relative? Narrative Text Interests • What stories has the student read prior to coming to your classroom? Can he or she retell any of them? • What kinds of stories does this child enjoy most? • Has the child expressed personal values through his or her actions or stories? Relationships and Environment • What is the child’s home environment like? • Who are the family members in the child’s home? • Did any of the child’s family members remain in his or her home country? • Who are the student’s friends? • Who does the child seem to talk about most? • Who is the primary caregiver you can contact for more information? • What personal items does the child wear or bring to school? SOURCE: Adapted from Lenski, S. D., Ehlers-Zavala, F., Dabiel, M. C., & Sun-Irminger, X. (2010). Assessing English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. In P. Afflerback (Ed.), Essential readings on assessment (pp. 166–177). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 253
PROCEDURE We feel that PLs are best used as screening tools, along with an interest inventory. Questions are selected for a “get to know you” conversation and provide useful insights into the child’s background, interests, and some implicit needs. When these questions are used in conjunction with our interest inventory, you will find that it helps make the child feel welcome as well as having diagnostic value—a good place to start!
Social Collaboration Performance Outcome Evaluation Age Range: 6 years to 13 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.SL.4.1.a: Come to discussions prepared, having read or studied required material; explicitly draw on that preparation and other information known about the topic to explore ideas under discussion. PURPOSE Although process is important during cooperative and collaborative learning activities, a quality process should frequently result in a quality product. Assessment of the collaborative performance outcome is necessary to insure that a spirit of accountability and consequence is maintained. As discussed previously, an essential element of quality cooperative learning groups is to insure an element of accountability and consequence for task completion, whether it is an open- or closed-ended test. The performance outcome team evaluation tool is a means of helping teachers assess the products of collaboration and discussion around texts to promote reading comprehension.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Performance Outcome Team Evaluation Form
MATERIALS
• A performance outcome team evaluation form as shown in Figure 8.7 (a type of assessment that is usually and preferably ungraded, although you will note a column provided for grading if that is required) [pdf icon] Click here to download a printable version of Figure 8.7.
Figure 8.7 Performance Outcome Team Evaluation Form Team name: ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: ___________________________
Teacher’s name: ____________________________________________________________________________
Class: __________________________
Outcomes
Points Grade
Completes assigned tasks (assignments, quizzes, reports, work units, homework) Applies skills taught in task completion (work units, use in problem-solving situations, homework) Understands concepts and principles (team scores, reports, homework, observations) Communication 1. Communicates ideas and feelings effectively (observations, direct discussion) 2. Participates actively in problem-solving groups Writing work (homework, reports) Cooperation (observations, team products) Competitive ability (observations, performances in competitions) Independent work (observations, performances in individualized activities) Affective learning Appreciation of subject areas Appreciates learning (receives enjoyment and satisfaction from learning) Aware of and appreciates own abilities, achievements, talents, and resources When appropriate, helps others, shares resources, etc. Accepts and appreciates cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and individual differences Values free and open inquiry into all problems
Total
254 Chapter 8 PROCEDURE Teachers collect student or group projects, papers, or other products for evaluation. We suggest that students be provided the form shown in Figure 9.14 as a guide for their own understanding of teacher expectations. The completed evaluation form should accompany feedback to the group or team about the quality of the team’s product.
Oral Story Retellings: Knowledge of Narrative Text Structure Age Range: 6 years to 13 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2: Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson. ELA-Literacy.RL.1.5: Explain major differences between books that tell stories and books that give information, drawing on a wide reading of a range of text types. ELA-Literacy.RL.1.6: Identify who is telling the story at various points in a text. ELA-Literacy.RL.3.5: Refer to parts of stories, dramas, and poems when writing or speaking about a text, using terms such as chapter, scene, and stanza; describe how each successive part builds on earlier sections. ELA-Literacy.W.4.3.e: Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events. ELA-Literacy.RL.6.5: Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot. PURPOSE One of the most effective processes for finding out whether a child understands narrative or story text structure is to use oral story retellings (Brown & Cambourne, 1987; Gouldthorp, Katsipis, & Mueller, 2018; Sadler, 2011; Stahl, 2009). Asking children to retell a story involves reconstructing the complete story structure including the story sequence, recalling important elements of the plot, making inferences, and noticing relevant details. Thus, oral story retellings assess story comprehension and narrative or story structure knowledge in a holistic, sequenced, and organized way. MATERIALS
• Digital recorder or computer with an internal or external microphone • Brief story • “Parsing” of the story (see “Procedure” section) • Scoring sheet PROCEDURE Select a brief story for students to listen to or read. For example, the favorite tale of the Little Red Hen could be selected. Next, type the text of the story onto a separate piece of paper for parsing. Parsing, in this instance, refers to dividing a story into four major and somewhat simplified story grammar categories: setting, problem, events, and resolution, as shown here. Story Grammar Parsing of The Tale of the Little Red Hen
Setting There once was a little red hen who lived in a house with a duck, cat, and a goose. Problem (Getting Help to Plant the Wheat) One day the little red hen found some wheat seeds lying on the ground. “Who will help me plant this wheat?”
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 255
Events “Not I,” said the duck, cat and goose. “Then I’ll do it myself,” said the Little Red Hen. “Who will help me plant water and tend this wheat?” “Who will help me harvest this wheat?” “Not I,” said the duck, cat and goose. “Then I’ll do it myself,” said the Little Red Hen. “Who will help me take the wheat to the mill to have it ground into flour?” “Not I,” said the duck, cat and goose. “Then I’ll do it myself,” said the Little Red Hen. “Who will help me make some bread with this flour?” “Not I,” said the duck, cat and goose. “Then I’ll do it myself,” said the Little Red Hen. “Who will help me eat the bread I baked?” “I will,” cried the duck, cat and goose.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Oral Story Retelling Coding Form
Resolution “No,” said the Little Red Hen. “You didn’t help me plant, tend, harvest or take the wheat to the mill. You didn’t help me bake the bread. I’ll eat the bread myself” . . . and she did! Oral story retellings may be elicited from children in a number of ways (Stahl, 2009). One way involves the use of pictures or verbal prompts from the story. As pictures in the story are flashed sequentially, the child is asked to retell the story as remembered from listening or reading. Morrow (2005) suggested that teachers prompt children to begin story retellings with a statement such as: “A little while ago, we read a story called [name the story]. Retell the story as if you were telling it to a friend who has never heard it before.” Other prompts during the oral story retelling may be framed as questions: • “How does the story begin?” • “What happens next?” • “What happened to [the main character] when . . .?” • “Where did the story take place?” • “When did the story take place?” • “How did the main character solve the problem in the story?” • “How did the story end?” Morrow (2005) recommends that teachers offer only general prompts such as those listed previously rather than asking about specific details, ideas, or a sequence of events in the story. Remember, when asking questions such as those just listed, you are moving from free recall of text to a form of assisted or prompted recall of text information. Coincidentally, you should know that assisted recall of story text information is especially useful with struggling readers. A second way to elicit oral story retellings from students is to use unaided recall, in which students retell the story without pictures or verbal prompts. Asking the child to tell the story as if he or she were telling it to someone who had never heard or read the story before begins an unaided oral story retelling. To record critical elements of the story structure included in the child’s oral story retelling, use a recording and an oral story retelling coding form like the one shown in Figure 8.8. The information gleaned from an oral story retelling may be used to help you focus future instruction on enhancing students’ understanding of narrative or story text structure. [pdf icon] Click here to download a printable version of Figure 8.8.
MyLab Education: Application Exercise 8.1: Caroline’s Oral Story RetellingPart 1
256 Chapter 8
Figure 8.8 Oral Story Retelling Coding Form Student’s name: __________________________________________________ Grade: ________________
MyLab Education: Application Exercise 8.2: Caroline’s Oral Story RetellingPart 2
Title of story: ______________________________________________________ Date: _________________ General directions: Give 1 point for each element included, as well as for “gist.” Give 1 point for each character named, as well as for such words as boy, girl, or dog. Credit plurals (friends, for instance) with 2 points under characters. Setting
(a) Begins with an introduction
________
(b) Indicates main character
________
(c) Other characters named
________
(d) Includes statement about time or place
________
Objective
(a) Refers to main character’s goal or problem to be solved
________
Events
(a) Number of events recalled
________
(b) Number of events in story
________
(c) Score for “events” (a/b)
________
Resolution
(a) Tells how main character resolves the story problem
________
Sequence Summarizes story in order: setting, objective, episodes, and resolution. (Score 2 for correct order, 1 for partial order, 0 for no sequence.)
________
Possible score: ________
Student’s score: ________
Story Grammar Map Assessment Age Range: 7 years to 13 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RL.1.5: Explain major differences between books that tell stories and books that give information, drawing on a wide reading of a range of text types. ELA-Literacy.RL.1.6: Identify who is telling the story at various points in a text. ELA-Literacy.RL.3.4 through RL.3.6: Craft and Structure. PURPOSE Story grammar maps are one type of graphic organizer that may be used as both an assessment and teaching tool (Yin, 2012). When used as an assessment tool, students are asked to complete a story grammar map after reading a story that has some or all of its parts blank (i.e., setting, characters, problem, events, resolution). By analyzing students’ individual responses the teacher is able to tell where possible learning gaps exist and plan appropriate instruction. As with many assessment tasks, it is best to collect three or four story grammar maps from each student over time to determine if an actual error pattern exists before planning instruction. MATERIALS
• A story(ies) on students’ independent reading level • A blank story map for each student (see Figure 8.9 for an example) PROCEDURE
1. First, ask students to read their assigned story. Because students have different independent reading levels and interests, it will be necessary for you to provide a variety of stories.
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 257
Figure 8.9 Story Grammar Map of “Jack and the Beanstalk” The Setting
The Problem The family needed money. Jack sold the cow for a handful of beans. Now they had only beans.
The Goal Event 1
Event 2
Event 3
Event 4
The Resolution
2. After students have read their stories, distribute the blank story grammar maps and review how they are organized. See Figure 8.9 for an example. 3. Ask students to complete as much of the story grammar map for the story that they just read independently. 4. Collect the story grammar maps for analysis. 5. Once you have repeated this exercise three or four times over the course of about a week or two, analyze each student’s completed story grammar maps to determine if students have difficulty identifying the primary story elements: setting, characters, problem, events, resolution. 6. Plan small-group instruction for those students having the same learning needs.
Reading Retelling Record (R3) Age Range: 6 years to 13 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2: Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson.
258 Chapter 8 ELA-Literacy.RL.1.5: Explain major differences between books that tell stories and books that give information, drawing on a wide reading of a range of text types. ELA-Literacy.RL.1.6: Identify who is telling the story at various points in a text. ELA-Literacy. RL.3.5: Refer to parts of stories, dramas, and poems when writing or speaking about a text, using terms such as chapter, scene, and stanza; describe how each successive part builds on earlier sections. MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Reading Retelling Record (R3) Form
ELA-Literacy.W.4.3.e: Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events. ELA-Literacy.RL.6.5: Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot. PURPOSE Robert and Kathleen Cooter’s (2006) Reading Retelling Record (R3) for narratives (story/fiction) is a tool that is useful for assessing students’ comprehension of story grammars before, during, and after reading a selection. Note that it includes question stems based on the story grammar logic in the prompts column similar to Bloom’s question stems we shared earlier. MATERIALS
• A narrative text selection • Reading Retelling Record (R3) form (see Figure 8.10) [pdf icon] Click here to download a printable version of Figure 8.10. PROCEDURE Follow these simple directions to use the Reading Retelling Record (R3) form (Cooter & Cooter, 2006):
1. Record the student information at the top of the form, including the date and story information. 2. Ask the student to read the selection orally if he or she is a beginning reader, or silently if he or she is more accomplished with decoding.
Figure 8.10 Reading Retelling Record (R3) Form Name ___________________________________________________________________________________ Date _________________________________ Story ____________________________________________________________________________________ Source _______________________________ Readings: ________________ One Reading ________________ Multiple Readings ________________ Familiar Story Part
Unaided Retelling
Prompts
Beginning
What happened at the beginning? Where did the story take place? When did the story take place? Who were the characters? Who was the main character? Describe _______________. What was the main problem? What were the characters trying to do?
Middle
What happened in the middle? What happened next? What did _______________ do? And then what happened?
End
How was the problem solved? What happened at the end? What did _______________ learn? What was the author’s message?
Aided Retelling
SOURCE: Cooter, R. B., & Cooter, K. S. (2006). The Reading Retelling Record (R3) for narrative texts. Unpublished manuscript. Used with permission of the authors.
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 259
3. After reading the selection, ask the child to retell the story from the beginning. 4. Record each bit of information recalled by the reader during his or her oral retelling in the column labelled “unaided retelling.” The rows labelled beginning, middle, and end correspond to the part of the story the child is recalling. 5. Once the child has completed the oral retelling, ask the student if he or she remembers anything else. Students will often recall more information when you ask this question. In fact, you may need to ask the “anything else” question several times before their memories are exhausted. 6. Now, for each part of the story for which they failed to recall important information, ask the corresponding question stem you feel is appropriate from the “prompts” column. Responses from these questions are recorded in the “aided retelling” column.
Click or Clunk: Assessment and/or RTI Strategy Age Range: 6 years to 13 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2: Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson. ELA-Literacy.RL.1.5: Explain major differences between books that tell stories and books that give information, drawing on a wide reading of a range of text types. ELA-Literacy.RL.1.6: Identify who is telling the story at various points in a text. ELA-Literacy.RL.3.5: Refer to parts of stories, dramas, and poems when writing or speaking about a text, using terms such as chapter, scene, and stanza; describe how each successive part builds on earlier sections. ELA-Literacy.W.4.3.e: Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events. ELA-Literacy.RL.6.5: Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot. PURPOSE Click or clunk (Carr, 1985; Sadler, 2011) is a popular metacognitive strategy that can be used for student self-assessment with either narrative or expository texts. It may also be used as a response to intervention (RTI) strategy for students needing assistance in metacognition or question-answering abilities. It has students identify words and concepts highlighted (by the teacher) in a narrative selection that they understand (click) and those that are unknown or problematic (clunk). This assessment can pertain to identifying characters, setting, problems to be resolved, solutions, text structures, and so forth. With this information, teachers can then plan fix-up strategies to help students resolve comprehension breakdowns. MATERIALS
• A narrative text selection for students to read with key terms and concepts highlighted or underlined • A student form listing the highlighted terms and concepts with the words click and clunk beside each PROCEDURE
1. Ask students to read the selection you have prepared with the highlighted key terms and concepts you have identified. 2. After reading, ask students to revisit the passage and find the highlighted terms and reread them in context.
260 Chapter 8 3. For each term or concept, ask students to circle click or clunk on their student form according to whether the term/concept is known or not known. 4. Finally, analyze the student form(s) and note those terms and concepts that may require instruction on specific fix-up strategies. The latter are presented in Chapter 10.
Narrative Pyramid Age Range: 6 years to 13 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2: Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson. ELA-Literacy.RL.1.5: Explain major differences between books that tell stories and books that give information, drawing on a wide reading of a range of text types. ELA-Literacy.RL.1.6: Identify who is telling the story at various points in a text. ELA-Literacy.RL.3.5: Refer to parts of stories, dramas, and poems when writing or speaking about a text, using terms such as chapter, scene, and stanza; describe how each successive part builds on earlier sections. ELA-Literacy.W.4.3.e: Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events. ELA-Literacy.RL.6.5: Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot. PURPOSE Narrative pyramid (Sadler, 2011) has students summarize a passage and make connections as a demonstration of their comprehension. To some degree it also assesses vocabulary knowledge. Teachers should, as ever, model how to construct a narrative pyramid using a familiar text selection before asking students to complete the task. MATERIALS
• A narrative text selection • Paper and writing tools • Chart paper showing the narrative pyramid formula PROCEDURE Ask the student(s) to read the narrative selection (story, poem). After reading, ask the student to construct a narrative pyramid using the following formula:
Line 1: Name of the main character. Line 2: Write two words that describe the main character. Line 3: Write three words that describe the setting. Line 4: Write four words that describe the problem or challenge in the story. Line 5: Write five words that describe an event or attempt to solve the problem. Line 6: Write six words that describe another event or attempt to solve the problem. Line 7: Write eight words that describe the solution to the problem. Here is an example using The Wizard of Oz as the narrative. Dorothy Farm girl Magical distant land Returning home to family Following the Yellow Brick Road Getting to the Wicked Witch’s castle Dorothy clicks heels of her ruby slippers
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 261
Some of the assessment questions you might consider in analyzing student attempts to complete the narrative pyramid include: • What issues does the student have in identifying problems and solutions? • How might I assist students having difficulty limiting responses to the prescribed word limits? Is that important? • How might I connect this assessment strategy to instruction on written retellings?
Anecdotal Records: Technology Tools Age Range: 5 years to 13 years Standards: Not applicable (depends on the skills being assessed) PURPOSE In real-world classrooms, most assessments done by teachers are done on the fly and informally. Teachers who understand how reading development unfolds (the developmental stages) are able to watch children in real reading situations and note strategies and skills being used. This is the essence of anecdotal records. When anecdotal records are structured, purposeful, and linked to standards (Avalos, Pazos-Rego, Cuevas, Massey, & Schumm, 2009) and other developmental benchmark objectives, these data points taken together over time become a valid ongoing assessment tool. We use the word valid here in its assessment context—validity is a measure of how well an assessment measures what it claims to measure. It is important to note that, as with any assessment, an anecdotal record is only a snapshot of a child’s reading performance on a given day. Frankly, one anecdotal observation alone is not worth much. However, over time, multiple anecdotal records begin to form patterns that carry some diagnostic weight, moving from the limited value of a single black-and-white snapshot to the validity of a color movie. Some question (rightly so) the reliability of anecdotal records (i.e., whether the assessment findings from anecdotal records would be the same if another teacher used the same methods with the same children). Anecdotal records tend to be high in validity and low in reliability because of their on-the-fly nature and different expertise levels of reading teachers. However, we find that anecdotal records can be both reliable and valid when: (1) they are carefully structured using targeted, specific CCSS and other benchmarks as points of comparison; (2) teachers co-design anecdotal tools in their professional learning communities (PLCs) that will be used across classrooms; and (3) teachers practice making and analyzing anecdotal records together to better ensure what is called interrater reliability. MATERIALS
• Examples of anecdotal record tools in Table 8.2 • iPads or other similar tools • Apps for iPads (see Table 8.3) PROCEDURE Boyd-Batstone (2010) offers five guidelines for making, collecting, and analyzing anecdotal records that we have found useful in our own teaching practices, particularly for teaching and learning situations using narrative texts. We merge these guidelines with our own insights as follows:
1. Observe specific children each day. Rather than moving about the classroom observing children haphazardly, select two or three children to watch each day, all day long. A clear advantage of anecdotal records is that they enable teachers to observe children in myriad authentic reading acts (e.g., in small-group instruction, buddy reading, independent reading). By targeting two to three children for making anecdotal records, you are better able to review your past records of each child’s
262 Chapter 8
Table 8.2 Selected Anecdotal Record Tools Reading Development Area— Narrative Texts
Possible Anecdotal Record Tool(s)
Common Core Anchor Standard (Reading)
Key Ideas and Details
• Generic questions: Story grammar
RL.3.1: Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.
• Retelling—verbal • Graphic organizers • Sticky notes with teacher observations related to specific (targeted) CCSS anchor standards
Craft and Structure
• Modified cloze (short) • Verbal questions targeting elements of story and text elements (note on sticky notes or on a teacher-made anecdotal record assessment form) • Venn diagram with narrator’s point of view, the reader’s point of view, and that or different character’s (motivations)
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas
• Student summarizing connections they see between illustrations and the story (teacher notes for record) • Two-minute house call where student talks thought and contributes to a partially completed graphic organizer (coupled with teacher notes for the record)
Range of Reading and Level of Complexity
• Not appropriate for anecdotal records alone. Will require structured assessments involving oral and silent reading; fluency assessment; and three-level comprehension retelling (verbal, graphic organizer, written summaries).
RL.3.2: Recount stories, including fables, folktales, and myths from diverse cultures; determine the central message, lesson, or moral and explain how it is conveyed through key details in the text. RL.3.3: Describe characters in a story (e.g., their traits, motivations, or feelings) and explain how their actions contribute to the sequence of events. RL.3.4: Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, distinguishing literal from nonliteral language. RL.3.5: Refer to parts of stories, dramas, and poems when writing or speaking about a text, using terms such as chapter, scene, and stanza; describe how each successive part builds on earlier sections. RL.3.6: Distinguish their own point of view from that of the narrator or those of the characters. RL.3.7: Explain how specific aspects of a text’s illustrations contribute to what is conveyed by the words in a story (e.g., create mood, emphasize aspects of a character or setting). RL.3.9: Compare and contrast the themes, settings, and plots of stories written by the same author about the same or similar characters (e.g., in books from a series). RL.3.10: By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poetry, at the high end of the grades 2–3 text complexity band independently and proficiently.
strengths and needs, select appropriate state standards benchmark rubrics or other tools, and observe them while they are reading a variety of narrative and expository texts. For times when children are reading narrative texts independently, we often make “house calls.” This may be as simple as kneeling next to the child as he or she is reading silently and asking the child to read aloud using a “6-inch voice” so that you can listen in. After a minute or so, you can compliment the child on his or her reading and step away to make your anecdotal notes. 2. Focus on state standards and other developmental benchmarks. It is critical that teachers use the same roadmap for measuring student progress over time. The common road map for teachers today across the nation is the state standards. The state standards include certain anchor standards for reading that apply to narrative texts, such as “CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.3 Analyze how and why individuals, events, or ideas develop and interact over the course of a text.” Digging a little deeper into the CCSS, we find at grade 3 the following skill to be developed to address the anchor standard: “CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RL.3.3 Describe characters in a story (e.g., their traits, motivations, or feelings) and explain how their actions contribute to the sequence of events.” This makes specific a critical comprehension skill students
Table 8.3 Apps for iPads Apps
Source
Description/Platform
Dash4Teachers
Dash Technologies
iPhone app
SAS Data Notebook
SAS Institute
Lets students participate in monitoring progress. Includes built-in templates, checklists, and ways to email records to teachers and parents.
MarkBook
Asylum Software
Available in Windows and Mac editions
Teacher Notes
Gerrard Apps
A program designed for a teachers’ note taking needs.
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 263
should develop by the end of grade 3, if not sooner, to remain on track in their development. Dougherty Stahl (2014) points out that for students to analyze narrative text elements, like characterization as specified in the previous CCSS skill, often requires inferential comprehension (reading between the lines). To get at what children understand, develop generic questions for anecdotal assessments during house calls that are informative and directly related to the CCSS anchor standard and specific objective noted. These simple questions may include: Who are the characters in this story? Why do you think _____ did _____? Another strategy might be to use a partially completed graphic organizer (such as a Venn diagram with one of the characters in the center and others on either side of the center section to show similarities and differences in motivation) as part of a house call visit in which the student is asked to talk through completion of the graphic organizer. 3. Assemble tools for making anecdotal records before targeted observations. As noted earlier, identifying two to three students for making observations and creating anecdotal records each day allows you to bring precision, structure, and purpose to your assessments. By the way, it is wise to select children each day that are at about the same place developmentally so that you can look for the same skills and thereby use the same kinds of anecdotal records over the school day. This is working smarter, not harder. Examples of anecdotal record tools commonly used are noted in Table 8.2. There are many apps available now for teachers (and students) to make gathering anecdotal records easier to manage. In Table 8.3 we share examples that are available for iPads and other digital tools as of the printing of this book. 4. Manage anecdotal records as part of comprehensive reading assessment. Much like preparing our yearly taxes by gathering receipts, we are sometimes pretty good at accumulating reading assessment data but not so good at managing it. You should have a reading assessment folder for every child in your classroom wherein you accumulate data. Data sources will include data from the beginning of the year prior to beginning instruction (Wixson, 2017), progress-monitoring assessments, diagnostic assessment data (especially for struggling readers), and outcome data. Anecdotal records fall into the category of progress-monitoring assessments and must be logged in and managed to be of any value. Anecdotal records for a child’s reading development should always include the date of the observation, the text(s) used, a description of what was observed, and your reflection of the child’s progress in terms of the CCSS anchor standards and specific objectives. Keep your materials in order and you will have something meaningful to analyze. 5. Analyzing anecdotal records. As you know by now, we are very fond of the IfThen framework for analyzing students’ reading needs. We find it to be a quick and simple way to match student needs to evidence-based teaching strategies. It also saves valuable time. We provide If-Then charts in this book, but don’t stop there—add to what we provide with your rubrics or the tools devised by your professional learning communities (PLCs). Your If-Then charts should be tables listing the CCSS objectives (and other benchmarks required by your school district) down the left-hand column matched to evidence-based teaching strategies across the top. For each benchmark skill, check the teaching strategy that would be appropriate for building the reading capacity of developing readers. About every three to four weeks, review each student’s reading record folder and determine what the student can do and his or her areas of need. Then, refer to your If-Then chart to plan small-group targeted instruction for children having the same reading needs.
264 Chapter 8
Digital Management Systems: E-Portfolios Age Range: 5 years to 13 years Standards: Not applicable (depends on the skills being assessed) PURPOSE Electronic portfolios or e-portfolios are tools for managing assessment information, rather than specific assessment strategies. They are often used for gathering, storing, and organizing student data (Fahey, Lawrence, & Paratore, 2007). E-portfolios may be used exclusively by teachers for gathering and monitoring student data, or they may be used on school websites to share student work with parents and other stakeholders. There is some evidence now (e.g., Abrami, Venkatesh, Meyer, & Wade, 2013) that students who are included in building their e-portfolios find the tasks motivational and improve in self-regulated learning (SRL) skills in reading. MATERIALS
• Student and teacher access to personal computers, tablets, and/or smartphone technologies • E-portfolio software (e.g., ePEARL) PROCEDURE It is a bit difficult to generalize across a vast array of emerging technologies useful in constructing e-portfolios, so let us give you a few examples of programs you could use in your school or classroom. One software program referenced in research by Abrami, Venkatesh, Meyer, and Wade (2013) is known as ePEARL (see http://grover.concordia.ca), which stands for electronic portfolio encouraging active reflective learning. This is a free Web-based software program that can be used in bilingual settings. This program claims to promote goal setting, reflection on strategies and processes, and feedback from peers, teachers, and parents. There are also school-based e-portfolio applications that can be used to share student work on the Web so as to make learning more public (Fahey, Lawrence, & Paratore, 2007). One such e-portfolio source is Open School ePortfolio (www.openschooleportfolio.com). As of spring 2014, this source was offered free to teachers and at a modest cost for whole school uses. Another international example is My Portfolio (http://myportfolio.school.nz), a New Zealand–based source with similar services that is offered free to New Zealand schools. A more open access tool you might consider for creating ePortfolios is Google Sites, which offers templates for various purposes, the ability to upload files and attachments, and does not require HTML. In Figure 8.11 we summarize the procedures and instruments we have just discussed for assessing factors associated with narrative texts matched to the essential comprehension abilities. In this Summary Matrix of Narrative Comprehension Assessment Procedures, we provide information about federally related assessment purposes (i.e., screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, or outcomes assessment), as well as the type of test or procedure and any available psychometric evidence of test or procedure scores (reliability and validity evidence).
Using Student Assessment Data To Guide Instruction: If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide Before moving on to narrative comprehension teaching strategies, we provide you with an If-Then chart connecting assessment to intervention and strategy choices. In the IfThen chart shown in Figure 8.12 we have listed the teaching strategies that appear in the next section and link them to key areas of need that your comprehension assessments have revealed.
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 265
Figure 8.11 Summary Matrix of Narrative Comprehension Assessment Procedures Matched to Essential Abilities
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY(S) (WITH PAGE #)
Essential Narrative Reading Comprehension Abilities*
The Reading Strategy Use Scale (Modified)
Comprehension Monitoring (Metacognition)
Click or Clunk
ASSESSMENT PURPOSE(S): SCREENING (S), DIAGNOSTIC (D), PROGRESS MONITORING (M), OUTCOMES (O)
RELIABILITY (R), VALIDITY (V) EVIDENCE
S, M, O
R - 0.70–0.72 V - Construct
S, M, O
R- Not available V- Construct
Social Collaboration Performance Outcome Evaluation
Collaborative Learning Skills (ability to work in pairs and small groups)
S
R- Not available V- Construct
Anecdotal Records (AR)
Use of Graphic Organizers and Story Maps
M
R- Not applicable V- Construct
S, D, O
R- Not applicable V- Construct
Story Grammar Map Assessment (SGM) Bloom’s Question Stems and Question Verbs
Question Answering (Multiple Thinking Levels)
S, D, M, O
R – Not applicable since this is not a norm- referenced test. V – Construct
Bloom’s Question Stems and Question Verbs
Question Generation (Multiple Thinking Levels)
S, D, M, O
R – Not applicable since this is not a norm- referenced test. V – Construct
Oral Story Retellings: Knowledge of Narrative Text Structure
Story Structure (knowledge and use)
S, M, O
R – Not applicable since this is not a norm- referenced test. V- Construct
S, D, M, O
R- Not available V- Construct
Reading Retelling Record (R3) Narrative Pyramid
Summarization
M, O
R- Not available V- Construct
The Reading Strategy Use Scale (Modified)
Multiple Strategy Use
S, M, O
R- 0.70–0.72
Flynt/Cooter Reading Attitude Survey (Motivation)
Using Background Knowledge; Maintaining Motivation, Interest & Attitude
S, M
R- Not available V- Construct
S, D, M, O
R- 0.43–0.83 V- Construct
S
R- Not available V- Construct
Self-Regulation Questionnaire— Reading Motivation English Learners: Predictability Log
Figure 8.12 If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide: Narrative Reading Comprehension “IF” your assessment show that a student needs to learn or improve this ability . . .
“THEN” try this teaching strategy first
Alternate Teaching Strategy(s) or for Response to Intervention (RTI)
Comprehension Monitoring (Metacognition)
Reciprocal teaching
Click or Clunk
Collaborative Learning Skills (ability to work in pairs and small groups)
Joint Productive Activity
Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DR-TA)
Use of Graphic Organizers and Story Maps
Graphic Organizers for Stories
Joint Productive Activity
Question Answering (Multiple Thinking Levels)
Question–Answer Relationships (QAR)
Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DR-TA) Click or Clunk, p.
Question Generation (Multiple Thinking Levels)
Question generating
Joint Productive Activity
Story Structure (knowledge and use)
Story Grammar Instruction
Schema Stories
Summarization
Summary Writing: Focus on Close Reading of Text
Joint Productive Activity
Multiple Strategy Use
Reciprocal teaching
Joint Productive Activity
Using Background Knowledge; Maintaining Motivation, Interest & Attitude
Yarning Circles (English Learners)
Singing Routine Joint Productive Activity
266 Chapter 8
Teaching Strategies: Narrative Reading Comprehension In summarizing our background briefing for teachers at the beginning of this chapter, we know that decades of research reveal three effective components for teaching comprehension of texts. These are • teaching students evidence-based comprehension strategies using direct explanation and teaching; • involving students in cooperative learning experiences as a way of promoting student conversations about new learning; and • helping students learn how to use comprehension strategies in combination according to the demands of the text. In this section we present a collection of comprehension strategies and routines that may be used to satisfy one or more of these three essential elements of effective teaching.
MyLab Education: Application Exercise 8.3: Narrative Text Comprehension Case Study
Joint Productive Activity (JPA): Cooperative Learning and/or Response to Intervention (RTI) Age Range: 5 years to 17 years Standards (for the example presented): ELA-Literacy.RL.1.5: Explain major differences between books that tell stories and books that give information, drawing on a wide reading of a range of text types. ELA-Literacy.RL.1.6: Identify who is telling the story at various points in a text. ELA-Literacy.R.2.3: Discern main ideas and concepts presented in texts, identifying and assessing evidence that supports those ideas. ELA-Literacy.R.2.4: Draw inferences, conclusions, or generalizations about text and support them with textual evidence and prior knowledge. ELA-Literacy.RI.4.1: Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text. ELA-Literacy.SL.4.1.a: Come to discussions prepared, having read or studied required material; explicitly draw on that preparation and other information known about the topic to explore ideas under discussion. ELA-Literacy.W.2.2.c: Develop interpretations that exhibit careful reading and understanding. PURPOSE Dialogic learning—genuine two-way conversations with students about what they are reading and learning—is the linchpin for successful teaching and learning (Reutzel & Cooter, 2019). One of the most motivational dialogic activities we have experienced is the joint productive activity (JPA) (CREDE, 2010) that has students and the teacher (as a coach) working together to solve a specific problem or task. JPA has a substantial record of research documented by The Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. Because of its flexibility, JPAs may be used as a peer-supported response to intervention (RTI) strategy for students needing additional practice in such areas as use of graphic organizers, question generation, summarization, multiple comprehension strategy use, and as a way of increasing motivation.
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 267
MATERIALS
• A teacher-developed joint productive activity (JPA) • An assigned narrative text. Our example uses the following texts: “The Old Sow and the Three Shoats” from Grandfather Tales (Chase, 2015), and The True Story of the Three Pigs! By A. Wolf (Scieszka, 1996) • Chart paper (2 sheets) and markers for each group (usually 3–5 students) PROCEDURE According to the CREDE Center (2010), a joint productive activity (JPA) involves the teacher in providing for the following elements:
• Designing instructional activities that require students to work together to develop a product. • Establishing a time limit for completing the task that matches the demands. • Providing an appropriate classroom space and materials for small groups to complete the task. • Being available as a coach or advisor for times when students truly require assistance. (Note: Ambiguity is a good thing; teachers try not to intervene unless the situation requires it, such as missing information in the instructions.) • Organizing groups in a variety of ways such as mixed academic ability, common first language, related to project requirements, or to promote interaction. • Working with students to decide beforehand how to (1) work together (i.e., group norms*), (2) move from one phase of the activity to another such as from largegroup introduction to small-group activity, (3) cleanup responsibilities, and (4) how to conduct peer evaluations (rating each other anonymously on how well their peers participated in the group). *Examples of group norms: All people in the group should have a chance to speak the same amount of time. I really listen to others when they speak. I know everyone is an expert about something. I promise to be positive in what I say and do in the group. Following is an example of a JPA format using the short story, “The Old Sow and the Three Shoats” from Richard Chase’s (2003) book, The Jack Tales. This story is an Appalachian version of the Three Pigs story but with a number of different twists. 1. Title: Joint Productive Activity: Comparing “The Old Sow and the Three Shoats” with The True Story of the Three Pigs! By A. Wolf 2. Time Limit: 45 minutes 3. Directions: Now that everyone has had a chance to read, “The Old Sow and the Three Shoats,” your group is to do the following task and elect a group member to present your results in 45 minutes. Remember that you must all come to a consensus on what you present. ON YOUR OWN . . . Take five minutes to write down your answers to the following questions:
• What parts of the two stories are basically the same? (Tip: Compare the settings, characters, the main problem the characters have to deal with, attempts to solve the problem, and conclusion.) • What parts of the story are different?
268 Chapter 8 As a group . . . • Part 1: On chart paper, write down each person’s answers to the questions. If more than one person had a similar answer, just note how many people thought the same thing. After doing this part of the task, put a check mark by each answer about which all group members agree. • Part 2: On a new sheet of chart paper, create a Venn diagram and place each member of the group’s answers into one of three categories: “The Old Sow and the Three Shoats” Only, The True Story of the Three Pigs! By A. Wolf Only, and The Same in Both Stories. • Choose a group representative who will talk to people about your group’s ideas during our “Gallery Walk.” • Evaluate each group member’s participation (including your own) on the form provided using the JPA rubric we developed in class, fold it, and place into the envelope at your table. Once the time limit has arrived, students participate in a Gallery Walk rotation wherein students view each chart paper/poster from each group. Group representatives share their team’s work, talk about how their findings, and how they may differ or agree with other groups.
Story Grammar Instruction Age Range: 5 years to 9 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RL.1.5: Explain major differences between books that tell stories and books that give information, drawing on a wide reading of a range of text types. ELA-Literacy.RL.1.6: Identify who is telling the story at various points in a text. ELA-Literacy.RL.3.4 through RL.3.6: Craft and Structure. PURPOSE Developing a sense of how stories are formed through story grammar instruction helps students who are having reading problems predict with greater facility, store information more efficiently, and recall story elements with increased accuracy and completeness. Without knowledge and understanding of story structure, students cannot be expected to make reasonable predictions, remember important story information, or provide a competent or complete oral retelling. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000) has recommended the teaching of story structure as a comprehension strategy for which there is abundant scientific evidence of effectiveness. MATERIALS
• Well-formed stories • A visual organizer to guide the introduction of story grammar concepts (such as the blank, poster-sized, laminated story grammar map similar to the one shown earlier in Figure 8.9. PROCEDURE A number of reading researchers have described instructional procedures for developing readers’ story schemata or story grammar awareness. Gordon and Braun (1983) recommended several guidelines for teaching story grammar, which we have adapted as follows:
1. Story grammar instruction should use well-formed stories such as “Jack and the Beanstalk.” A visual organizer can be used to guide the introduction of the concept of story grammar. For the first story used in story grammar instruction,
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 269
read the story aloud, stop at key points in the story, and discuss the information needed to fill in the diagram. For stories read after introducing the concept of story grammar, use the visual organizer to introduce the story and make predictions about the story prior to reading. During and after reading, a visual organizer can be used to guide a discussion. 2. Set the purposes for reading by asking questions related to the structure of the story. Questioning developed to follow the structure of the story will focus students’ attention on major story elements. 3. After questioning and discussing story structure, specific questions about the story content can be asked. 4. For continued instruction, gradually introduce less well-formed stories so that students will learn that not all stories are “ideal” in organization. 5. Extend instruction by encouraging children to ask their own questions using story structure and to apply this understanding in writing their own stories.
Graphic Organizers: Seeing the Structure of Stories Age Range: 6 years to 17 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2: Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson. ELA-Literacy.RL.3.6: Distinguish their own point of view from that of the narrator or those of the characters. ELA-Literacy.RL.6.5: Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot. PURPOSE Graphic organizers are visual representations of key story elements and the interrelationships among these parts. Several researchers over the years have demonstrated the efficacy of using graphic organizers to teach children how stories are constructed to improve their comprehension of stories (Beck & McKeown, 1981; Reutzel, 1985). The National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) has recommended the use of graphic organizers as a comprehension strategy for which there is abundant scientific evidence of effectiveness. Graphic organizers, like story maps or webs, have been used to effectively increase children’s comprehension of stories (Boyle, 1996; Bromley, 1993; Reutzel, 1985). Reutzel and Fawson (1989, 1991) designed a successful strategy lesson to be used with young readers’ predictable storybooks for building children’s understanding of story structure. A literature web is constructed from the major story elements in a predictable book by selecting sentences from the book that tell about each major element of the story (i.e., setting, problem, events, and resolution). To cement or correct comprehension of text after reading, you may want to conduct a class discussion. Most class discussions tend to center around the teacher and a few vocal children, with the rest of the class passively listening, or worse, completely inattentive. A discussion web (Alvermann, 1991) is a practical technique for enhancing student participation and thought during class discussions after reading. MATERIALS
• One well-formed story • Sentence strips • Hand-drawn or copied pictures from the selected story
270 Chapter 8
Figure 8.13 Random Order Literature Web. One pig met a man carrying a bundle of sticks. “May I have those sticks to build myself a house?” asked the pig. “You may,” answered the man. And the three little pigs lived happily ever after in a brick house built for three. One day the wolf came knocking at the door of the brick house. “Little pig, little pig, let me come in.” “Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin,” said the pig. “Then I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house in.” But the house would not fall down. The Three Little Pigs
The wolf fell, kersplot, into a kettle of hot water. He jumped out with a start and ran out the door and never came back again. One day the wolf came knocking at the door of the straw house. “Little pig, little pig, let me come in.” “Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin,” said the pig. “Then I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house in.” And he blew the house down. Once upon a time, three little pigs set out to make their fortune.
The wolf got so angry that he climbed to the top of the house and jumped down the chimney.
One pig met a man with a load of bricks. “May I have those bricks to build myself a house?” asked the pig. “You may,” answered the man. One pig met a man carrying a bundle of straw. “May I have that straw to build myself a house?” asked the pig. “You may,” answered the man.
One day the wolf came knocking at the door of the stick house. “Little pig, little pig, let me come in.” “Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin,” said the pig. “Then I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house in.” And he blew the house down.
• A chalkboard or other display area for posting the literature web • A felt pen or marker for drawing lines of relationships PROCEDURE
1. First, sentences with key elements from the story are copied onto strips. The title of the story is copied onto a sentence strip. 2. The sentence strip with the title is placed in the center of the board or display area. 3. The remaining sentence strips are placed in random order on the chalk tray or some other display area (see Figure 8.13 for an example). 4. Prior to reading the story, whether reading it aloud in a shared-book experience or encouraging students to read it in a guided reading small group, the class or group reads the sentences aloud with the teacher. In the early part of the school year, the sentences selected for the literature web sentence strips are usually heavily augmented with hand-drawn or computer-scanned pictures from the book.
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 271
5. Organize children into small groups and give each group one of the pictures and sentence cards from the board. 6. The children are asked which group thinks it has the first part of the story. 7. After discussion, and after group agreement is reached, the first sentence and picture card is placed at the one o’clock position on the literature web graphic organizer. 8. The remaining groups are asked which sentence and picture combination comes next, and the sentence strips and pictures are placed around the graphic organizer in clockwise order. Figure 8.14 shows how one group of students arranged a graphic organizer to represent their predictions. 9. Next, the story is read aloud or silently from a traditional-size trade book or from a big book in a shared reading. Children listen attentively to confirm or correct their graphic organizer predictions. 10. After the reading, predictions are revised in the graphic organizer as necessary (see Figure 8.15). 11. Children respond to the story, and these responses are recorded near the end of the graphic organizer. 12. Other books similar to the one read may be discussed and comments recorded on the web. 13. Finally, the children and teacher brainstorm together some ideas about how to extend the reading of the book into the other language arts while recording these ideas on the graphic organizer.
Figure 8.14 Literature Web: Predictions. The wolf fell, kersplot, into a kettle of hot water. He jumped out with a start and ran out the door and never came back again.
And the three little pigs lived happily ever after in a brick house built for three.
Once upon a time, three little pigs set out to make their fortune.
The wolf got so angry that he climbed to the top of the house and jumped down the chimney.
One pig met a man carrying a bundle of sticks. “May I have those sticks to build myself a house?” asked the pig. “You may,” answered the man. The Three Little Pigs
One day the wolf came knocking at the door of the brick house. “Little pig, little pig, let me come in.” “Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin,” said the pig. “Then I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house in.” But the house would not fall down. One day the wolf came knocking at the door of the straw house. “Little pig, little pig, let me come in.” “Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin,” said the pig. “Then I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house in.” And he blew the house down.
One pig met a man carrying a bundle of straw. “May I have that straw to build myself a house?” asked the pig. “You may,” answered the man.
One day the wolf came knocking at the door of the stick house. “Little pig, little pig, let me come in.” “Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin,” said the pig. “Then I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house in.” And he blew the house down.
One pig met a man with a load of bricks. “May I have those bricks to build myself a house?” asked the pig. “You may,” answered the man.
272 Chapter 8
Figure 8.15 Completed Literature Web The wolf fell, kersplot, into a kettle of hot water. He jumped out with a start and ran out the door and never came back again.
And the three little pigs lived happily ever after in a brick house built for three.
The wolf got so angry that he climbed to the top of the house and jumped down the chimney.
One day the wolf came knocking at the door of the brick house. “Little pig, little pig, let me come in.” “Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin,” said the pig. “Then I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house in.” But the house would not fall down.
Once upon a time, three little pigs set out to make their fortune.
One pig met a man carrying a bundle of straw. “May I have that straw to build myself a house?” asked the pig. “You may,” answered the man.
The Three Little Pigs One day the wolf came knocking at the door of the straw house. “Little pig, little pig, let me come in.” “Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin,” said the pig. “Then I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house in.” And he blew the house down.
One pig met a man with a load of bricks. “May I have those bricks to build myself a house?” asked the pig. “You One day the wolf came knocking at the door of the may,” answered the man. stick house. “Little pig, little pig, let me come in.” “Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin,” said the pig. “Then I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house in.” And he blew the house down.
One pig met a man carrying a bundle of sticks. “May I have those sticks to build myself a house?” asked the pig. “You may,” answered the man.
Reutzel and Fawson (1991) have demonstrated that children with reading problems who participate in using a graphic organizer of a predictable storybook learn to read these books with fewer oral reading miscues, fewer miscues that distort comprehension, and greater recall. They attribute this to the fact that children must impose an organization onto their predictions when using graphic organizers rather than simply making random predictions from story titles and pictures. To use a discussion web graphic organizer after reading a story, begin by 1. Preparing students to read a text selection or book as you normally would (see Figure 8.16). Help them think of related background experiences, and invite them to set a purpose for reading the story. 2. You may want to ask an open-ended question about the story. For example, using The Widow’s Broom by Chris Van Allsburg (1992), you may ask, “Do you think the widow Minna Shaw should have tricked her neighbors?” 3. Group students in pairs and ask them to answer the question according to their own feelings and the facts they remember from the story. Help them focus on why a certain answer could be true. 4. Ask students to think also of some reasons the opposite answer could be true. For example, one student may say, “Yes, they were trying to take her magic broom away.”
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 273
Figure 8.16 Discussion Web Sandra, Yes. They were trying to take her magic broom away.
Yes Do you think the widow Minna Shaw should have tricked her neighbors? Mike, Yes. Those rotten Spivey kids were the ones who needed to be taken away.
Chad, No. But Minna Shaw should have told them to mind their own business.
Reasons
Conclusions
No
Candice, No. I would have called the police on the Spiveys and let them handle it.
A partner may add, “Yes, those rotten Spivey kids were the ones who needed to be taken away.” In this example, these students have voiced two yes answers. 5. Next, the teacher should ask the students to think of some no answers, as well. 6. After students have discussed their ideas in pairs, you may want to ask them to share their thinking with another pair of students. 7. Ask each pair to choose its best answer to the question, as well as the strongest reason supporting the students’ thinking. 8. Then, bring the children together and ask one student from each pair to report the pair’s best answer and the reason supporting that answer. As each student speaks, include the reason in the diagram. 9. After each pair reports, invite others to suggest additional ideas for the discussion web. 10. You may want to reach a class conclusion, or you may want to stop just before a conclusion is reached to avoid a “right” or “wrong” feeling for the answers. (Note: Some teachers of very young students use the discussion web strategy in a wholeclass setting rather than grouping students in pairs. Vary the approach according to your teaching style and class needs.) Merkley and Jeffries (2001) encourage teachers to use the following guidelines in teaching with graphic organizers to help students improve their comprehension: • Talk about the links or relationships among the concepts or events expressed in the visual. • Provide opportunity for student input in shaping the content and order of the visual. • Connect the new learning to past learning and to other stories to demonstrate relationships. • Reference an upcoming story that will be read soon. • Use the text in the visual of a graphic organizer to reinforce decoding and other word study skills. • Although the graphic organizer may be distributed as a worksheet, the secret to success is to use graphic organizers to organize discussion, text talk, and thinking.
274 Chapter 8
Schema Stories: Using Story Structure Knowledge to Guide Text Comprehension Age Range: 6 years to 12 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2: Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson. ELA-Literacy.RL.3.6: Distinguish their own point of view from that of the narrator or those of the characters. ELA-Literacy.RL.6.5: Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot. PURPOSE Watson and Crowley (1988), originators of this strategy lesson, describe schema stories as a reading strategy lesson that helps readers “reconstruct the order of a text based on meaning and story grammar” (p. 263). This strategy helps students learn to anticipate such elements as setting, problem to be addressed by the characters, key events in the story, and resolution of the story (Simmons & Kame’enui, 1998). MATERIALS
• Copy of selected story cut into parts or sections PROCEDURE
1. Start with stories that contain familiar beginning and ending phrases, such as “Once upon a time” and “They lived happily ever after.” 2. After choosing an interesting story, prepare the schema story strategy lesson by making a photocopy of the text and physically cutting the photocopy into sections or parts that are long enough to contain at least one main idea. Usually, one or two paragraphs will be a sufficient length to accomplish this purpose. 3. To begin the lesson, distribute a section or part of the story to each small group of students (four to eight students in each group is about right). Typically, one student is selected in each group to read the text aloud for his or her group. 4. Once each group has read its story part, ask if any group believes it was given the section of the story that comes at the beginning of the story. Students who believe they have the beginning of the story are to raise their hands to respond. Those who raise their hands must state why they believe they have the beginning of the story. 5. After the majority of the students agree as to which section or story part is first, the group proceeds to the next segment of the story. 6. This process continues as described until all of the segments have been placed in a predicted order. Schema story lessons make excellent small-group or individual activities that can be located at a classroom center or station devoted to developing a sense of story. All of the segments of a text can be placed into an envelope and filed in the center. Small groups of children or individuals can come to the center and select an envelope and then work individually or collectively on reconstructing a story. A key for self-checking can be included in the envelope as well, to reduce the amount of teacher supervision necessary in the center. As children work through a schema story strategy lesson, they talk about how language works, ways authors construct texts, and how meaning can be used to make sense out of the scrambled elements of a text or story.
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 275
Question–Answer Relationships (QAR): Answering Questions about Narrative Texts Age Range: 7 years to 9 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RL.2.9: Compare and contrast two or more versions of the same story (e.g., Cinderella stories) by different authors or from different cultures. CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RL.4.7: Make connections between the text of a story or drama and a visual or oral presentation of the text, identifying where each version reflects specific descriptions and directions in the text (applicable to standards in grades 2–12). PURPOSE Raphael (1982, 1986) identified four question–answer relationships to help children identify the connection between the type of questions asked of them by teachers and textbooks and the information sources necessary and available to them for answering questions: (a) right there, (b) think and search, (c) author and you, and (d) on my own. Research by Raphael and Pearson (1982) provided evidence that training students to recognize question–answer relationships (QARs) results in improved comprehension and question-answering behavior. In addition, using the QARs question-answering training strategy is useful for another purpose: helping teachers examine their own questioning with respect to the types of questions and the information sources that students need to use to answer their questions. By using QARs to monitor their own questioning behaviors, some teachers may find that they are asking only “right there” types of questions. This discovery very often leads teachers to ask other questions that require the use of additional or seldom-used information sources. MATERIALS
• A variety of texts for asking and answering questions • A poster displaying information about the different types of questions and the information sources available for answering them (see Figure 8.17 for examples of each of the four types of question–answer relationships)
Figure 8.17 Question-Answer Relationships (QARs)
In the Book
Right There The answer is in one place in the text. Words from the question and words that answer the question are often “right there” in the same sentence.
Think & Search The answer is in the text. Readers need to “think and search,” or put together different parts of the text, to find the answer. The answer can be within a paragraph, across paragraphs, or even across chapters and books.
In My Head
On My Own The answer is not in the text. Readers need to use their own ideas and experiences to answer the question.
Author & Me The answer is not in the text. To answer the question, readers need to think about how the text and what they already know fit together.
SOURCE: Based on “QAr: enhancing comprehension and Test Taking across Grades and content Areas” byT.e. raphael and K.h.Au,2005,The ReadingTeacher,59(3),206–221.
276 Chapter 8 PROCEDURE
1. Instruction using QARs begins by explaining that when answering questions about reading, there are basically two places a student can look to get information: in the book and in their heads. 2. This concept should be practiced with the students by reading aloud a text, asking questions, and having the students explain or show where they found their answers.
MyLab Education
Video Example 8.2: Responding to Questions In this video, you will learn about research supporting strategies like QAR. Notice that the student and teacher talk about connections in the literature for answering “text to self” questions. What are text to self questions called in QAR?
3. Once students understand the two-category approach, expand the “in the book” category to include “right there” and “think and search.” The distinction between these two categories should be practiced by reading and discussing several texts. For older students, Raphael (1986) suggests that students be shown specific strategies for locating the answers to “right there” questions. These include looking in a single sentence or looking in two sentences connected by a pronoun. For “think and search” questions, students can be asked to focus their attention on the structure of the text, such as cause–effect, problem solution, listing examples, compare/ contrast, and explanation. 4. Next, instruction should be directed toward two subcategories within the “in my head” category: “author and me” and “on my own.” Here again, these categories can be practiced as a group by reading a text aloud, answering the questions, and discussing the sources of information. 5. To expand this training, students can be asked to identify the types of questions asked in their basal readers, workbooks, content-area texts, and tests; in addition, they can determine the sources of information needed to answer these questions. 6. Inform students that certain types of questions are asked before, during, and after reading a story. For example, questions asked before reading typically invite students to activate their own knowledge. Therefore, questions asked before reading will usually be “on my own” questions. However, questions asked after reading will make use of information found in the text. Thus, questions asked after reading will typically focus on the “right there,” “think and search,” and “author and me” types of questions. 7. As a culminating training activity for QARs, children are asked to write their own questions for each of the QAR categories. Teacher Self-Evaluation Continuum: Question–Answer Relationships Teachers, like students, go through zones of proximal development (from novice to expert) in the implementation of new teaching strategies. Cooter (2009) developed a kind of rubric or continuum for implementing QAR to help teachers monitor and improve their use of this method and discover ways to deepen its use in the classroom (see Figure 8.18).
Figure 8.18 QARs Teacher Implementation Continuum Classroom Implementation of the Question-Answer Relationship Strategy
Purpose/ Objective
Exemplary A
Above Average B
Acceptable C
Early Implementation D
Traditional Instruction E
Teacher uses the QAR strategy to help students monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts.
Teacher attempts to use the QAR strategy to help students monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts.
Teacher uses the QAR strategy but not for the purpose of helping students monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts.
Teacher helps students monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts without using the QAR strategy.
Teacher does not use the QAR strategy and does not help students monitor their understanding of mathematics text.
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 277
Classroom Implementation of the Question-Answer Relationship Strategy Exemplary A
Above Average B
Acceptable C
Early Implementation D
Traditional Instruction E
Teacher’s Knowledge and Preparation
Teacher understands the QAR strategy and is prepared to demonstrate the QAR strategy to help students monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts.
Teacher understands the QAR strategy and is somewhat prepared to demonstrate the QAR strategy to help students monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts.
Teacher partially understands the QAR strategy and is partially prepared to demonstrate the QAR strategy to help students monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts.
Teacher demonstrates a limited understanding of the QAR strategy and is minimally prepared to demonstrate the strategy to help students monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts.
Teacher does not understand the QAR strategy and is not prepared to demonstrate the QAR strategy to help students monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts.
Teacher Modeling
Teacher models how to apply the QAR strategy to help students monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts. Teacher thinks aloud while demonstrating.
Teacher’s Choice of Text
Teacher chooses appropriate mathematics text for the implementation of the QAR strategy and is connected to the math skill being taught.
Teacher chooses appropriate mathematics text for the implementation of the QAR strategy.
Teacher attempts to choose appropriate mathematics text for the implementation of the QAR strategy.
Teacher does not choose appropriate mathematics text for the implementation of the QAR strategy.
Teacher does not choose text in the subject matter of mathematics for the implementation of the QAR strategy.
Gradual Release of Responsibility (Student’s Role)
Students are prepared to use the QAR strategy to monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts in independent practice.
Students are prepared to use the QAR strategy to monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts in a cooperative group (i.e., in pairs or small groups).
Students are prepared to use the QAR strategy to monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts in guided practice.
Students watch the teacher demonstrate/ model the QAR strategy as a means of monitoring their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts.
New strategy to be learned.
Frequency of Use
Teacher uses the QAR strategy as a means for students to monitor their understanding of mathematics text daily.
Teacher uses the QAR strategy as a means for students to monitor their understanding of mathematics text twice a week.
Teacher uses the QAR strategy as a means for students to monitor their understanding of mathematics text once a week.
Teacher uses the QAR strategy as a means for students to monitor their understanding mathematics text once a month to every six weeks.
Teacher does not use the QAR strategy as a means for students to monitor their understanding of mathematics text.
Teacher attempts to model the use of the QAR strategy as a means for students to monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts. Engages students in the mod ding phase.
Teacher does not model the QAR strategy as a means for students to monitor their understanding of mathematics text and mathematics concepts. Students were called upon throughout this phase to apply their limited knowledge of the_strategy.
Summary Writing: Focus on Close Reading of Text Age Range: 6 years to 13 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2: Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson. ELA-Literacy.RL.3.6: Distinguish their own point of view from that of the narrator or those of the characters. ELA-Literacy.RL.6.5: Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot. PURPOSE The purpose of writing a summary is to extract main or important ideas from a reading selection. Good readers are constantly stopping themselves during reading to monitor or think about their comprehension and to take corrective action when necessary. Summaries are important because they help form memory structures that readers can use to select and store relevant main ideas and details from
278 Chapter 8 their reading. Some readers do not spontaneously summarize their reading and, as a result, have poor understanding and recall of what they read (Brown, Day, & Jones, 1983). MATERIALS
• A short story, chapter book, or other literature selection • A chart displaying the rules for summary writing (see example in Figure 8.19) • Smartboard or projection system • Classroom dry-erase board PROCEDURE
1. Begin by distributing copies of the story selections to be read by the group. Have the students silently read the first few passages. 2. Next, on the smartboard or projection system, model for the children how you might use the five rules in Figure 8.19 for writing a summary. 3. After modeling how you would write a summary, instruct the children to finish reading the entire chapter or passage. 4. Divide the classroom dry-erase board into four sections relating to the topic. For example, if you are reading an animal story, your subcategories may be description, food, home, and interesting facts. 5. As the groups read, students can write facts on the chalkboard under the different category headings. 6. Next, organize students into cooperative learning groups to work on writing a summary together. Each student is assigned to take charge of one of the five summary writing rules shown in Figure 8.19. 7. Move about the classroom to assist the groups as needed. 8. After reading the selection and working in their groups, the students in each group assigned to the topic statement rule should read their topic statement aloud. 9. Next, the students can discuss the facts they have listed at the dry-erase board, erase any duplicates, and write the remaining main ideas and detail facts in complete sentences. You may want to have students use different-colored dry-erase markers for each of the five summary rules to record their work. For example, green may be used for collapsing lists, red for eliminating unnecessary details, and so on.
Figure 8.19 Five Rules for Summary Writing 1. Collapse lists. If there is a list of things, supply a word or phrase for the whole list. For example, if you saw swimming, sailing, fishing, and surfing, you could substitute water sports. 2. Use topic sentences. Sometimes authors write a sentence that summarizes the whole paragraph. If so, use that sen‑ tence in your summary. If not, you’ll have to make up your own topic sentences. 3. Get rid of unnecessary detail. Sometimes information is repeated or is stated in several different ways. Some infor‑ mation may be trivial and unnecessary. Get rid of repeti‑ tive or trivial information. Summaries should be short. 4. Collapse paragraphs. Often, paragraphs are related to each other. For example, some paragraphs simply explain or expand on other paragraphs in a selection. Some para‑ graphs are more important than others. Join the para‑ graphs that are related. Important paragraphs should stand alone. 5. Polish the summary. When you collapse a lot of information from many paragraphs into one or two paragraphs, the re‑ sulting summary sometimes sounds awkward and unnatu‑ ral. There are several ways to remedy this: add connecting words such as like or because, or write introductory or closing statements. Another method is to paraphrase the material; this will improve your ability to remember what you read and enable you to avoid plagiarism—using the exact words of the author. SOURCE: From “Direct Instruction of Summarization Skills” by V.C. Hare and K. M. Borchordt, 1984, Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 62–78..
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 279
10. Share each group’s summary writing processes and products with the entire class on the projection system. Be sure to provide additional practice on summary writing throughout the year with other books, moving toward asking individual children to perform all of the summary writing processes. Some students initially encounter difficulties using the five rules in Figure 8.19. We have found the following procedure by Noyce and Christie (1989) to be easier for most students who struggle with summary writing. (Naturally, you will need to model this process and then guide students as they work in groups discussing how to do it.) It is built on the following four easy steps: Step 1: W rite a topic sentence, that is, one that summarizes in general terms what the content is about. You need to either select one that the author has written or write your own. Step 2: D elete all unnecessary or irrelevant sentences, words, and other information from the entire passage. Step 3: A fter sorting all terms into categories, think of collective terms for those items that fall into the same category. Step 4: C ollapse paragraphs on the same subject down to one when they are largely redundant.
Reciprocal Teaching (RT) – Narrative Text Application Age Range: 6 years to 17 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RI.K.1-9 through CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.51-9: Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas. PURPOSE Reciprocal teaching or RT (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) is a dialogic teaching strategy wherein a teacher and students take turns reading, generating questions and summaries, making predictions about what may come next in the text, and clarifying any confusing or misleading parts of the text. According to Palinscar and Brown (1984), these four strategies to be used in combination were chosen “because they provide a dual function, that of enhancing comprehension and at the same time affording an opportunity for the student to check whether it is occurring. That is, they can be both comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities if properly used.” (p. 121). RT may be used with narrative texts/stories as we demonstrate in this chapter, or with expository texts(see Chapter 9). RT instruction uses a gradual release of responsibility model (Vygotsky, 1968) that includes a good deal of teacher modeling to introduce strategies, guided practice, and independent practice. MATERIALS
• Teacher-created Reciprocal Teaching Chart (see Figure 8.20) • Narrative text selection • The Giver (Lowry, 1993) PROCEDURE
1. Begin by introducing the Reciprocal Teaching Chart you have created. It should contain these four sections and provide tips for your students similar to the ones we have created:
280 Chapter 8
Figure 8.20 Reciprocal Teaching Chart Predicting (Before reading)
Questioning (Before & Duringreading)
I think what might happen is _____.
• Where does this story take place? (setting)
Self-check question: What made you think that?
• Why is the setting important to this story?
Clues:
• Who are the characters in this story?
• What I already know about _____.
• What is the main character trying to do?
This reminds me of ______.
or
• Something in the story (explain)
What problem is the main character trying to solve?
• Picture clues (which one?)
• What did the main character do to try to solve the problem? (attempts) • Is there another story I have read that this story reminds me of? How are the two stories similar? (compare/contrast) • What happens at the conclusion of the story? • What would you do differently if you were the main character?
Clarifying (After reading)
Summarizing/Self-Review (After reading)
• Confirm or adjust my predictions • Answer questions I created
• Retell the story and discuss it with my partner making sure I can identify all of the story’s elements
• Reread parts of the story if I’m not sure about the story elements or answers to my questions
• Make connections with the story:
• Reread as necessary to confirm what you think happened in the story Text/Text: Compare/contrast this story with other stories Text/Self: What this story reminds me about my own life experiences Text/World: What I know about how this story is similar to real world events
• Predicting. This asks students to forecast what might happen next in the narrative using clues given in the story, or what is already known. As long as the prediction is logically supported with information encountered in the narrative thus far, then it is considered a valid prediction. If not, then ask the student to explain why they think their prediction could happen. • Questioning. Asking students to create questions, we are asking them to focus on the story grammar elements and check to see what they know so far. • Clarifying. This task asks students to think critically to make clear to themselves what they have read in simple language. Clarifying may be done as oral retelling. • Summarizing. Before reading a story, summarizing causes students to identify what they already know from their background knowledge about the setting of a story. During the reading of a story, having the student stop at logical points and summarize is a good way to check to see how well they are comprehending the text so far. After reading, summarizing is a final comprehension check to see if all parts of the story (i.e., story grammar) have been understood, or where fix-up strategies like rereading may be needed. Before using reciprocal teaching, we recommend that you teach these four strategies in isolation so that students can focus on applying multiple strategies instead of having to learn and apply multiple strategies all at once. 2. There are several key parts to teacher modeling we will briefly explore. For illustrative purposes, we are using the Newbery Medal–winning book, The Giver by Lois Lowry (1993). We would begin the modeling phase of instruction by introducing the book and tell a little about it (without “spoilers,” of course!). For example, “We are about to begin reading together a fabulous book written by Lois Lowry called The Giver. It is about a 12-year-old boy named Jonas who lives in a society in another world where everything is supposed to be perfect. However, something goes very wrong and the boy is about to change this world. Will it be for good, or evil? I think it is my duty
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 281
as your teacher to warn you-- there is a sort of magic involved. Guess we’ll have to find out what happens to Jonas!” Next, during the modeling stage, introduce new vocabulary or concepts that might be unfamiliar to the students. For example, from The Giver we might introduce the following vocabulary: society, utopia(n), dystopian, receiver, Elder, memory, and so forth. Following vocabulary introduction, the teacher will introduce and model each part of the multiple strategies using the Reciprocal Teaching Chart. It is important to stress that Reciprocal Teaching means that sometimes the teacher or a peer will do the teaching, and that the role will shift to learner later. So, the teacher would use a think-aloud style to review predicting with students, and then begin giving examples of what she or he thinks of as good prediction questions: “I think that what could happen in the beginning of this story is that Jonas has some kind of super power.” The teacher then writes this prediction in a blank Reciprocal Teaching Chart (the four categories only are noted in the beginning). “I also think that Jonas might have to rescue someone in this story.” The teacher then writes this prediction on chart paper. The teacher then invites the group to come up with one or two more predictions, and then moves on to the questioning part of the Reciprocal Teaching Chart. Once again, the teacher takes the lead in explaining each box, offers an example or two, and then invites the group to make contributions. Be sure to let students know that you will all stop after reading certain parts of the book to make new predictions, ask new questions, and to clarify what has been learned so far in the story 3. In the next stage of instruction, guided practice, teachers begin the gradual release of responsibility from the teacher being solely responsible for explaining, demonstrating, and using multiple comprehension strategies; to students working in pairs taking on ever-increasing responsibility for the tasks with support from the teacher. Once there has been a great deal of practice with students working in pairs, enough practice that students seems to have the idea, then the teacher will ask students to take on full responsibility for using the multiple strategies on their own. 4. Once you feel students have learned to use these multiple comprehension strategies independently, assess their abilities using a new text.
Directed Reading–Thinking Activity (DR-TA): Age Range: 6 years to 12 years Standards (selected): ELA-Literacy.R.2.4: Recall major points in the text and make and modify predictions about forthcoming information. ELA-Literacy.RL.3.5: Refer to parts of stories, dramas, and poems when writing or speaking about a text, using terms such as chapter, scene, and stanza; describe how each successive part builds on earlier sections. ELA-Literacy.R.2.3: Make and confirm predictions about text by using prior knowledge and ideas presented in the text itself, including illustrations, titles, topic sentences, important words, and foreshadowing clues. ELA-Literacy.R.2.4: Evaluate new information and hypotheses by testing them against known information and ideas.
282 Chapter 8 ELA-Literacy.W.2.1.b: Provide a context to enable the reader to imagine the world of the event or experience. ELA-Literacy.RL.4.1: Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text. ELA-Literacy.W.4.3.e: Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events. ELA-Literacy.SL.4.1.a: Come to discussions prepared, having read or studied required material; explicitly draw on that preparation and other information known about the topic to explore ideas under discussion. ELA-Literacy.W.5.3.e: Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events. PURPOSE The Directed Reading–Thinking Activity (DR-TA) (Stauffer, 1969) and its alternate form for read-aloud experiences, Directed Listening–Thinking Activity (DL-TA), is a classic strategy intended to help students think critically and improve inferential comprehension abilities. DR-TA may also be used as a response to intervention (RTI) strategy for students needing additional instruction in the areas of collaborative learning and/or question answering. Students are asked to (1) read portions of a story until they reach a dramatic situation for a character, (2) generate inferences/predictions about what might happen next in the story based on what they know about causal relationships between characters (Filiatrault-Veilleux, Bouchard, Trudeau, & Desmarais, 2016), and then (3) continue reading another portion of the story to confirm or amend their hypotheses. As mentioned previously, the DR-TA is sometimes modified as a Directed LISTENING–Thinking Activity (DL-TA) that follows the same procedure, but has the teacher reading aloud each part of the story instead of students. Both versions are highly effective and typically have excellent student engagement. MATERIALS
• Copies of a text (one for each pair of students) that follows traditional story grammar elements (characters, setting, problem . . . ). This may be in the form of a book or digitally presented online or offline. In this example we use the story, “Sody Sallyraytus,” a Southern folktale from the popular book, Grandfather Tales, by Richard Chase (2015). • Chart paper • Pencils, pens, markers PROCEDURE
BEFORE READING 1. Prior to beginning your lesson, identify 3 to 5 places in the story that are cliffhangers to stop the students where a character is in a precarious situation. To prevent students from reading ahead, you may need to distribute the story in parts that lead up to each cliffhanger. 2. Begin by introducing the book. In this example, introduce Grandfather Tales and explain that this is a collection of stories told by people living in the Appalachian Mountains many years ago. These stories were told to Richard Chase decades ago as he traveled through the mountains. Some of the stories are familiar, like “Jack and the Bean Tree,” which is a version of “Jack and the Beanstalk” in Chase’s other
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 283
book, The Jack Tales. Other stories are ones you have most likely not heard before like this one, “Sody Sallyraytus.” It may remind you a little of the story “Billy Goats Gruff.” 3. Introduce and discuss any new or usual vocabulary words (use pictures, if possible, for clarity). For the story “Sody Sallyraytus” we might introduce these words: sody sallyraytus: Another name for baking soda, a white powder used in baking to make dough rise for foods like cake, biscuits, and bread. fireboard: This is a word people a long time ago might have used that means a mantel or mantelpiece. A mantelpiece is a shelf attached to the wall above a fireplace. trottin’: Another word for jogging. DURING READING 4. After introducing the book and new vocabulary, ask students working in pairs to read aloud in unison (or silently) the first part of the story. In our example, this might be the part where the old woman sent the little girl to the store to buy some sody sallyraytus so she can bake some biscuits, and the bear that was hiding along the path has just eaten the little girl. 5. At this stopping point, ask the students to retell what has happened so far in a group conversation. 6. Then, using a think-pair-share format ask questions like, “What do you think might happen next? Notice I said what might happen next. Think of as many possibilities as you can. I will give you and your partner two minutes to think of as many things as you can and write them down, and then I will ask you to share your predictions.” 7. After giving the students time to record their predictions, ask each group to report out and write their predictions on the chart paper. Be sure to ask the group these questions each time a prediction is made the questions: “Does that prediction make sense with what we know so far?” “Why?” “If not, why do you think that?” The idea is for students to provide logical evidence from the story each time to justify their predictions. Their predictions do not have to match what is in the story to be correct, they just have to fit the story and be supported by details from the story. 8. Next, have students read the next portion of the story leading up to another cliffhanger situation for one of the characters. 9. Return to the chart paper where the students’ previous predictions were made for the first part of the story. Reread each prediction and decide if it turned out to be the same as what happened in the second part of the story. If yes, congratulate the students who made that prediction. If not, draw a line through the prediction making sure to congratulate the student team for their creativity in devising a logical prediction. 10. Now, ask students to generate predictions as to what might happen next and be prepared to justify their predictions. 11. Repeat steps 6–10 for each section of the story. AFTER READING 12. After completing the story, discuss the predictions that were made regarding the story’s conclusion.
284 Chapter 8 13. One final possibility is to ask each pair of students to use the predictions that were different from the events in the story to write an alternate version of the story to share in writer's circle later in the week.
K-W-L Strategy Age Range: 8 years to 17 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RL.3.5: Refer to parts of stories, dramas, and poems when writing or speaking about a text, using terms such as chapter, scene, and stanza; describe how each successive part builds on earlier sections. ELA-Literacy.R.2.4: Evaluate new information and hypotheses by testing them against known information and ideas. ELA-Literacy.RL.4.1: Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text. ELA-Literacy.W.4.3.e: Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events. ELA-Literacy.W.5.3.e: Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events. PURPOSE K-W-L (Ogle, 1986) is an instructional reading strategy that is used to guide students through the reading of a challenging text. Students begin by brainstorming everything they Know about a topic central to the story. This information is recorded in the “K” column of a K-W-L chart. Students then generate a list of questions about what they Want to Know about the topic. These questions are listed in the “W” column of the chart. During or after reading, students revisit and answer the questions that are in the W column. Finally, new information that students have Learned from reading the story is recorded in the “L” column of the K-W-L chart. The K-W-L strategy serves several purposes:
• It draws on students’ prior knowledge of the topic of the text, • Sets a purpose for reading, and • Helps students to monitor their comprehension. MATERIALS
• Chart paper • Markers • Story selection PROCEDURE
1. Create a K-W-L chart similar to what you see in Figure 8.21 on chart paper or a dry-erase board. Be sure to ask questions like, “What are some words you think of when you heard this topic?” 2. Working with students as a group, begin with a conversation regarding what they know about concepts related to the text you selected. As they brainstorm what they know, record key ideas under the “K” column.
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 285
Figure 8.21 K-W-L Chart What I Know K
What I Want to know W
What I Learned L
3. Next, ask students what they want to learn about this subject in the story to be read and record these contributions in the “W” column. 4. Do this until students run out of ideas for questions. When they seem to be out of questions, ask “What else?” Sometimes you can “what else” students into thinking of several more questions. 5. Ask students to read the narrative selection and jot down notes as they discover possible answers to the questions in the “W” column of the K-W-L chart. 6. Finally, have a discussion about what was learned from the story that answers the questions noted in the “W” column and note responses in the “L” column.
Yarning Circles (English Learners): Background Knowledge, Motivation, and Close Reading Age Range: 6 years to 12 years Standards: ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2: Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson. ELA-Literacy.RL.3.6: Distinguish their own point of view from that of the narrator or those of the characters. ELA-Literacy.RL.6.5: Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot. PURPOSE We know that the number of ELs has been rapidly growing in recent decades, and that upwards of 70% of ELLs read below basic level (Greenfader & Brouillette, 2013; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2018). Developing listening, speaking and reading vocabulary is part and parcel of improving reading comprehension. Understanding literature and close reading begin with listening and oral language development and dramatic retellings, in our view. Yarning circles (Mills, Sunderland, & Davis-Warra, 2013) is a speaking and listening activity that can be used to discuss what is learned in new literature selections, relate new learnings to one’s life experiences and culture, and as a comprehension check via oral retelling. We feel it is a motivational and low-risk way to help ELLs
286 Chapter 8 enjoy literature even when they don’t know all the words. Yarning circles have their roots in Australian indigenous communities, sometimes called dadirri, or “inner deep listening to the land” (Mills, Sunderland, & Davis-Warra, 2013, p. 286), for communal gatherings and sharing. It is reminiscent of traditions of indigenous peoples in North America, as well as Appalachian storytelling traditions in the United States (as in “spinning a yarn”). MATERIALS
• A “message stick” (anything will do, but it’s nice if it is ornate) • A literature selection to be discussed PROCEDURE The oral English language ability of the students (and teacher) will necessarily dictate adaptations to be made for implementing yarning circles. In general, the activity goes as follows (Mills, Sunderland, & Davis-Warra, 2013):
1. The teacher begins the session by seating the students in a circle. The purpose or topic of the yarning circle is explained. This may be to retell the literary selection just read aloud by the teacher or read orally by students working in pairs. By the way, we know that reading aloud to students of any age helps improve their literacy growth (Fox, 2013). 2. The child wishing to be the speaker goes to the center of the circle and picks up the message stick. Only the person holding the message stick can speak, and others are expected to listen closely and respectfully. 3. After the speaker finishes retelling the story, he or she returns the message stick to the center of the circle. 4. Another child can then choose to go forward and retrieve the message stick. He or she may want to retell the story or fill in any missing parts. Students must never criticize a previous speaker because that would be disrespectful. Any person is allowed to have a turn with the message stick, or choose to only listen.
Singing Routine: Technology Age Range: 5 years to 13 years ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2: Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson. ELA-Literacy.RL.3.6: Distinguish their own point of view from that of the narrator or those of the characters. ELA-Literacy.RL.6.5: Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot. PURPOSE Researchers Iwasaki, Rasinski, Yildirim, and Zimmerman (2013) discovered significant learning benefits to primary-age students when combining singing with a visual display of words in the song. When students track words while singing, they are, in fact, reading. From a motivation standpoint, singing has features embedded within it that make the activity memorable and enjoyable. Singing while reading lyrics helps develop such beneficial things as sight word knowledge, fluency, and comprehension. Iwasaki, Rasinski, and colleagues (2013) recommend a weekly routine that is easy to implement.
Reading Comprehension: Narrative Texts 287
MATERIALS
• Song selections that are appropriate to the grade level and matched to a literature theme (e.g., “We Shall Overcome,” “Take Me Out to the Ball Game,” “When Johnny Comes Marching Home”) • Copies of the lyrics for children projected on the smartboard and/or images of words they view on their eTablets or iPads PROCEDURE Following is our interpretation of a weekly singing strategy offered by Iwasaki, Rasinski, and colleagues (2013): Day 1
1. Have the song playing as students arrive to get them acquainted with the tune. 2. Lead the class in a discussion about the meaning of the song, literary and historical connections, and so forth. 3. Give each student a hard copy of the lyrics. They may want to illustrate their copies, and this can heighten motivation. 4. Ask students to identify the words already known in the lyrics. Many may already be on your word wall. Day 2
1. Once again, have the song playing as students arrive. 2. Ask how many students sang this song after school or shared it with their families. 3. Sing the song chorally and remind students to follow along on the smartboard or on their own copies. 4. Ask students to call out any new words they now recognize. 5. After a brief discussion, sing the song again with children following along. You may want to vary the choral reading style—antiphonal, unison, or additive (one person sings the first line, two people sing the next line, three people sing the third line, etc.). Day 3
1. Students enter with the song playing. 2. Ask students to sing along with you once they are settled. 3. Next, discuss particular words and their meaning in this context. 4. Follow this discussion with students working in pairs or small groups to think of other words they know with similar meanings or word elements (e.g., ide words, or words beginning with gr). 5. Students share words they identified, then sing the song one more time while following along on their lyrics page. Day 4
1. Begin as in previous days with choral singing while following the printed lyrics. 2. Ask students to share their favorite parts of the song, and why they feel that way. 3. Sing the song again (with lyrics page) at various times during the day. 4. At the end of the day, ask students to write in their journal their thoughts about learning this particular song.
288 Chapter 8 Day 5
1. Begin with one or two renditions of the song. They should be able to read the song lyrics fluently now without the aid of the tune, identify words from the lyrics in isolation, and in some cases think of related rhyming words. 2. Discuss connections between this song and your literature theme or, better, to a specific piece of literature they have read. 3. Invite a colleague to come and hear the class sing the song, perhaps the principal. This will provide an approving audience! 4. Conclude this routine by having your students visit a class in one of the lower grades to perform the song.
Chapter 9
Teaching with Informational Texts Becka, a second grade student in Mrs. Vanderbilt’s room in a rural Midwestern school, was struggling to read an informational text entitled “How Do Fish Live?” by Heather Jenkins (1993) as part of a new emphasis on reading informational texts in connection with implementation of State Language Arts Standards. Becka had seen catfish swimming in local rivers and streams where she lived but really knew little about how fish live. As she began reading this new informational book, Becka found the many new terms and ideas difficult to understand and remember. The book was filled with unfamiliar terms including salt water, cold-blooded, gills, oxygen, gill covers, lungfish, pectoral fin, dorsal fin, swim bladder, and more. Becka was quite frankly overwhelmed with the amount of information to be comprehended in this 24-page information book. She needed help. She asked some of her friends, but like her, they had very little experience with some of the concepts in this book. After trying to read this book for what seemed ages, Becka raised her hand to ask for help from her teacher. As Mrs. Vanderbilt saw her hand and approached her seat, Becka was anxious. She didn’t quite know how to explain the problems she was having reading this book. “Mrs. Vanderbilt, I am trying to read this book, but I don’t understand it! I looked for the main characters, the setting, the problem, events, and an ending, but it doesn’t seem to have any of that.” “Well,” replied Mrs. Vanderbilt, “You aren’t reading a book that contains a story. Do you remember our discussion about the differences between a storybook and an informational book? Let’s see if we can figure out the way this book is organized to help you.
Background Briefing for Teachers Informational text is one genre among several within the general category of expository texts. Duke (2002) defines the genre of informational text as one that has a function of conveying information about the natural or social world; that is authored by someone presumed to be more knowledgeable about the topic than the reader; and that contains particular physical features such as timeless verb constructions, graphical devices, and specific text structures or organizational patterns. Informational text should not be thought of or referred to as nonfiction. There are many other text genres that are also nonfiction (e.g., autobiographies) that are not informational texts because the content is often conveyed using a narrative style. According to Duke (2002), nearly 44 million adults in the United States have difficulty extracting meaningful information from informational texts used in their careers, college programs, or personal lives. Other reading scholars have long held that the so-called reading slump around fourth grade is due to students’ inability to read proficiently in content-area textbooks (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990). National reports such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress Reading Report Cards (NAEP, 2015) also reveal that large proportions of U.S. school-aged students struggle to learn to read and write informational texts proficiently. Even more importantly, at-risk, low-income and minority students are more likely than other students to struggle with comprehending and learning from informational text.
289
290 Chapter 9 Living in an information age as we now do, and teaching in an age of state standards, in which increasing proportions of informational text reading will be expected and assessed, students in schools must learn to read informational texts proficiently to be ready for college or productive careers. Duke (2002) reports that approximately 96% of Internet sites make use of predominantly informational texts. The majority of adult reading, some suggest as much as 85% or more, comprises informational texts. In the future, much of students’ school achievement will depend on their ability to comprehend and compose informational text well.
Informational Text: A Tale of Neglect For many years, elementary school teachers have overemphasized the reading and writing of narrative, literary, or story texts in schools, especially in the primary grades (Duke, 2000; Duke & Bennett-Armistead, 2003). For some reason, teachers in elementary schools have resisted incorporating more informational texts into their reading instruction. Some literacy scholars attribute this resistance toward informational text to two myths that persist even today as teachers are asked to increase the proportion of informational text reading and writing in their classrooms. The first of these two myths is that students prefer narrative texts to informational texts (Duke, 2000; Duke & Bennett-Armistead, 2003). Mohr (2003) found that 84% of first-grade children actually preferred informational books having real photographs to other high-quality narrative books. In a similar study, Kletzien and Szabo (1998) also found that young children preferred informational texts to narrative texts. A second myth centers on a belief held by many primary-grade teachers that informational texts may be too difficult for younger students as they learn to read. Research by Kamil and Lane (1997a, 1997b) showed that first-grade students who were taught to read with informational texts made normal or above-average progress compared to those learning to read with narrative texts. Morgan, Wilcox, and Eldredge (2000) found that young readers actually make greater progress when reading more challenging texts than when reading easy texts. Shanahan (2013) notes that declining reading achievement over the years has coincided with declining levels of text challenge in reading materials found in grades 3 through 12. Neuman (2001) notes that early childhood (K–3) programs have traditionally emphasized learning processes and the teaching of skills to the exclusion of conveying rich, coherent content knowledge. The National Reading Panel (2000) suggested that connecting the instruction of comprehension strategies to the learning of content information may be an efficient approach for simultaneously teaching reading and increasing students’ knowledge (McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009). Also, many state standards are modeled after the Common Core State Standards and require increased student experiences with complex informational texts with the intent of better preparing them ready for college and careers (Shanahan, Fisher, & Frey, 2012). It is clear from years of research and from an increased emphasis placed on reading and writing informational texts that younger children and adolescents can and do learn efficiently from interacting successfully with informational texts (Donovan, 1996; Duke & Kays, 1998; Hiebert & Mesmer, 2013; Moss, 2003; Oyler & Barry, 1996; Reutzel, Smith, & Fawson, 2005; Shanahan, 2013; Shanahan, Fisher, & Frey, 2012). In fact, these findings demonstrate convincingly that the long-held fallacy that younger children need to learn to read first in easy narrative texts and then read to learn in more complex informational texts is quite simply a myth.
Increased Informational Text Reading in Today’s Society Content classrooms in secondary schools (e.g., social studies, science, mathematics) are often populated with students for whom reading informational texts is a particular challenge (Hiebert & Mesmer, 2013; Romine, McKenna, & Robinson, 1996). These students,
Teaching with Informational Texts 291
who may have considered themselves to be good readers in the past, must sometimes think to themselves, “What has happened? Why am I such a lousy reader now when I used to be so good?” Similarly, with the state standards requiring teachers to increase their attention, focus, and time allocated to reading and writing of informational texts, the question is often asked, “So what do I do now?” Duke (2004) provides a nice outline of the steps needed to prepare students to proficiently read and write informational text to get ready for careers and college. 1. Duke (2004) and others (Hiebert & Mesmer, 2013; Shanahan, Fisher, & Frey, 2012) encourage classroom teachers to increase student access to increasingly complex informational texts in their classrooms. This means that teachers need to acquire through whatever means necessary an increased stock of informational trade books and popular culture informational texts such as magazines, websites, and so forth that students can select to read in their classrooms. 2. Teachers need to increase instructional time on task for comprehending informational texts. This is often accomplished through what is called close reading of the text (Cummins, 2013; Shanahan, 2013). 3. Teachers need to couple the teaching of evidence-based reading comprehension strategies with the close reading of informational texts. 4. Teachers need to direct specific instructional attention to the unique and challenging physical features and characteristics found in informational texts. These unique challenges include unknown or rare vocabulary words, unfamiliar or complex sentence structures, coherence or how particular words or ideas connect to one another, text organization or structure, and lack of background knowledge, and text features such as glossary, index, headings and subheadings, bolded or italicized words, graphical representations, etc. (Hiebert & Mesmer, 2013; Shanahan, Fisher, & Frey, 2012). 5. Using informational text in authentic ways in classrooms can motivate students’ quest for learning and getting smarter (Marinak, Gambrell, & Mazzoni, 2013). Multiple comprehension strategy instructional approaches include Concept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI), Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR), Transactional Strategy Instruction (TSI), and Reciprocal Teaching (RT). These are ideal for accomplishing the twin objectives of growing students’ world knowledge and teaching comprehension strategies using informational texts. We will expand upon each of these recommended “to dos” in this chapter. Suffice it to say that an increased emphasis on reading and writing informational texts is here to stay. Even though there is little research to demonstrate that more attention paid to reading informational text alone is likely to produce college- or career-ready students upon high school graduation, it surely stands to reason that failure to pay increased attention to informational text in an increasingly digital information world is likely to do harm. In most professions, we may not do a great deal of good, but the first ethical rule embodied in the Hippocratic oath is “Do no harm.” There is emerging evidence that a mere infusion of informational texts into the classroom is insufficient to increase student’s informational text reading capacities. Coupling this greater access to informational text with explicit teaching of comprehension strategies, however, yields real benefits in greater student informational text comprehension (Baker et al., 1978).
Preparing the Reader to Successfully Read Increasingly Complex Informational Texts Even though a number of effective instructional strategies have been identified for use in elementary- and intermediate-grade classrooms to help students succeed in reading informational texts (e.g., Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Guthrie et al., 1996; Hall, Sabey,
292 Chapter 9
MyLab Education
Video Example 9.1: Research on Reading Comprehension In this video, you will learn why strategies are important for students to develop reading comprehension.
& McClellan, 2005; Read, Reutzel, & Fawson, 2008; Swafford & Bryan, 2000; Williams, 2005), startlingly few teachers actually use them (Donaldson, 2011; Irvin & Connors, 1989; Romine et al., 1996; Stahl, 2004). When students approach differing text types—such as narrative or story text, poetry, or informational texts—without the proper frame of reference, they typically experience exertion, frustration, and eventual comprehension failure. Successful comprehension of expository texts requires that teachers and children understand through substantial experience with informational texts how this text genre differs from the way poetic or narrative texts are structured or organized. When preparing to teach informational texts, teachers must first prepare the reader (RAND Reading Study Group, 2002). In an article titled “The Common Core Ate My Baby,” Shanahan (2013) dismantles several “urban legends” about teaching to the Common Core Standards, one legend of which was reputed to prohibit teachers from setting purposes for reading or building students’ background knowledge. It is clear from decades of research on preparing students to comprehend texts well that teachers should in fact set a purpose for reading, or at least teach their students how to do so on their own, and discuss or build prior knowledge. This is often accomplished by (1) activating, (2) building, or (3) correcting misconceptions in prior knowledge in relation to the topic of the text (Collins-Block & Lacina, 2009). In addition, teachers need to plan how they can increase the readers’ motivation to actively engage in and take control of their own thinking processes while reading informational texts (Marinak, Gambrell, & Mazzoni, 2013; Miller & Fairchild, 2009). This can be accomplished through: • Maximizing the organization, content, and context of the classroom library • Giving students time to engage in sustained reading of interesting texts • Allowing students to make some choices about the texts they will read • Encouraging students to socially interact and talk about texts they are reading • Sharing or “blessing” books that students may find interesting through brief book talks or read-alouds • Teaching students how to use and the value of comprehension strategies, especially using families or groups of strategies • Being sensitive to students’ cultural and social backgrounds by connecting them with personally relevant text choices Although this may constitute an incomplete listing of actions teachers can take to increase their students’ success in reading informational texts, if just these actions were to be diligently applied in teaching the reading of informational texts, many of the current state standards around informational texts would be achieved and exceeded.
What Makes Informational Texts Challenging? When students are asked what makes a text challenging or difficult, they often blame it on the words (Shanahan, Fisher, & Frey, 2012). When teachers understand what makes informational texts complex, they can better support their students in reading them. What then makes informational texts complex?
Vocabulary According to Shanahan, Fisher, and Frey (2012), the first characteristic that makes informational texts complex is the vocabulary. Dole, Reutzel, and Rodgers (2013) found the same response among a small group of surveyed elementary and secondary teachers. Hiebert and Mesmer (2013) encourage school principals to support teachers in
Teaching with Informational Texts 293
increasing their students’ academic vocabulary growth. Teaching students domainspecific content words such as peninsula, erosion, sedimentary, and so forth is very helpful for understanding particular texts (Elleman, Olinghouse, Gilbert, Compton & Spencer, 2017; Jiang & Davis, 2017; Walpole, McKenna, Amendum, Pasquarella, & Strong, 2017; Wright & Cervetti, 2017). Focusing instruction on teaching more general academic vocabulary words such as estimates, distributions, stratification, and so on holds even greater prospects for increasing students’ success in reading informational texts. We will further discuss these ideas later in this chapter (Jiang & Davis, 2017; Wright & Cervetti, 2017).
Sentence Structure Sentence structure is another element that is known to make informational texts seem more complex and difficult. The ways in which words are ordered within a sentence can determine how well they are understood. Words are not just defined individually, but they are also defined in relation to one another. For example, the sentence “The cat scratched his back on the carpet” is far better understood than the follow grouping of the same set of words “scratched the his back on cat the carpet.” Stating the same ideas using different sentence structures can cause some students to stumble in their understanding of text. Again, for example, the sentence “The cat caught the ball” is a simple active sentence with a structure of subject, verb, and object. The same idea can be expressed using a different sentence structure that is much less familiar to many younger readers, such as “The ball was caught by the cat.” This passive sentence structure makes use of a reverse order—object, verb, and subject—and can interfere with or slow down the reader’s comprehension. Finally, longer sentences tend to be more complex and difficult to understand than shorter sentences. Consider the following sentence: “The yellow snow blower that my father bought for my mother for their 15th wedding anniversary last year is now sitting in the garage, under a pile of old boxes and newspapers, where she left it that night, just before she threw her mobile phone, the one with my picture on it, at dad, and burst into tears.” The verb phrase “she threw her mobile phone” is deeply embedded in the sentence structure and students must be able to make sense of text conventions, word order, punctuation, phrases, and language to unpack the meaning of this long and very complex sentence.
Coherence Next in the lineup of elements known to increase text complexity is coherence. Coherence is a concept that explains how particular words, ideas, and sentences in text connect to and influence the understanding of each another. Informational text authors use a variety of referents such as pronouns, synonyms, ellipses, conjunctions, ordinal words, and other grammatical devices to connect the ideas across sentences within a text. The use of certain coherence devices can render texts easier or more difficult (Irwin, 1986). For example, I might read the following two sentences: “I went to the store. I was hungry.” These two shorter sentences are actually more difficult to understand than is one longer, single sentence that uses the causal relation term because: “I went to the store because I was hungry.” Similarly, the placement of pronouns can influence text difficulty. For example, read the following two sentences: “John and Mary went to the park. They like to play on the swings.” The pronoun referent they refers back to John and Mary. This referential tie is called anaphora, where the pronoun they in the second sentence refers back to the subjects John and Mary in the first. However, turn this around from the normal or expected anaphoric coherence relationship and the two sentences become more difficult to understand: “They went to the park. John and Mary like to play on the swings.” This referential tie is called cataphora, where the pronoun they in the first sentence refers forward to the subjects John and Mary in the first. According to Shanahan, Fisher, and Frey (2012, p. 60), “younger students often have difficulty making such connections,
294 Chapter 9 especially if the ideas are far apart or the referents don’t get restated frequently. Distant or complex cohesive links can also be challenging for second-language learners or for older students reading about an unfamiliar topic.”
Absence of Explicit Text Features Similarly, research has consistently shown that increasing students’ awareness of differing text features and typical informational text structures or organizations has uniformly positive effects on comprehension (Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987; Dickson, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1998b; Donovan & Smolkin, 2002; NGA & CCSSO, 2010; Shanahan et al., 2010; Williams, 2005, 2007). The physical, observable, explicit, or surface features such as titles, tables of contents, indexes, glossaries, graphics, headings and subheadings, bold or italicized print, captions, and so forth found in informational texts help readers understand the importance of ideas as well as the relationship among ideas within a text. The absence of these features places an enormous burden on students to infer these explicit text features that support readers’ comprehension. Other research has consistently shown that placing macro-propositions, gist statements, or main ideas in the first sentence of a paragraph helps readers to better identify and remember important text ideas and information (Seidenberg, 1989). A separate body of research shows that explicitly stated main idea statements are better understood by most readers than are poorly stated, hinted, or implicit statements of the main ideas (Dickson et al., 1998b). Well-crafted topic sentences and appropriately placed signal words such as first, second, next, after, then, and so forth positively affect readers’ awareness of the structure of a variety of text types (Meyer & Wijekumar, 2007). The use of headings and subheadings (including tables of contents), typographic cues, and line and word spacing helps young, adolescent, and adult readers understand main ideas and relate these to other ideas contained within a text (Dickson et al., 1998b). Headings and subheadings are often signaled through the selective use of typographic cues such as font size and font styles such as bolding and/or italicizing, as well as line, letter, and word spacing. The physical use of spacing cues such as indentations within lines of text has also been shown to help younger and older readers recognize important information in text leading to improved comprehension of main ideas (Casteel, 1990). When important ideas are signaled by a process known as chunking, in which main ideas are separated by four spaces rather than a single space between phrases or clauses in text, struggling readers are significantly helped to recognize and remember main ideas. The use of insets or graphical aids in informational text, such as photographs, diagrams, charts, graphs, graphic organizers, captions, questions, or marginal glossaries, has been shown to help some children, distract or confuse others, or be ignored altogether (Dickson et al., 1998a). The additional layers of informational signals and cues found in expository texts tend to be viewed by many teachers as adding to the complexity of teaching children to comprehend informational texts (Duke, 2000). In another analysis of the differences between narrative and informational texts with respect to learning and teaching vocabulary word meanings, Hiebert and Cervetti (2011) describe research that examined differences between these two types of text using seven features of words: (1) length, (2) frequency, (3) frequency of a word’s morphological family, (4) familiarity, (5) dispersion (i.e., how frequently a word appears across subject areas), (6) conceptual complexity, and (7) semantic relatedness. They found that there were differences on all word features examined except for morphological families and dispersion. Narrative texts contained vocabulary words that were more familiar but less frequent than those in informational science texts. Science texts contained vocabulary words that were longer, more conceptually complex, and more semantically related than vocabulary words found in narrative texts. These differences seem to indicate that when it comes to the teaching of vocabulary in informational texts, students benefit most from extensive discussion and demonstrations of word meanings and concepts within the text.
Teaching with Informational Texts 295
In summary, well-written texts provide readers with several types of layered explicit features that reveal text structure and the interrelationship of ideas within a text. Ideas organized within a text using a predictable pattern of main ideas followed by supporting details also help facilitate identification of text structure and subsequent comprehension of a variety of text types. The use of signal words, headings, typographic features, and spacing, as well as insets and adjunct visual aids, provides additional ways of helping readers discern the structure and flow of text. When readers can determine text organization and structure, they are more apt to comprehend, remember, and use what they read. Teaching vocabulary word meanings and concepts found in informational texts is most effectively addressed through extensive discussions and demonstrations.
Implicit Text Structure or Organization There is convincing empirical evidence that readers’ awareness of and use of deep or implicit text structure or text organization positively affect reading comprehension (Dickson et al., 1998b; Pyle, Crowther, Lignugaris-Kraft, Gillam, Reutzel, Olszewski, Segura, Hartzheim, Laing, & Pyle, 2017; Williams, 2007). Implicit text structure refers to the way in which authors organize text without necessarily telling the reader how they have done so. Expository texts (Duke & Bennett-Armistead, 2003) include a range of text types or genres such as informational texts, reference texts, informational texts, biographies, and so on. Nearly 85% of all adult reading is for the purpose of obtaining information (Duke, Bennett-Armistead, & Roberts, 2002). Informational texts contain facts, details, descriptions, and procedures that are necessary for understanding concepts and events in the world around us. Children’s information books are only one example of many other expository texts, such as biographies, essays, photographic essays, instruction or how-to books, encyclopedias, reference books, activity/experiment books, scientific reports, newspaper articles, and so on. Authors organize expository texts using several well-known text patterns or structures. Armbruster and Anderson (1981) and Meyer (1975) researched the text structures most used by authors of expository texts. These included time order (putting information into a chronological sequence), cause and effect (showing how something occurs because of another event), problem and solution (presenting a problem along with a solution to the problem), comparison (examining similarities and differences among concepts and events), simple listing (registering in list form a group of facts, concepts, or events), and descriptions. Readers who understand an author’s organizational pattern or structure recall more from reading informational texts than readers who do not (Bartlett, 1978; Dickson et al., 1998b; Hall, Sabey, & McClellan, 2005; Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, 1980; Pyle, Crowther, Lignugaris-Kraft, Gillam, Reutzel, Olszewski, Segura, Hartzheim, Laing, & Pyle, 2017; Read, Reutzel, & Fawson, 2008; Williams, 2005, 2007). Previous research has also shown that poor or struggling readers are less likely to be able to identify and use an author’s organization of text to recall information (Dickson et al., 1998b). Thus, teachers need to teach all students, but especially struggling students, how to identify the author’s implicit organizational patterns or text structures and how to use this knowledge to help them remember, organize, retrieve, and apply what they read. In summary, research clearly demonstrates that when children are guided by a knowledgeable teacher to closely study, identify, and use an author’s organization or structure, they comprehend informational text better. Because authors don’t write many books using a single or “pure” text structure, it is important to begin instruction by using clear examples of single or pure text structures (Jones, Reutzel, & Clark, 2014; Jones, Clark, & Reutzel, 2016; Read, Reutzel, & Fawson, 2008; Reutzel, Jones, Clark, & Kumar, 2016; Williams, 2005). As students develop the ability to identify and use text structure in clear, well-structured, exemplar informational texts, then they can be
296 Chapter 9 introduced to other less-structured informational texts that are more complex. Before teaching children to identify and use text structure or organization to improve their reading comprehension, the skilled teacher assesses what children already know about text structure in order to determine which of many available instructional interventions will be most effective.
Reader, Text, and Task Considerations The final consideration when thinking about how to provide effective instruction using informational texts is the text complexity dimension of reader, text, and task considerations. This dimension focuses on variables that are specific to individual students, the informational text to be read, and the task required of them to demonstrate learning and comprehension. Skillfully orchestrating these three variables can only occur when teachers use their professional knowledge of evidence-based and effective literacy instruction, experience with the students collectively and individually, familiarity of the conceptual knowledge to be learned, and the inherent difficulties presented in the informational text to be read. For example, the teacher must consider the students’ background knowledge and experiences in conjunction with the content of the informational text to be read. Do students have a great deal of background knowledge about this topic? Is the topic familiar? It is part of students’ cultural and social experiences? Are students interested in or curious about the topic? These and other questions form the reader-related considerations a teacher must work through in order to help students succeed in reading informational text. Next, teachers much consider the inherent difficulties within the text that students will need to overcome. This consideration has to do with how well-written, organized, and considerate of the reader a text is. Does the author signal, define, and give examples of new vocabulary terms? Or, do students have the skills to make the inferences needed to comprehend the vocabulary words mentioned without such features? Can they identify the text structure? Are they familiar with the explicit physical features and signals provided in informational texts and how to use them to further their acquisition of knowledge and understanding? These questions and more form the text-related considerations a teacher must work through in order to help students succeed in reading informational text. Finally, teachers need to consider the task to be completed that demonstrates knowledge acquisition or text comprehension (e.g., answering questions, giving a retelling, or writing a summary) and the difficulty of the text to be comprehended. Will students be asked to read a text and answer questions? Will the questions be given to the students prior to the reading to use during the reading? Will the questions only be given after the reading? Will students be asked to make a graphic organizer of the content and organization of the knowledge presented in the text? This final consideration, the task, should largely frame how teachers conceptualize which comprehension skills will be required for students to demonstrate their understanding; then they should prepare strategy lessons for how students will be able to acquire these necessary task-related skills. Teaching students how to comprehend and learn from informational texts is the next big challenge facing this current generation of elementary and secondary classroom teachers. In the past, literacy instruction has focused largely on literature and story texts. Duke (2000) has long maintained that every new genre students encounter as readers will require the learning of new skills or the relearning of old skills applied in a new context. In the age of State Language Arts Standards, all teachers will need to know how to help students learn new vocabulary and comprehension strategies to read informational texts that provide significant and unique challenges for readers. The remainder of this chapter is written to help teachers successfully meet this new challenge.
Teaching with Informational Texts 297
Assessing Informational Text Comprehension The RAND Reading Study Group (2002) defined reading comprehension (Pardo, 2004; Sweet & Snow, 2003, pp. 11–14) “as the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning.” Within this definition, the dual challenges of “figuring out how print represents words (the text)” and “how to integrate new meanings with old information (prior and new knowledge)” are acknowledged. The act of comprehending entails four essential elements: (1) the reader, (2) the text, (3) the activity, and (4) the sociocultural context. The first three essential elements of reading comprehension always occur nested within the fourth essential element of reading comprehension—the sociocultural context of the school classroom, the home, and other social and cultural situations.
MyLab Education
Application Exercise 9.1: Comprehension Case Study Assessing Comprehension of Informational Text: The Reader
Assessing Comprehension of Informational Text The Reader How can students’ background knowledge, strategy selection and use, and motivation be assessed in relation to the assessment of informational texts? The assessment strategies outlined in this section provide you with the means to assess factors that influence the reader’s comprehension of informational text.
Modified Informational Text Reading Strategy Use Scale Age Range: 8–12 PURPOSE Metacognition refers to two important concepts related to reading comprehension: (1) a reader’s knowledge of the status of his or her own thinking and the appropriate strategies to facilitate ongoing comprehension, and (2) the executive control a student has over his or her own thinking, including the use of comprehension strategies to facilitate or repair failing comprehension as he or she reads (Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). For many readers, problems in comprehension result from failures related to one or both of these two important concepts. The purpose of metacognitive assessment is to gain insight into how students select comprehension strategies to use when reading and how well they regulate the status of their own comprehension as they read. We have modified the Reading Strategy Use (RSU) scale developed by PereiraLaird and Deane (1997) for classroom application. Scores obtained from administering the Modified Informational Text Reading Strategy Use (MITRSU) scale provide insights into how well a group of students select, apply, and regulate their use of comprehension strategies. MATERIALS
• The Modified Informational Text Reading Strategy Use scale shown in Figure 9.1 can be used with most informational text selections. PROCEDURE The MITRSU scale is group administered.
1. Tell students that the MITRSU scale is not a test and that there are no right or wrong answers. 2. Ask them to fill in the personal information at the top of the MITRSU scale. 3. Read the directions aloud and ask if there are any questions about the nature of the responses to be given to each statement.
MyLab Education
Teacher Resource: Modified Information Text Reading Strategy Use Scale
298 Chapter 9
Figure 9.1 Modified Informational Text Reading Strategy Use Scale Name: __________________________________________________________
Grade: ___________________________________________________________
Teacher: ________________________________________________________
School: ___________________________________________________________
Directions: Read each item and the number of the word that best describes how often you do what is stated. Let’s do number 1 together to make sure you understand how you are to respond to each item. 1. I read quickly through the text to get the general idea before I read the text closely. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
2. When I come to a part of the text that is hard to read, I slow my reading down. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
3. I am able to tell the difference between important text parts and less important details. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
4. When I read, I stop once in a while to go over in my head what I have been reading to see if it is making sense. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
5. I adjust the speed of my reading by deciding how difficult the text is to read. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
6. I stop once in a while and ask myself questions about the text to see how well I understand what I am reading. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
7. After reading a text, I sit and think about it for a while to check my memory of the text ideas and the text structure. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
8. When I get lost while reading, I go back to the place in the text where I first had trouble and reread. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
9. When I find I do not understand something when reading, I read it again and try to figure it out. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
10. When reading, I check how well I understand the meaning of the text by asking myself whether the ideas fit with the other information in the text. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
11. I find it hard to pay attention when I read.
12. To help me remember what I read, I sometimes make a graphic organizer or outline the text. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
13. To help me understand what I have read in a text, I try to retell it in my own words. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
14. I learn new words by trying to picture the meanings of words in my mind. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
15. When reading about something, I try to relate it to my own experiences. Always
Sometimes
Never
3
2
1
Teaching with Informational Texts 299
4. Once you are sure that the students understand, instruct them to read each item and circle the number under the response that best represents their behavior in relation to each statement. 5. For younger students, the MITRSU can be read aloud, including the potential response options. 6. When children finish the MITRSU scale, ask them to remain in their seats. They should quietly take out a book, write, or draw so as not to disturb others who are still completing the scale. 7. Sum the response numbers circled and dividing by the total of the 15 items in the MITRSU scale: Sum of individual responses/15 items = the mean score. A mean score near 3 indicates strong selection, use, and self-regulation of comprehension monitoring strategies. A mean score near 2 indicates occasional selection and use of comprehension monitoring strategies. The pattern of responses should be carefully studied to see which of the comprehension monitoring strategies are in use and which are not to inform instructional planning for the future. A mean score near 1 indicates poorly developed selection, use, and self-regulation of comprehension monitoring strategies. These students need (1) explicit teacher explanation of comprehension monitoring strategies; (2) explanations about how, when, and why to use comprehension monitoring strategies; (3) teacher modeling of comprehension monitoring strategy use; and (4) guided practice applying selected comprehension monitoring strategies during the reading and discussion of stories in the classroom.
Modified Meta-comprehension Strategy Index Age Range: 8–12 PURPOSE The Modified Meta-comprehension Strategy Index (MMSI), originally developed by M. C. Schmitt (1988, 1990, 2005) for use with story texts, has been modified and is now a valuable tool for assessing students’ awareness of a variety of reading comprehension strategies that are appropriate for use before, during, and after the reading of an informational text. The individual items in the MMSI are correlated with six categories of reading comprehension strategies: (1) predicting and verifying, (2) previewing, (3) purpose setting, (4) self-questioning, (5) drawing from prior knowledge, and (6) summarizing and using fixup strategies. Schmitt (2005) asserts that the MMSI is “a valid means for measuring learners’ metacognition or meta-comprehension for the purpose of designing instructional programs [interventions]” (Schmitt, 2005, p. 106). She has also shown that the MMSI correlates with other measures of strategy use and metacognition such as the Index of Reading Awareness (Paris & Jacobs, 1984). MATERIALS
• The MMSI scale shown in Figure 9.2 can be used with most text selections. PROCEDURE The MMSI can be given to students as a group if they are able to read it without undo difficulty. If there is any doubt, the MMSI should be read aloud to the students during administration.
1. To begin, children are instructed as follows: “Think about what kinds of things you can do to help you understand an informational text better before, during, and after you read it.” 2. Next, the teacher reads each item in the MMSI aloud. Tell children that they are to be thinking about which of the four responses underneath each item they believe would help them the most. Children are also told that there are no right or wrong answers. 3. Then children are told to circle one of the four responses underneath each of the 25 total MMSI items.
MyLab Education
Teacher Resource: Modified MetaComprehension Strategy Index
300 Chapter 9
Figure 9.2 Modified Meta-comprehension Strategy Index (MMSI) Directions Think about what kinds of things you can do to help you understand a text better before, during, and after you read it. Read each set of four statements and decide which one of them would help you the most. There are no right or wrong answers. It is just what you think would help the most. Circle the letter of the statement you choose. Questionnaire Items In each set of four, choose the one statement that tells a good thing to do to help you understand a text better before you read it. 1. Before I begin reading, it is a good idea to A. see how many pages are in the text. B. look up all of the big words in the dictionary. C. make some guesses about what I think the text will be about. D. think about what has I have learned so far in the text. 2. Before I begin reading, it is a good idea to A. look at the pictures to see what the text is about. B. decide how long it will take me to read the text. C. sound out the words I do not know. D. check to see if the text is making sense. 3. Before I begin reading, it’s a good idea to A. ask someone to read the text to me. B. read the title to see what the text is about. C. check to see if most of the words have long or short vowels in them. D. check to see if the pictures are in order and make sense. 4. Before I begin reading, it is a good idea to A. check to see that no pages are missing. B. make a list of the words I am not sure about. C. use the title and pictures to help me make guesses about what the text will be about. D. read the last sentence so I will know how the text ends. 5. Before I begin reading, it is a good idea to A. decide on why I am going to read the text. B. use the difficult words to help me make guesses about what will happen in the text. C. reread some parts to see if I can figure out what is happening if things are not making sense. D. ask for help with the difficult words. 6. Before I begin reading, it is a good idea to A. retell all of the main points that have happened so far. B. ask myself questions that I will like to have answered in the text. C. think about the meanings of the words that have more than one meaning. D. look through the text to find all of the words with three or more syllables. 7. Before I begin reading, it is a good idea to A. check to see if I have read this text before. B. use my questions and guesses as a reason for reading the text. C. make sure I can pronounce all of the words before I start. D. think of a better title for the text. 8. Before I begin reading, it is a good idea to A. think of what I already know about the things I see in the pictures and other text features. B. see how many pages are in the text. C. choose the best part of the text to read again. D. read the text aloud to someone.
Teaching with Informational Texts 301
Figure 9.2 Continued 9. Before I begin reading, it is a good idea to A. practice reading the text aloud. B. retell all of the main points to make sure I can remember the text. C. think of what the people in the text might be like. D. decide if I have enough time to read the text. 10. Before I begin reading, it is a good idea to A. check to see if I am understanding the text so far. B. check to see if the words have more than one meaning. C. think about where the text might be taking place. D. list all of the important details. In each set of four, choose the one statement that tells a good thing to do to help you understand a text better while you are reading it. 11. While I am reading, it is a good idea to A. read the text very slowly so that I will not miss any important parts. B. read the title to see what the text is about. C. check to see if the pictures have anything missing. D. check to see if the text is making sense by seeing if I can tell what I have learned so far. 12. While I am reading, it is a good idea to A. stop to retell the main points to see if I am understanding what I’ve read about so far. B. read the text quickly so that I can find out what happened. C. read only the beginning and the end of the text to find out what it is about. D. skip the parts that are too difficult for me. 13. While I am reading, it is a good idea to A. look all of the big words up in the dictionary. B. put the book away and find another one if things are not making sense. C. keep thinking about the title and the pictures to help me decide what is going to happen next. D. keep track of how many pages I have left to read. 14. While I am reading, it is a good idea to A. keep track of how long it is taking me to read the text. B. check to see if I can answer any of the questions I asked before I started reading. C. read the title to see what the text is going to be about. D. add the missing details to the pictures. 15. While I am reading, it is a good idea to A. have someone read the text aloud to me. B. keep track of how many pages I have read. C. list the text’s main ideas. D. check to see if my guesses are right or wrong. 16. While I am reading, it is a good idea to A. check to see that the characters are real. B. make a lot of guesses about what is going to happen next. C. not look at the pictures because they might confuse me. D. read the text aloud to someone. 17. While I am reading, it is a good idea to A. try to answer the questions I asked myself. B. try not to confuse what I already know with what I am reading about. C. read the text silently. D. check to see if I am saying the new vocabulary words correctly.
302 Chapter 9
Figure 9.2 Continued 18. While I am reading, it is a good idea to A. try to see if my guesses are going to be right or wrong. B. reread to be sure I have not missed any of the words. C. decide on why I am reading the text. D. list what happened first, second, third, and so on. 19. While I am reading, it is a good idea to A. see if I can recognize the new vocabulary words. B. be careful not to skip any parts of the text. C. check to see how many of the words I already know. D. keep thinking of what I already know about the things and ideas in the text to help me decide what is going to happen. 20. While I am reading, it is a good idea to A. reread some parts or read ahead to see if I can figure out what is happening if things are not making sense. B. take my time reading so that I can be sure I understand what is happening. C. change the ending so that it makes sense. D. check to see if there are enough pictures to help make the text ideas clear. In each set of four, choose the one statement that tells a good thing to do to help you understand the text better after you have read it. 21. After I have read a text, it is a good idea to A. count how many pages I read with no mistakes. B. check to see if there were enough pictures to go with the text to make it interesting. C. check to see if I met my purpose for reading the text. D. underline the causes and effects. 22. After I have read a text, it is a good idea to A. underline the main idea. B. retell the main points of the whole text so that I can check to see if I understood it. C. read the text again to be sure I said all of the words right. D. practice reading the text aloud. 23. After I have read a text, it is a good idea to A. read the title and look over the text to see what it is about. B. check to see if I skipped any of the vocabulary words. C. think about what made me make good or bad predictions. D. make a guess about what will happen next in the text. 24. After I have read a text, it is a good idea to A. look up all of the big words in the dictionary. B. read the best parts aloud. C. have someone read the text aloud to me. D. think about how the text was like things I already knew about before I started reading. 25. After I have read a text, it is a good idea to A. think about how I would have acted if I were the main character in the text. B. practice reading the text silently for practice of good reading. C. look over the text title and picture to see what will happen. D. make a list of the things I understood the most. SOURCE: Modified from “A Questionnaire to Measure Children’s Awareness of Strategic Reading Processes” by M. C. Schmitt, 1990, The Reading Teacher, 43, 454–461.
Teaching with Informational Texts 303
Schmitt (2005) indicates that the scores on the MMSI can be used to assess students’ individual weaknesses in strategy selection and to determine general patterns of strengths and weaknesses in an entire class’s selection and use of comprehension strategies. Schmitt recommends that teachers begin by examining the performance of the entire class. To help with the analysis process, she recommends contemplating the following three questions: 1. Which strategies were the most well known? 2. Were there differences among the before, during, and after stages that might signal specific areas of concern? 3. Were there patterns indicating difficulty with understanding the items on the MMSI?
Motivation for Reading Questionnaire, Revised Version Age Range: 8–12 PURPOSE The Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ), Revised Version, was designed to assess eight different possible dimensions of reading motivations (Wigfield, Guthrie, & McGough, 1996): (1) curiosity, (2) involvement, (3) preference for challenge, (4) recognition, (5) grades, (6) social, (7) competition, and (8) compliance. These eight dimensions of reading motivations tap into both extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors. The MRQ has been used as a measure of the reading motivation in many reported and published research studies in recent years because of the extensive validation and reliability work surrounding the development and use of this easy to use instrument. Changing the classroom environment and the dimensions of classroom literacy instructional practices can only occur when teachers have access to data that help them to understand how their practices, programs, and environments are affecting the development of students’ reading motivations. Promoting lifelong engagement in reading is a primary goal for all literacy educators; as such, the MRQ instrument allows teachers to measure the efficacy and effects of their in-school and out-of-school literacy programs on children’s ongoing literacy motivation and engagement (Wigfield, 1997). MATERIALS
• Multiple copies of the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire, Revised Version, for recording individual student responses (Figure 9.3) • One paper copy for recording categories of class responses PROCEDURE
1. Distribute sufficient individual paper copies of the MRQ for individual students within your classroom. 2. Have the children put their names in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of the MRQ. 3. If the children are capable of reading the items on the MRQ independently, then they may do so. Otherwise, each item is read aloud by the teacher. 4. Each student is asked to mark independently his or her response on the 4 point scale beneath the item. 5. Once all 44 items have been read aloud by the teacher and responded to by the students, the MRQs are picked up. 6. A class copy of the MRQ can then be used to tally the number of responses underneath each item for the four points of the scale. 7. Once the tally is complete, the teacher should carefully note which students have low motivation across or within motivational categories.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
Motivation for Reading Questionnaire
304 Chapter 9
Figure 9.3 Motivation for Reading Questionnaire, Revised Version Very different from me
A little different from me
A little like me
A lot like me
Curiosity 1. I like to read because I always feel happy when I read things that are of interest to me.
1
2
3
4
2. If the teacher discusses something interesting, I might read more about it.
1
2
3
4
3. I have favorite subjects that I like to read about.
1
2
3
4
4. I read to learn new information about topics that interest me.
1
2
3
4
5. I read about my hobbies to learn more about them.
1
2
3
4
6. I like to read about new things.
1
2
3
4
7. I enjoy reading books about people in different countries.
1
2
3
4
8. If I am reading about an interesting topic, I sometimes lose track of time.
1
2
3
4
9. I read stories about fantasy and make believe.
1
2
3
4
10. I like mysteries.
1
2
3
4
11. I make pictures in my mind when I read.
1
2
3
4
12. I feel like I made friends with people in good books.
1
2
3
4
13. I like to read a lot of adventure stories.
1
2
3
4
14. I enjoy a long, involved story or fiction book.
1
2
3
4
15. I like hard, challenging books.
1
2
3
4
16. If the project is interesting, I can read difficult material.
1
2
3
4
17. I like it when the questions in books make me think.
1
2
3
4
18. I usually learn difficult things by reading.
1
2
3
4
19. If a book is interesting, I do not care how hard it is to read.
1
2
3
4
20. I like having the teacher say I read well.
1
2
3
4
21. I like having my friends sometimes tell me I am a good reader.
1
2
3
4
22. I like to get compliments for my reading.
1
2
3
4
23. I am happy when someone recognizes my reading.
1
2
3
4
24. I like having my parents often tell me what a good job I am doing in reading.
1
2
3
4
25. Grades are a good way to see how well you are doing in reading.
1
2
3
4
26. I look forward to finding out my grade in reading on my report card.
1
2
3
4
27. I like to read to improve my grades.
1
2
3
4
28. I like my parents to ask me about my reading grade.
1
2
3
4
29. I like to visit the library often with my family.
1
2
3
4
30. I often like to read to my brother or sister.
1
2
3
4
31. My friends and I like to trade things to read.
1
2
3
4
32. I sometimes read to my parents.
1
2
3
4
33. I like to talk to my friends about what I am reading.
1
2
3
4
34. I like to help my friends with their schoolwork in reading.
1
2
3
4
35. I like to tell my family about what I am reading.
1
2
3
4
Involvement
Preference for Challenge
Recognition
Grades
Social
Teaching with Informational Texts 305
Figure 9.3 Continued Very different from me
A little different from me
A little like me
A lot like me
Competition 36. I try to get more answers right than my friends.
1
2
3
4
37. I like being the best at reading.
1
2
3
4
38. I like to finish my reading before other students.
1
2
3
4
39. I like being the only one who knows an answer in something we read.
1
2
3
4
40. I am willing to work hard to read better than my friends.
1
2
3
4
41. I always do my reading work exactly as the teacher wants it.
1
2
3
4
42. Finishing every reading assignment is very important to me.
1
2
3
4
43. I read because I have to read.
1
2
3
4
44. I always try to finish my reading on time.
1
2
3
4
Compliance
SOURCE: From “NRRC: A Questionnaire Measure of Children’s Motivations for Reading,” by A.Wigfield and A.D.McCann, 1996/1997, The Reading Teacher, 50(4)
360–362.
8. Also, the teacher can make note of which reading motivation dimensions are low in the whole class of students. By doing this, the teacher has a way to screen for problems in an individual child’s reading motivations as well as to monitor the reading motivation of the whole class. 9. Furthermore, the MRQ can be used to individually diagnose areas of motivation that are strengths and weaknesses for individual students. As a result, the teacher can select individual or small-group reading motivation strategies to address these measured weaknesses. 10. The teacher can also measure the motivation of the whole class and determine interventions that may be used to promote increased motivation at the whole-class level.
Student Reading Interest Survey Age Range: 6–12 PURPOSE For many years, researchers have found that reading comprehension is positively affected when children are interested in the reading materials (Asher, 1980; Corno & Randi, 1997). This is so much the case that interest in reading materials has been shown also to compensate for children’s lack of strategy, use, and ability in comprehension specifically and reading generally (Sweet, 1997). Knowing how important student interests are in shaping and influencing students’ reading comprehension, the Student Reading Interest Survey (SRIS) (see Figure 9.4) provides teachers with an efficient and effective tool to gain insights into student interests. MATERIALS
• One laminated copy of the questions found in the Student Reading Interest Survey • One paper copy for recording individual student responses • One paper copy for recording categories of class responses PROCEDURE
1. Once the necessary materials are in place, schedule a time during the day to meet with students individually.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
Student Reading Interest Survey
306 Chapter 9
Figure 9.4 Student Reading Interest Survey (SRIS) In-School Interests
Out-of-School Interests
1. What is the title of your favorite book that you have read?
1. What do you do for fun on weekends or after school?
2. Do you have a favorite book title that someone has read to you?
2. Do you have a hobby? If so, what?
3. What kinds of books do you like to read on your own?
3. What is your favorite TV show?
4. Do you have favorite books, magazines, or comic books at home?
4. What is your favorite movie?
5. Do you ever read the newspaper at home? If so, what parts of the newspaper do you read?
5. Do you play sports? If so, what?
6. What is your favorite school subject (other than recess and lunch)?
7. Do you have favorite video or computer games?
7. Have you ever done a special research project? What was the topic?
6. Do you like animals or have a pet? 8. If you surf the Internet, what do you generally look for as you surf? 9. Have you ever collected something like coins, stamps, and so on? If you have, what?
2. Using the laminated copy of the SRIS, seat the child comfortably next to you at a table in a quiet corner of the classroom. (This survey may also be given by an aide or volunteer, so long as he or she has been trained to completely record answers.) 3. Ask children each question and record the answers given. 4. After each response, be sure to tell each child that if he or she remembers anything else to tell you, that child is welcome to share it at a later time.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: SRIS Class Survey Response Profile
5. After the entire class has been surveyed, compile the individual responses into a class survey response profile (see Figure 9.5). Record abbreviated answers to each question for each student in the class response profile. 6. Look over the responses to each question by all of the children for categories of interest to be observed in your teaching and reading materials acquisition plan. 7. During the year, particularly if children’s writing skills are well developed, distribute the SRIS to the entire group of children. Ask them to write their answers to the SRIS questions on their own copy and turn it in. 8. Make any changes you discover throughout the year on the class profile sheet. This updated information about your students’ reading interests will help you adjust your selection of topics and reading materials as the year progresses.
Individual and Group Self-Assessment of Interactions with Informational Text Age Range: 8–12 PURPOSE The purpose of self-assessment of interactions with informational text centers on developing each student’s individual and a collective group ability to judge the
Figure 9.5 SRIS Class Survey Response Profile In-School Interests Student
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
NOTE: Extend the form for as many students as needed. Use a similar form with nine question spaces for out-of-
school interests.
Teaching with Informational Texts 307
Figure 9.6 Individual Self-Assessment of Interactions with Informational Text Name: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________
Today: 1. I offered my ideas. Usually ____________________ Sometimes ____________________ Seldom ____________________ 2. I listened carefully to others. Usually ____________________ Sometimes ____________________ Seldom ____________________ 3. I offered encouragement to others. Usually ____________________ Sometimes ____________________ Seldom ____________________ 4. I helped others with building ideas or solving problems. Usually ____________________ Sometimes ____________________ Seldom ____________________ 5. I completed the assigned tasks well. Usually ____________________ Sometimes ____________________ Seldom ____________________ Signature __________________________________________
quality contributions to a cooperative effort to discuss and learn from an informational text and from one another (Ellis & Whalen, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Students of any age and ability can engage in individual and group self-assessment of their participation and contributions to a discussion of informational text. This is an important part of providing evidence-based comprehension instruction, according to the National Reading Panel Report (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) and other more recent documents such as the IES Practice Guide (Shanahan et al., 2010), which points out the need to foster rich interactions around informational texts to support the ability to comprehend what one reads. MATERIALS
• Group and individual assessment forms, as shown in Figures 9.6 and 9.7, that can be duplicated and distributed to teams or individuals to be completed at the conclusion of daily cooperative group activities.
Figure 9.7 Group Self-Assessment of Interactions with Informational Text Group: __________________________________ Date: __________________________________ Today: 1. We offered our ideas to each other. Usually ____________________ Sometimes ____________________ Seldom ____________________ 2. We listened carefully to each other. Usually ____________________ Sometimes ____________________ Seldom ____________________ 3. We offered encouragement to each other. Usually ____________________ Sometimes ____________________ Seldom ____________________ 4. We helped each other with building ideas or solving problems. Usually ____________________ Sometimes ____________________ Seldom ____________________ 5. We completed the assigned tasks well. Usually ____________________ Sometimes ____________________ Seldom ____________________ Signature _____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ ____________________________________________
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
Individual Self-Assessment of Interactions with Informational Text
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
Group Self-Assessment of Interactions with Informational Text
308 Chapter 9 PROCEDURE
1. For group assessment, students can fill out the form shown in Figure 9.7 individually. 2. Then students can be encouraged to share their responses with the group and compare how they perceived the group functioning with their teammates. 3. At the conclusion of the discussion, the group fills out a single form representing the consensus of the group. 4. Dissenting opinions should be given space at the bottom of the form to express differences from the group. 5. For individual assessment, students simply fill out the form shown in Figure 9.6 independently and turn it in to the teacher, who places it in the student’s selfassessment file. Teachers create this file for each child to keep a running account of how the child rates his or her own learning and involvement.
Question– Answer Relationships (QARs): Author and Me and On My Own Age Range: 6–12
MyLab Education
Video Example 9.2: Question Answer Relationships In this video, discover how a teacher reviews the purpose of QAR with a small group of 2nd grade students just before they read a nonfiction passage.
PURPOSE Several national research syntheses (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Shanahan et al., 2010), as well as major international and national testing agencies and consortiums, have identified a student’s ability to answer questions about text as an evidence-based comprehension strategy. Raphael (1982, 1986) identified four question–answer relationships between the types of questions asked by teachers on comprehension assessments and the information resources available to students for answering these questions. The four question–answer relationships (QARs) identified were: (1) right there, (2) think and search, (3) author and you, and (4) on my own. Research over the past several decades by Raphael and others (Raphael, 1986; Raphael & Au, 2005; Raphael & Pearson, 1982) has provided ample evidence that training students to recognize QARs results in improved question answering as an indicator of reading comprehension on assessments (Raphael & Au, 2005). In addition, QARs are useful for helping classroom teachers to examine their question-asking behaviors with respect to the types of questions and the information sources students need to access and use to answer their questions. When using QARs to monitor questioning, some teachers find they are asking only text-dependent, “right there” types of questions. Such a discovery should lead teachers to ask a variety of other question types that require students to use additional information sources. The types of questions and resources that are most closely related to the reader are “author and you” and “on my own.” To help students understand questions that are more reader dependent than text dependent, we focus our attention on helping students identify “author and you” and “on my own” question types and then using their own knowledge or what they have learned from the text to answer these questions. MATERIALS
• A variety of informational texts for asking and answering questions • A classroom-sized poster displaying information about the different QARs (see Figure 9.8 for an example classroom poster of each of the four types of QARs) PROCEDURE
1. Assessment using the QARs begins by asking students to answer “author and you” and “on my own” questions about their reading of informational texts.
Teaching with Informational Texts 309
Figure 9.8 Question– Answer Relationships (QARs): Author and Me and On My Own
In the Book
Right There The answer is in one place in the text. Words from the question and words that answer the question are often “right there” in the same sentence.
Think & Search The answer is in the text. Readers need to “think and search,” or put together different parts of the text, to find the answer. The answer can be within a paragraph, across paragraphs, or even across chapters and books.
In My Head
On My Own The answer is not in the text. Readers need to use their own ideas and experiences to answer the question.
Author & Me The answer is not in the text. To answer the question, readers need to think about how the text and what they already know fit together.
For example, the teacher might ask the following “on my own” question after students have read the information book My Picture Book of the Planets (Krulik, 1991), which describes each planet in the solar system: “When you look up into the night sky and see the moon, planets, and stars, do you think there are other places where other humans may live? Talk about why you think this.” This question is obviously related to students’ own experiences and not on reading a book on the solar system. Consequently, it is a good example of an “on my own” question because it is not text dependent. 2. Moving into the more murky territory of questions that require students to combine knowledge acquired from a text or several texts with their own life experiences, or what is called the “author and you” QAR, this is a bit more complex and difficult type of question to answer. Again using the book on the solar system as an example, a teacher might ask, “When you look up into the sky at night and see stars that are red colored, what do you think is going to happen to them in the near future?” In this example of an “author and you” question, students have to balance personal experience with text-acquired knowledge. They first must have had the experience of seeing a red colored star, and then have learned from hearing oral information or reading written informational texts that red stars are old stars and are about to pass out of existence, explode, or become a nova. 3. Reading and answering several sets of questions about informational texts can be used to assess students’ abilities to distinguish between the two “in the head” question categories of “author and you” and “on my own.” Teachers should collect a sample of at least 5 to 10 student answers to each of these two types of questions by framing questions about the content of several informational texts or passages. Students who can’t answer these two question types with greater than 60% accuracy should be targeted for QAR instruction, as explained later in this chapter.
310 Chapter 9
Assessing Comprehension of Informational Text: The Text We now turn our attention to assessing the reading comprehension definitional component of the text. What are the elements, features, and variables inherent within informational text that can be assessed in relation to reading comprehension? The assessment strategies outlined in this section of the chapter provide you with the means to assess text-based factors that influence students’ comprehension of informational text.
Informational Text Oral Retellings Age Range: 6–12 PURPOSE McGee (1982) found that children in the elementary grades are aware of expository text structures, although good readers in fifth grade are more aware than are poor readers in fifth or good readers in third grade. One of the most effective ways to find out if a child understands informational text is to use an oral retelling, or a free recall of the text (Bernfeld, Morrison, Sudweeks, & Wilcox, 2013; Duke & Bennett Armistead, 2003). An oral retelling is a detailed oral recounting of a text that has been read either silently or orally. Asking children to retell an informational text involves reconstructing the content of the text including the major, main, or superordinate ideas; the minor or subordinate details; and the underlying organization of the ideas in the text such as compare/contrast, cause effect, description, problem/solution, question/ answer, sequence or chronological, and so on. Thus, oral informational text retellings assess content comprehension and text structure knowledge in a comprehensive, sequenced, and systematic way. MATERIALS
• A recording device such as a digital audio recorder or tablet device • A full or partial informational book, textbook chapter, or informational text passage • A main idea/detail “parsing” of the text content • Scoring check sheet PROCEDURE
1. Select a brief information trade book, textbook chapter, or informational text passage for students to listen to or to read either aloud or silently, depending on the grade level and reading abilities of the child. 2. We recommend that students listen to the text read aloud in K–1, read the text aloud in grades 2–3, and silent read the text in grade 4 and beyond. For example, we might have the students read the text titled Is It a Fish? by Cutting and Cutting (2002) from the Wright Group Science Collection. 3. Next, we type the text of this information book onto a separate piece of paper for main idea/detail idea parsing, as shown in Figure 9.9. 4. Elicit an oral retelling of the text in one of the two ways we describe below. Informational text oral retellings may be elicited from children in a number of ways. 1. One way involves the use of pictures or verbal prompts from the text. As pictures in the text are flashed sequentially, the children are asked to retell what they remember from listening or reading about this picture. This approach is modeled after the work of Beaver (1997) in the Developmental Reading Assessment and the work of Leslie and Caldwell (2011) in the Qualitative Reading Inventory—4. Morrow (1985, 2005) suggested that teachers prompt children to begin oral retellings with a statement such as: “A little while ago, we read a book or text called
Teaching with Informational Texts 311
Figure 9.9 Classroom Poster of Question Answer Relationships (QARS) Put a checkmark by everything the child retells from his or her reading of the text. ____________ Big Idea: A fish is an animal. ____________ Detail: It has a backbone (skeleton inside). ____________ Detail: Most fish have scales. ____________ Detail: It is cold-blooded. ____________ Big Idea: All fish live in water. ____________ Detail: Some live in saltwater. ____________ Detail: Some live in freshwater. ____________ Detail: Salmon and eels live in saltwater and freshwater. ____________ Detail: Salmon leave the sea to lay eggs in the river. ____________ Big Idea: All fish breathe with gills. ____________ Detail: All animals breathe oxygen. ____________ Detail: Some get oxygen from the air. ____________ Detail: Fish get oxygen from the water. ____________ Detail: A shark is a fish. ____________ Detail: Gills look like slits. ____________ Detail: A ray’s gills are on the underside of its body. ____________ Detail: A ray breathes through holes on top of its head when it rests. ____________ Big Idea: Most fish have fins to help them swim. ____________ Detail: A sailfish has a huge fin that looks like a sail on its back. ____________ Detail: A (sting) ray waves its pectoral fin up and down. Scoring: Please tally the marks for the big ideas and details. Place the total number in the blanks shown below. Big ideas ______________/4 Details: ______________/16 Number of prompts ______________ Sequentially retold (Circle One): Yes No Other ideas recalled including inferences: _______________________________________________
[name the text or book]. Retell the text or book as if you were telling it to a friend who has never heard about it before.” Other prompts during the recall may include the following: • “Tell me more about . . . ” • “You said ______________. Is there anything else you can tell me about . . . ?” • “Tell me about gills.” • “Tell me about fins.” • “Tell me how fish move, look, or breathe.” Asking students to retell what they remember using these types of prompts is a form of assisted recall and may be especially useful with struggling readers. 2. A second way to elicit informational text oral retellings from students is to use unaided recall, in which students retell the contents and order of the content in a book or text without pictures or verbal prompts. Asking the child to retell the information read as if he or she were telling it to someone who had never heard or read the content of the book or text before is used to begin an unaided informational text oral retelling. To record critical elements of the informational text oral retelling included in the child’s oral retelling, use an audio recording device. To make judgments about the quality of an unaided informational text oral retelling, you may use a rating guide like the one shown in Figure 9.10, which is based on the work of Moss (1997).
312 Chapter 9
Figure 9.10 Oral Retelling Rating Guide Rating Criteria for Establishing a Level 5: Student includes all main ideas and supporting details, sequences properly, infers beyond the text, relates text to own life, understands text organization, summarizes, gives opinion and justifies it, may ask additional questions—very cohesive and complete retelling. 4: Student includes most main ideas and supporting details, sequences properly, relates text to own life, understands text organization, summarizes, gives opinion—fairly complete retelling. 3: Student includes some main ideas and details, sequences most material, understands text organization, gives opinion—fairly complete retelling. 2: Student includes a few main ideas and details, has some difficulty sequencing, may give irrelevant information, gives opinion— fairly incomplete retelling. 1: Student gives details only, has poor sequencing, gives irrelevant information—very incomplete retelling. SOURCE: Moss, B. (1997). A qualitative assessment of first graders’ retelling of expository text. Reading Research and Instruction, 37(1), 1–13.
As you develop the ability to listen to and score informational text oral retellings, you may no longer require the use of an audio recording device. You may only need to make notes on the scoring sheet as to the responses you heard the child include in his or her oral retelling. The information gleaned from an informational text oral retelling may be used to help teachers focus their future instruction on enhancing students’ understanding of informational text structures and vocabulary, developing sensitivity to main ideas and details, improving sequencing ability, and summarizing information.
Text Frames to Assess Comprehension of Informational Text Age Range: 8–12 PURPOSE Informational text frames are useful in identifying types of text structures that may be troublesome for students. Based on the “story frames” concept (Fowler, 1982; Nichols, 1980), informational text frames are completed by the student after reading an informational passage. Informational text frames can be used like questions to probe students’ comprehension of text-based information that is not told in an informational text oral retelling. MATERIALS
• Textbook or information book • Computer and word processing program • Copies of the expository text frames for students (abbreviated examples of informational text frames for several of the common informational text structures are shown in Figure 9.11) PROCEDURE
1. Before reading a selected informational text passage, list the major vocabulary and concepts. 2. Discuss what students already know about the topic and display this on a whiteboard or on a computer projector. 3. Next, have students read an informational selection similar to the one you will ask them to read later on in class. 4. Once this related informational text passage has been read, model for students the process for completing informational text frames using examples similar to those you have constructed for the assessment.
Teaching with Informational Texts 313
Figure 9.11 Expository Text Frames for Students Description Decimals are another way to write fractions when ___________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________. Collection Water Habitats Freshwater habitats are found in ________________, ________________, ________________, and rivers. Each freshwater habitat has special kinds of _________________________ and ________________ that live there. Some plants and animals live in waters that are very ________________. Others live in waters that are ________________. Some plants and animals adapt to waters that flow ________________. Causation America Enters the War On Sunday, December 7, 1941, World War II came to the United States. The entry of the United States into World War II was triggered by ______________________. Roosevelt said that it was a day that would “live in Infamy.” Infamy (IN-fuh-mee) means remembered for being evil. Problem/Solution Agreement by Compromise: Events that led to the Civil War For a while there were an equal number of Southern and Northern states. That meant that there were just as many senators in Congress from slave states as from free states. Neither had more votes in the Senate, so they usually reached agreement on new laws by compromise. One way that the balance of power was maintained in Congress was ___________________________________________________. Compare Contrast Segregation Many people said that the segregation laws were unfair. But in 1896, the Supreme Court ruled segregation legal if _______________________ _____________________________________________. “Separate but equal” became the law in many parts of the country. But separate was not equal. One of the most serious problems was education. Black parents felt ________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________. Sometimes the segregated schools had teachers who were not _________ _________________________ as teachers in the white schools. Textbooks were often _______________________, if they had any books at all. But in many of the white schools the books were __________________________________________________________________. Without a good education, the blacks argued, their children would not be able to get good jobs as adults.
5. After doing this and ensuring that students understand the task, ask them to read the actual informational passage you selected. 6. After reading, ask students to complete the informational text frame(s) you have prepared for this passage. 7. Make a note of each text structure and which students struggled to complete informational text frames using those text structures. 8. Target future instruction to each text structure with the groups of students who evidenced need for further guided instruction and practice.
Informational Text Structure Assessment: Selecting a Graphic Organizer Age Range: 8–12 PURPOSE As previously noted in this chapter and in the CCSS, authors of informational texts typically organize their writing using several well-known text organizations or structures. Armbruster and Anderson (1981) and Meyer (1975) researched the text structures most used by authors of expository texts, including time order (putting information into a chronological sequence), cause and effect (showing how something occurs because of another event), problem and solution (presenting a problem along with a solution to the problem), comparison and contrast (examining similarities and differences among concepts and events), simple listing (registering in list form a group of facts, concepts, or events), and descriptions.
314 Chapter 9 Readers who understand and can identify the organizational pattern(s) or text structure(s) an author has used in producing an informational text tend to remember and recall more from their reading than readers who do not (Bartlett, 1978; Dickson et al., 1998; Meyer et al., 1980). The National Reading Panel and others (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Shanahan et al., 2010) have strongly recommended the use of graphic organizers as an instructional strategy to support informational text comprehension. There is abundant scientific evidence of the effectiveness of using graphic organizers. We have found that organizational or text structures can be assessed informally by asking students to select an appropriate graphic organizer to represent the text structure of an informational text using a formative or teacher-produced, standards-based assessment of informational text structure (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). MATERIALS
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
Question Answer Graphic Organizer
• Five well-formed informational texts that make use of a clear, single text structure from among the common structures previously discussed • A written test that contains these five well-formed informational texts along with several graphic organizers from which to choose and a set of clearly worded directions PROCEDURE This assessment is best administered to individual students, although by using a document camera and projecting the book for the whole class, it can be done with a group.
1. Begin by selecting one of the above--mentioned, well-formed informational text structures as an example for providing students instruction on how to complete the remainder of this assessment. This means finding informational texts that exemplify clear and simple use of a single text structure, such as problem/solution or sequence. 2. To describe how to design this assessment instrument, we selected a very simple informational text, Sand (Clyne & Griffiths, 2005), as our exemplar text. Sand uses a question and answer text structure found in many informational texts for young children. Question and answer is a simpler version of the problem and solution structure. Each page of Sand begins with a question about sand, followed by answers that are reinforced by the use of photographs showing sand in different situations. 3. For younger children, a simple graphic organizer using icons or pictures to accompany the print can be helpful. For older students, a more complex graphic organizer may include student-generated questions for which they will seek and retrieve answers through reading across a variety of other informational texts on the topic of sand, sedimentary rock, or erosion. An example of a question-and-answer graphic organizer is shown in Figure 9.12.
Figure 9.12 Example of Question Answer Graphic Organizer
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
Teaching with Informational Texts 315
Figure 9.13 Different Types of Graphic Organizers from Which to Choose
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Question and Answer
Sequential
Compare Contrast
Cause−Effect
5th
Topic
Problem Solution
Descriptive
4. Next, prepare a display containing at least three other potential graphic organizers from which the students can select, along with the correct graphic organizer to represent the organization used in Sand, as shown in Figure 9.13. 5. Seat a student next to you. 6. Instruct the student to look through the book to determine how the author has organized the information to be learned. Say something like, “Look through this book to see if you can tell how the author has organized the information. Has the author organized the information using a description, a sequence, a problem and solution, a question or answer, or a compare or contrast text structure? Which graphic organizer best shows the organization the author has used in this informational text? Circle it on the page.”
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
Different Types of Graphic Organizers
316 Chapter 9 7. Once the student has determined how the author has structured the informational text, then he or she is to think about which of the graphic organizers would be best to represent that structure. 8. After students try this initial example with the teacher, they are presented with four remaining, well-formed, exemplar informational texts. We suggest the following titles: • Sequential text structure: From Cocoa Bean to Chocolate by Robin Nelson (2003) Problem/solution text structure: Measuring Tools by Mickey Daronco and Lori Presti (2011) • Compare/contrast text structure: City and Country by Jenny Feely (2004) • Descriptive text structure: Amazing Snakes by Sara Thomson (2006) Using these four exemplar texts, repeat the process we previously described (Clyne & Griffiths, 2005). Hand students a display of four graphic organizers. Ask them to look through the book and see if they can determine how the author has organized the information to be presented to the reader. Once they have determined the structure, they need to select the graphic organizer that best represents that structure from the display. Students who can accurately recognize text structures should correctly identify each of the four books. If they fail to correctly identify the structure of one or more of the text structures, then lessons should be planned with other books or texts that help children see how the layout, title, table of contents, headings and subheadings, graphics, and text give clues for identifying these text structures and how to connect these to appropriate graphic organizers. If children cannot correctly identify well-formed text structures and connect these to a graphic organizer, there is little hope they will be able to do so in more complex, multiple structure informational texts or that they will be able to produce their own graphic organizers to represent complex text structures.
Question– Answer Relationships (QARs): Right There, Think and Search Age Range: 6–12 PURPOSE As previously discussed in this chapter, research over the past several decades by Raphael and others (Eason, Goldberg, Young Geist, & Cutting, 2012; Raphael, 1986; Raphael & Au, 2005; Raphael, Highfield, & Au, 2006; Raphael & Pearson, 1982) has provided ample evidence that training students to recognize QARs results in improved question answering as an indicator of reading comprehension on assessments (Raphael & Au, 2005). To help students understand question–answer relationships in which the answers are largely found in the text, we focus our attention on helping students identify “right there” and “think and search” question types and then use these to locate and use information in the text to answer questions. MATERIALS
• A variety of informational texts for asking and answering questions • A classroom-sized poster displaying information about the different QARs (refer back to Figure 9.8) PROCEDURE
1. Assessment using QARs begins with asking students to identify and answer “right there” and “think and search” question types about informational texts. For example, teachers might ask the following “right there” question after students have read the information book My Picture Book of the Planets (Krulik, 1991), which describes each planet in the solar system: “What is the name of the planet that is the third closest to the sun in the solar system?” The answer to
Teaching with Informational Texts 317
Figure 9.14 Question– Answer Relationships (QARs): Right There, Think and
Search
In the Book
Right There The answer is in one place in the text. Words from the question and words that answer the question are often “right there” in the same sentence.
Think & Search The answer is in the text. Readers need to “think and search,” or put together different parts of the text, to find the answer. The answer can be within a paragraph, across paragraphs, or even across chapters and books.
In My Head
On My Own The answer is not in the text. Readers need to use their own ideas and experiences to answer the question.
Author & Me The answer is not in the text. To answer the question, readers need to think about how the text and what they already know fit together.
this question is obviously not related to the typical students’ own experiences, but instead is going to be found by reading the informational book on the solar system. It is a good example of a “right there” question because the answer to the question is text dependent and the words used to ask the question are similar to words found in the answer. Typically answers to “right there” question types will be found within a single sentence in the text. 2. Moving into the “think and search” QAR, answering questions becomes a bit more complex and difficult because readers must read several sentences, paragraphs, or pages and be thinking about the question as they search text units larger than a single sentence to construct an answer. Again using the book My Picture Book of the Planets (Krulik, 1991) as our example, a teacher might ask, “What are the names of the planets that orbit the sun in our solar system?” In this example of a “think and search” question, students have to read across several pages of information to determine the names of the planets in the solar system; each paragraph describes one of the planets, moving from the closest to the farthest away from the sun at the center of the solar system. Students have to hold the question in mind as they collect the name of each of the planets across paragraphs and pages to answer the question, but the answer is found in the text. 3. Teachers should collect a sample of at least 5 to 10 student answers to each of these two types of questions by framing questions about the content of several informational texts or passages. Students who can’t answer these two question types with greater than 60% accuracy should be targeted for QAR instruction as explained later in Chapter 9.
Assessing Text Complexity: Text Reader Match Age Range: 8–12 For many years, teachers and researchers have recognized that the complexity of a text has a direct impact on how well students can construct meaning and knowledge from informational texts (Shanahan, Fisher, & Frey, 2012). With the release of the CCSS, text
318 Chapter 9
Figure 9.15 Three Part Model of Text Complexity
Qualitative
Quantitative
Reader and Task
complexity has taken on new importance as a part of classroom assessment. The threepart model of text complexity used in the CCSS is shown in Figure 9.15. The first part of the text complexity model discusses attributes of texts that can be measured and quantified, such as word length and frequency, sentence length, and text cohesion. These aspects of a text are difficult for a human reader to evaluate when reading or selecting a text and are more efficiently measured by using a variety of computer software programs found in the CCSS Appendix A, New Research on Text Complexity, at www.corestandards.org, such as ATOS by Renaissance Learning, Degrees of Reading Power (DRP), Flesch-Kincaid, Lexiles by Metametrics, Fry Readability Graph, SourceRater by ETS, and Easability Indicator by Coh-Metrix. Research on quantitative measures of text complexity showed high reliability, and these measures correlated well with a variety of grade-level and student performance– based measures of text difficulty across a variety of text sets and referenced measures. No single quantitative measure of text difficulty performed significantly better or worse than the others in predicting student outcomes. Although there is considerable variance among the quantitative measures of text complexity insofar as how or where they place any single text on a gradient of increasing text difficulty, they all ascend reliably— though differently—up the text complexity ladder toward the ultimate goal of college and career readiness. Choosing any one of the quantitative text complexity tools listed above from second grade through high school will provide a scale by which to rate quantitative text complexity over a student’s career, culminating in levels that match college and career readiness goals. Figure 9.16 shows updated text complexity bands and associated ranges drawn from multiple quantitative text complexity measures. Qualitative measures of text complexity, on the other hand, serve as a necessary complement to the quantitative measures that do not capture all of the elements that make a text easy or challenging to read. A focus group of teachers representing a wide variety of teaching backgrounds from a variety of CCSS adoption states used the
Figure 9.16 Updated Text Complexity Bands and Associated Ranges Common Core Band
ATOS
Degrees of Reading Power
Flesch-Kincaid
The Lexile Framework
Reading Maturity
Source Rater
2nd–3rd
2.75–5.14
42–54
1.98–5.34
420–820
3.53–6.13
0.05–2.48
4th–5th
4.97–7.03
52–60
4.51–7.73
740–1010
5.42–7.92
0.84–5.75
6th–8th
7.00–9.98
57–67
6.51–10.34
925–1185
7.04–9.57
4.11–10.66
9th–10th
9.67–12.01
62–72
8.32–12.12
1050–1335
8.41–10.81
9.02–13.93
11th–CCR
11.20–14.10
67–74
10.34–14.2
1185–1385
9.57–12.00
12.30–14.50
Teaching with Informational Texts 319
Figure 9.17 Four Qualitative Factors Associated with Text Complexity TEXT TITLE:_________________________ AUTHOR(S):________________________ LEXILE BAND:_________ PUBLISHER OR SOURCE:______________________________ TOPIC:______________ A. APPLICATION OF ONE OF SEVERAL QUANTITATIVE MEASURES FROM APPENDIX A Please check Lexile range of informational texts at www.lexile.com _____NA = Grade band K–1 _____450–790 = Grade band 2–3 _____770–980 = Grade band 4–5 _____955–1155 = Grade band 6–8 _____1080–1305 = Grade band 9–10 _____1215–1355 = Grade band 11–12 B. QUALITATIVE MEASURES FROM APPENDIX A: Read the information text and analyze it for qualitative measures that may increase the text complexity. If you have more than 4X’s in the More Complex column, you should raise the complexity on the Lexile range continuum. Dimensions of Text Complexity
Less Complex
1. Levels of meaning and purpose
Single-level meaning or single purpose
X
Multiple levels of Meaning and multiple purposes
More Complex
X
2. Structure
Conventional or familiar Chronological order Simple graphics or none
Unconventional or unfamiliar Nonchronological order Many sophisticated graphics
3. Language conventionality and clarity
Literal Clear Modern, contemporary, familiar Conversational, casual
Figurative Ambiguous Archaic, unfamiliar General academic domain-specific
4a. Knowledge demands: Experience
Single topic Common, everyday experiences Single perspective Similar perspective to one’s own
Multiple, complex topics Experiences different from one’s own Multiple perspectives Perspectives different from or in opposition to one’s own
4b. Knowledge demands: Cultural/literary knowledge and content/discipline knowledge
Everyday knowledge Few references or allusions to other texts
Cultural or specialized, content-specific, domain knowledge Many references of allusions to other texts
RECOMMENDATION FOR TEXT COMPLEXITY PLACEMENT – Rationale GRADE
Less Complex
Middle Range
High Complexity
2 (450–620) 3 (620–790) 4 (770–875) 5 (875–980) 6 (955–1021) 7 (1021–1086) 8 (1087–1155) 9 (1080–1193) 10 (1194–1305) 11 (1215–1285) 12 (1286–1355)
qualitative features identified in Appendix A of the CCSS to develop and refine an evaluation tool that offers guidance in rating qualitative elements of text complexity. This evaluation tool shows four qualitative factors, as identified in Appendix A of the CCSS model shown in Figure 9.17, lying on a continuum of complexity. These four qualitative factors associated with text complexity run from easy (lefthand side) to difficult (right-hand side). A brief description of these six qualitative text complexity elements follows. This form is used to make recommendations for the placement of informational texts along a continuum of complexity as shown on the bottom of the form, from less complex to highly complex.
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
Informational Text Complexity Analysis Form
320 Chapter 9 1. The first of these four qualitative text complexity elements is the element of levels of meaning (literary texts) or purpose (informational texts). Informational texts with an explicitly stated purpose are generally easier to comprehend than informational texts with an implicit, hidden, or obscure purpose. 2. The second qualitative element is text structure. Low-complexity texts tend to have simple, well-marked, and conventional text structures. High-complexity informational texts, on the other hand, tend to have multiple, mixed, implicit, and unconventional structures. Simple informational texts are likely not to deviate much from a single, commonly used or known structure such as sequential, problem/solution, compare/contrast, description, and so forth. Complex informational texts, on the other hand, might contain a variety of organizational structures such as are found in textbooks or scientific reports. Graphic aids tend to be quite simple, supplemental to, or unnecessary to the meaning of informational texts of low complexity, but high-complexity texts tend to have complex graphics that provide an independent source of information and are essential to understanding informational text. 3. The third complexity element is text language conventionality and clarity. According to the CCSS, informational texts that rely on literal, clear, modern, and casual language tend to be easier to read. Complex informational texts that use “figurative, ironic, ambiguous, purposefully misleading, archaic, or otherwise unfamiliar language such as general academic and domain-specific vocabulary” are more difficult to read (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b). 4. The final and fourth qualitative text complexity element is text knowledge demands. Informational texts that assume little about the extent of readers’ life experiences and the depth of their cultural/literary and content/discipline knowledge are generally considered less complex than are informational texts that assume a great deal about these factors. The CCSS make four recommendations for using quantitative and qualitative measures of informational text complexity. 1. First, they recommend that quantitative measures be used to locate a text within a grade band. In high-stakes settings, the CCSS recommend that two or more quantitative measures of text complexity be used to locate a text within a grade band. 2. Second, they recommend that after locating a text within a quantitative gradelevel band, qualitative measures be used to then locate a text’s complexity within a specific grade. Qualitative measures of text complexity are used to assess other important aspects of text complexity, such as structure, levels of meaning or purpose, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands, to provide a more refined location of a text’s complexity at the high or low end of the grade-level quantitative band. 3. Third, the CCSS caution teachers that there will be exceptions to using quantitative measures to identify the grade band. They note that qualitative considerations will sometimes trump quantitative measures in identifying the grade band of a text. Research has shown more disagreement among quantitative text complexity measures when applied to narrative fiction in higher-complexity bands than when applied to informational text or literary texts in lower grade bands. 4. Fourth, the CCSS also caution that certain text complexity measures are less valid or not applicable for certain kinds of texts. For example, informational texts for kindergarten and grade 1 have been shown to be more resistant to quantitative analysis because they often contain difficult-to-assess features designed to aid early readers in acquiring knowledge of written language. This form is used to make recommendations for the placement of informational texts along a continuum of complexity as shown on the bottom of the form, from less complex to highly complex.
Teaching with Informational Texts 321
5. Finally, the third element of the three-part model for measuring text complexity addresses reader and task considerations. This is an area that is largely uninvestigated by current research. Although quantitative and qualitative measures of text complexity focus attention on inherent elements within texts that contribute to their overall complexity, the CCSS expect that classroom teachers and other educators will employ their best professional judgment to match informational texts to particular tasks and groups of students. A decision about how to match students or tasks to informational text complexity requires consideration of a relatively large set of variables. The CCSS suggest that harder texts may be appropriate for highly knowledgeable or skilled readers, who are often willing to put in the extra effort required to read harder texts. Similarly, students who have a great deal of interest or motivation in the content are also likely to handle more complex texts. As we have discussed previously in this chapter, the RAND Reading Study Group (2002) identified task variables, such as the reader’s purpose, the type of reading being done, and the intended outcome, as having potential impacts on text complexity assessment by teachers. In the end, teachers will need to employ their professional knowledge of and experience with their students, the content to be learned, and the elements of text complexity to make informed judgments about locating informational texts on the continuum of text complexity from less to highly complex. In Figure 9.18, we summarize the informational text assessment procedures and instruments discussed previously for assessing factors that affect students’ informational text reading comprehension. In this “Summary Matrix of Informational Text Comprehension Assessments,” we provide information about federally related assessment purposes such as screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring, or outcomes assessment, as well as the type of test or procedure (norm-referenced or criterion-referenced) and psychometric evidence
Figure 9.18 Summary Matrix of Assessments of Informational Text Comprehension Assessments ASSESSMENT STRATEGY(S) (WITH PAGE #)
ASSESSMENT PURPOSE(S): SCREENING (S), DIAGNOSTIC (D), PROGRESS MONITORING (M), OUTCOMES (O)
RELIABILITY (R), VALIDITY (V) EVIDENCE
COMPRHENSION SKILLS Comprehension Strategy Use
Modified Informational Text Reading Strategy Use Scale
S, M
R: Not available V: Not available
Comprehension Monitoring
Modified Meta-comprehension Strategy Index
S, M
R: Not available V: Not available
Motivation
Motivation to Read Questionnaire
S, M
R: Ranges between .75 - .82 V: Construct
Interest - Motivation
Student Reading Interest Survey
S, M
R: Not available V: Not available
Discussion - Interaction
Individual and Group SelfAssessment of Interactions with Informational Text
S, M
R: Not available V: Not available
Answering Questions
Question– Answer Relationships (QARs)
S, M
R: Not available V: Not available
Free Recall of Text
Oral Retellings: Expository Structure
S, M
R: Not available V: Not available
Text Structure
Informational Text Frames
S, M
R: Not available V: Not available
Text Structure
Informational Text Structure Assessment (ITSA)
S, D, M
R: Not available V: Not available
Text Complexity
Informational Text Complexity Measures
NA
.93 rank ordering of passages, Adrion, et al., 2010
322 Chapter 9 of test or procedure scores including reliability and/or validity evidence. Few classroom-based informational text comprehension assessments report evidence of reliability or validity.
Connecting Assessment Findings to Informational Text: Comprehension Instructional Strategies MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
Classroom Profile Form – Comprehending Informational Text
After reviewing evidence-based research as well as the Common Core foundational skills for reading, we can now construct a concise list of benchmark skills that should be learned by typically developing learners. These are the skills teachers must assess and develop a classroom profile indicating which skills should be taught to which learners in small group “targeted” instruction. In Table 9.1 we provide our CLASSROOM PROFILE FORM: COMPREHENSION OF INFORMATIONAL TEXT.
Table 9.1 New Classroom Profile Form: Comprehending Informational Text CLASSROOM PROFILE FORM: INFORMATIONAL TEXT COMPREHENSION SKILLS—PARTIAL 4TH GRADE EXAMPLE Directions: First, in the upper box for each student, indicate for each student their level of attainment for each skill area using the key below (E, D, P). Second, record specific observations in the lower box that support your decision as to the student’s level of development. For identifying students needing the same level of instruction at a glance, you may choose to color code each level of development, if you choose (e.g., green for P, yellow for developing, pink for emergent). Below is an example.
TIP:
KEY
STUDENT NAME
E = Emergent
D = Developing
VOCABULARY (V) Standard: 4. Determine the meaning of general academic and domain-specific words or phrases in a text relevant to a grade 4 topic or subject area. P
Denver
Can remember the meanings of words that are learned from the reading of a specific text. Scores above 90% on his weekly vocabulary multiplechoice quizzes. Uses these words in speaking and writing.
Bentley
Can remember the meanings of words that are learned from the reading of a specific text. Scores above 90% on her weekly vocabulary multiplechoice quizzes. Does not use these words in speaking and writing.
D
P Latisha
Can remember the meanings of words that are learned from the reading of a specific text. Scores above 90% on her weekly vocabulary multiplechoice quizzes. Uses these words in speaking and writing.
P = Proficient
KEY IDEAS AND DETAILS (KID) Standard: 2. Determine the main idea of a text and explain how it is supported by key details; summarize the text.
CRAFT, STRUCTURE (CS) Standard: 5. Describe the overall structure (e.g., chronology, comparison, cause/effect, problem/solution) of events, ideas, concepts, or information in a text or part of a text.
INTEGRATION (I) Standard: 9. Integrate information from two texts on the same topic in order to write or speak about the subject knowledgeably.
D
D
E
Answers detail questions 90% accurately. Identifies key ideas accurately less than 50% of the time. Has trouble seeing how details in text support a central or key idea.
Cannot identify or impose a structure upon a text. Cannot rerepresent this text structure visually using a graphic organizer. He can fill in a graphic organizer if given to him with details from any text he reads.
Does not retain information learned from texts. Has to reference texts and lists details found in texts without any toplevel organization. It appears that he does not integrate his new knowledge well with his prior or background knowledge.
P Answers detail questions 90% accurately. Identifies key ideas accurately more than 90% of the time.
D Identifies key ideas accurately more than 90% of the time. Answers detail questions less than 50% accurately
D
D
Cannot identify or impose a structure upon a text. Once text structure is identified, she can appropriately re-represent this text structure visually using a graphic organizer. She can fill in a graphic organizer if given to him with details from any text he reads.
She can remember information learned from two texts on the same topic. She connects ideas from the texts well in her writing and speaking. She has trouble connecting her new ideas to those already in her background knowledge..
D
P
She can fill in a graphic organizer if given to him with details from any text he reads. Cannot identify or impose a structure upon a text. Once identified, can re-represent this text structure visually using a graphic organizer.
She can remember information learned from two texts on the same topic. She connects ideas from the texts well in her writing and speaking. She has no trouble connecting her new ideas to those already in her background knowledge.
Teaching with Informational Texts 323
Connecting Assessment Findings to Teaching Strategies Before discussing comprehension strategies for informational texts, we provide an If-Then Chart connecting assessment findings to intervention and strategy choices (see Figure 9.19). It is our intention to help you select the most appropriate instructional interventions and strategies to meet your students’ needs based on assessment data. In the next part of this chapter, we offer instruction strategies for interventions based on the foregoing assessments.
Strategies for Teaching Comprehension of Informational Texts Focusing on the Reader In addition to the RAND Reading Study Group’s (2002) report and the National Read Panel (2000), the Institute of Education Sciences/What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guides (Kamil et al., 2008; Shanahan et al., 2010) have also weighed in on comprehension strategies and instructional practices affecting the reader. In what follows, we discuss a variety of strategies and procedures teachers and students can use to promote increased student background knowledge, use of background knowledge in comprehending informational texts, and student engagement. We address strategies that build reader engagement, background knowledge, comprehension monitoring, and social collaboration.
Comprehension Process Motions: Engaging Movements to Promote Primary Grade Comprehension Age Range: 5–8 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy Standard 10: Range, Quality, & Complexity PURPOSE Collins-Block, Parris, and Whitely (2008) describe highly effective comprehension instruction in which students understand significantly more when their lessons include both linguistic and nonlinguistic input systems. In other words, when information is received through a variety of sensory pathways (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic), readers’ retention of that information increases significantly (Paivio, 1991; Sadowski & Paivio, 2013; Sadoski, Paivio, & Goetz, 1991). Gardner (1999) also found that action and activity are important for primary students’ learning. Kinesthetic movements can be added as a second learning input system as children learn to use comprehension strategies during listening or reading (Collins-Block, Parris, & Whiteley, 2008). Comprehension process motions (CPMs) kinesthetically represent the multiple unique mental strategies used by young children to comprehend text such as clarifying, making predictions, inferring, and so on. Recent research shows that the use of CPMs helps young students to learn and spontaneously apply comprehension strategies while listening to text read aloud by the teacher or reading text on their own. MATERIALS
• A lesson plan for teaching each CPM • An appropriate text or story • A poster showing the CPMs to be taught, displayed during and after lessons (an example is shown in Figure 9.20)
324 Chapter 9
Figure 9.19 If-Then Teaching Strategy Guide for Comprehension of Informational Texts “IF” your assessment show that a student needs to learn this skill . . .
“THEN” use this teaching strategy(s) first
Alternate Teaching Strategy(s) That Are Appropriate
Comprehension Process Motions
Picture Walk
Becoming a Word Detective
Graphic Organizers for Informational Texts
Key Ideas and Details
Close Reading Question Answer Relationships – Right There, Think and Search
Increase Text Complexity
Question Generation Oral Retelling Reciprocal Teaching Concept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) SIOP- EL Collaborative Strategic Reading – Struggling Readers Author’s Craft and Structure Picture Walk
Question Generation
Graphic Organizers for Informational
Increase Text Complexity
Close Reading
Question Answer Relationships – Right There, Think and Search
Oral Retelling Reciprocal Teaching Concept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) SIOP- EL Integration of Knowledge and Ideas Comprehension Process Motions
Becoming a Word Detective
Graphic Organizers for Informational
Increase Text Complexity
Close Reading Question Answer Relationships – Right There, Think and Search Question Generation Oral Retelling Reciprocal Teaching Concept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) Collaborative Strategic Reading – Struggling Readers SIOP- EL Building Engagement and Stamina Comprehension Process Motions
Question Answer Relationships – Right There, Think and Search
Close Reading
Question Generation
Increase Text Complexity
Graphic Organizers for Informational
Reciprocal Teaching Concept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) SIOP-EL
Collaborative Strategic Reading – Struggling Readers
Becoming a Word Detective
Question Answer Relationships – Right There, Think and Search
Close Reading
Question Generation
Reciprocal Teaching
Comprehension Process Motions
Concept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI)
Picture Walk
Text Complexity
Oral Retelling Collaborative Strategic Reading – Struggling Readers SIOP-EL
Teaching with Informational Texts 325
Figure 9.20 Classroom Poster of Comprehension Process Movements
Find Main Ideas (See Figure 9.18 for instructions.) Making Predictions When you make a prediction based on the information the author has given you, your mind’s eyes (put your forefinger and middle finger [the mind’s eyes] on your right temple) must look beyond the obstacle, which is information you have not yet read (put your left hand horizontally in front of your eyes with the palm facing your eyes) to see what is likely to occur (move your right hand’s fingertips beneath the left hand and in front of the left hand, facing toward the future, the ending position, as shown in the photo to the left). This is the process the mind follows each time it predicts. Inferring When you make an inference you think about the things the author didn’t write down. When your mind does this, it starts with all it has already read (lift the right arm to side of waist, the starting position) and moves these thoughts forward to a larger idea that these facts are leading toward (move right hand to the left across body to the left side of the waist, as shown in the photo). The mind moves forward like this. Clarifying Use the clarifying signal anytime you have a question about something you are reading. First, place both hands together, then open them and splay the fingers. At first your mind is closed to meaning (put your hands together with thumbs touching in the center of your chest), then when your mind opens up to see a new meaning it completes a thinking process like this to end the process (move your hands to the splayed position) as shown in photo to the left.
PROCEDURE
1. Teaching a CPM comprehension strategy lesson begins by selecting one of the four CPM strategies: main ideas, predictions, inferring, or clarifying. 2. Next, the teacher should write or be able to state a clear objective—for example, teaching a CPM and its corresponding comprehension strategy to the point that students are able to self-initiate its use during reading. 3. Begin the lesson by reading a section of the selected text or story aloud and model the CPM and thinking involved using a think-aloud process. For example, to teach the prediction CPM, you could use the description shown in Figure 9.20. 4. Demonstrate the prediction CPM at certain points in your reading, such as by making a new prediction at the ends of pages. 5. Tell students that as you read a new page, your mind moves forward, collecting and adding all the clues together to make a prediction. 6. As you finish each page, demonstrate the prediction CPM again. 7. On day 2, continue by reading another text aloud. Repeat the process described on day 1 at least five more times to invoke the effects of fast mapping (see Figure 9.21). 8. As you repeat this process over time, you should notice that students begin to voluntarily initiate the CPM with you. Anytime a student signals a CPM (either the one being taught or from a previous lesson), the teacher should stop reading and ask that student to tell what he or she was thinking and why this point in the text is a good time to use the comprehension process signaled. 9. On day 3, tell students that you are going to read aloud. Anyone who has a prediction to make at the end of each page should signal this knowledge by performing the CPM, and you will stop reading and ask that person to describe what he or she was thinking while forming the prediction. 10. Repeat this process at least five more times, asking a different student each time.
326 Chapter 9
Figure 9.21 Essential for Creating a CPM Lesson Step 1. Ensure that the first day of instruction for each CPM includes teacher modeling of that CPM with at least six think-aloud descriptions. During each step in the comprehension process, explain what you see in the text that clues you to use that CPM and comprehension process, and why using it leads to better understanding. The first six or more examples of CPM practice are composed of shared readings, think alouds, and whole-class discussion. Step 2. Gradually begin to assign students to read silently alone or in pairs and to raise their hands when they don’t understand. Ask students to signal comprehension processes when they are aware that they are using them. This question can be asked for Step 1 as well. Walk around to help individual students as they read silently. Step 3. Students signal their independent use of the comprehension process as an assessment when they read a new text and implement the comprehension process at an appropriate point to reach a complete understanding. Step 4. On the fourth to sixth days of this lesson plan, assess students’ self-initiated use of each comprehension process by marking on a grid or grade sheet each time an individual correctly demonstrates a CPM. NOTE: Include fast mapping by giving students at least six opportunities a day for six days to learn how to independently initiate the comprehension pro-
cess without teacher assistance.
SOURCE: Adapted from “CPMs: A Kinesthetic Comprehension Strategy,” by C. C. Block, S. R. Parris, and C. S. Whitely, 2008, The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 460–470. Copyright © 2008 by the International Reading Association (www.reading.org). Reproduced with permission of the International Reading Association via Copyright Clearance Center.
11. End day 2 or 3 lessons by asking a student to summarize what he or she has learned about using this thinking process to become a better reader. 12. During day 4, continue the day 3 lesson until students have mastered the CPM and when it should be used. 13. During days 5 to 11, ask students to read silently and signal a CPM when they use it. 14. Go to students individually and ask them to describe the comprehension they gained by using the prediction CPM signaled and how they knew to use the CPM at that point in the text. Collins-Block, Parris, and Whiteley (2008) suggest that these discussions can also be used as individualized comprehension performance assessments to show that students can use the CPM automatically and independently. 15. On day 12, reteach students who have not signaled their independent use of a comprehension process during the silent reading experience described. This instruction can occur in small groups, peer-paired sessions, or one-to-one student meetings.
Building Students’ Background Knowledge The Picture Walk Age Range: 5–12 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.K.4-6 through CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.5.4-6: Craft and Structure PURPOSE To introduce a new informational book to young readers, teachers often use something commonly known as a picture walk. As one element of an effective book introduction, Clay (1991, 1993) described the use of picture walks. During a picture walk, the teacher uses the book illustrations to promote surveying the book’s likely subject matter. The objective of using a picture walk is to help students develop a framework for how the book is organized to improve their reading comprehension. Research suggests that picture walks are effective in promoting students’ reading comprehension (Stahl, 2004, 2008).
Teaching with Informational Texts 327
No two picture walks are alike. Each is a unique discussion of the pictures and pages in a new book. The introduction of a book using picture walks can only occur when teachers pre-read and carefully identify likely challenges that a new book presents for comprehension and reading fluency. These challenges may include particular words to be decoded, unfamiliar word meanings, different text structures or organization, or new text features such as insets, diagrams, and maps. Teachers and children talk their way through the pages of the book, giving students plenty of opportunities to discuss what they think the book will tell them. The most ideal setting for picture walks is a small, guided reading group in which each child can have his or her own copy of an informational book and the teacher can supervise the picture walk through the pages of the book. MATERIALS
• A leveled book informational book • A listing of potentially challenging elements in the book • Materials for teaching decoding, vocabulary, or text structure in the book PROCEDURE
1. Provide a brief introduction for books before reading by taking a “picture walk (Fountas and Pinnell, 1996, pp. 137–148). 2. Teachers and students look at the book’s pages and pictures one-by-one in sequential order as they engage in an interactive discussion about an informational book. 3. Focus interaction around the pictures and on discerning the text’s structure, activating or building students’ prior knowledge, and making predictions based on the information gleaned from discussing the pictures in sequence. 4. Read and discuss headings and subheadings is also useful. 5. Say, “What words would you use to describe what you see happening on this page?” or “What do you think the author is telling us on this page?” to engage students in an active interaction around book pages and pictures. 6. Use picture walks also to introduce two to three new vocabulary words before reading. 7. After a picture walk, invite students to read the text independently at their own rate in a small reading group where the teacher is available to offer support and guidance. 8. When reading is completed, discuss whether predictions were accurate and allow students to make any necessary corrections to their predictions. 9. Guide students to fill in a graphic organizer or work with the small group to collectively summarize the content, organization, and purpose of the text (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996, p. 7).
Think-Pair-Share: Readers Collaborate to Comprehend Age Range: 5–12 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.K.7-9 through CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.5.7-9: Integration of Knowledge and Ideas PURPOSE Teachers often want children to share their ideas and feelings with one another, typically by asking students to voluntarily share ideas one at a time with the group. For teachers who want to increase motivation and collaborative opportunities for their students to respond, share, think, and problem-solve with others around a text, Lyman and McTighe’s (1988) think-pair-share strategy provides a successful “across the curriculum” method (Slavin, 1995), not only when reading informational texts but also with narrative texts (Wood & Jones, 1994).
328 Chapter 9
Figure 9.22 Think-Pair-Share Strategy Think-Pair-Share 1. Teacher Asks a Question.
2. Students Think.
?
3. Pair.
4. Share with the Whole Group. Share Discuss
MATERIALS
• A poster that describes the expectations and processes of the think-pair-share strategy, as shown in Figure 9.22 PROCEDURE
1. Display the poster in Figure 9.20 for the students. 2. The process begins with the teacher instructing students to listen to a question or problem and then giving them time to think of a response. 3. Next, students are told to share their responses with a neighboring peer. 4. Finally, students are encouraged to share their responses with the whole group. 5. A time limit is typically set for each segment of the think-pair-share strategy.
Focusing on the Text The second element of reading comprehension in the RAND Reading Study Group’s (2002) definition of reading comprehension is the text. Shanahan, Fisher, and Frey (2012) note that text difficulty and/or complexity is influenced by elements within the text such as vocabulary, sentence structure, coherence, and organization. Providing support to students as they make their way through increasingly challenging texts in a Common Core Standards teaching environment, teachers need to be sure to build text processing strategies and skills (Shanahan, Fisher, & Frey, 2012). To do so, teachers will need to provide students with instruction in strategies that they can apply prior to, during, and after reading an informational text to aid their comprehension and knowledge acquisition (Shanahan, 2013). The important thing to remember is that students should not always be reading in “challenging” texts, but should be encouraged to read some challenging text each day as well as texts they find easier, just as athletes who use interval training do in building up stamina and strength (Shanahan, 2013).
Teaching with Informational Texts 329
In addition to the RAND Reading Study Group’s (2002) report and CCSS text recommendations, the National Read Panel (2000) also has weighed in on comprehension strategies that can be taught about processing texts. The NRP (2000) found strong scientific evidence for teaching students about text structure or organization, vocabulary, and the use of graphic organizers. This has been recently validated in the IES Practice Guides on improving K—3 reading comprehension and improving adolescent literacy through effective classroom and intervention practices (Kamil et al., 2008; Shanahan et al., 2010). In what follows, we discuss a variety of strategies and procedures teachers and students can use to promote students’ academic vocabulary growth, understanding of text structures, and processing of online, digital texts. We address the use of graphic organizers to represent the underlying organization or structure of informational texts, how to perform a close reading of an informational text, as well as supports for handling increasingly complex informational texts.
Becoming a Word Detective Age Range: 5–12 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.K.4-6 through CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.5.4-6: Craft and Structure PURPOSE It seems almost intuitive that a large and rich vocabulary is central to reading challenging informational texts for understanding and knowledge acquisition (Neuman & Wright, 2013). Logically, students must know the word meanings that make up written texts in order to understand them, especially as the vocabulary demands of informational texts increase in the upper grades and into secondary schools. Numerous studies (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Stanovich & Cunningham, 1992) have documented that the size of a person’s vocabulary is strongly predictive of how well that person will understand what he or she reads not only in the primary grades, but also in high school. As noted earlier in this chapter, when students are asked about what makes a text difficult or complex to understand, they often blame the vocabulary words (Shanahan, Fisher, & Frey, 2012). Students need to be taught a variety of vocabulary strategies that can be used to figure out the meanings of unknown words in informational texts. Teaching students about physical features found in printed or online texts, such as typography (bolding and italics) as well as what a glossary is and how to use it, can help students make use of supports authors often provide within informational texts to support the learning of unfamiliar vocabulary word meanings. Authors also provide photographs, diagrams, charts, graphs, and other graphical aids to help students understand unfamiliar concepts presented in informational texts. The National Reading Panel (2000) identified five essential characteristics of evidence-based vocabulary instruction:
1. Vocabulary should be taught both directly and indirectly. 2. Repetition and multiple exposures are important for learning new vocabulary. 3. Learning vocabulary in rich contexts is valuable. 4. Vocabulary tasks should be restructured when necessary. 5. Vocabulary tasks should entail active engagement. As a consequence, vocabulary instruction should make sure that students are taught unfamiliar word meanings using explicit instruction, multiple exposures and repetition, rich contextual clues, and an active search for meaning within a text. Teaching students to look up a word’s definition in a dictionary or glossary isn’t a bad practice, it just isn’t enough to ensure that a new word meaning is acquired. Teachers should teach students to use the dictionary, glossary, and computer word searches to gain access to
330 Chapter 9
MyLab Education Teacher Resource: Word Detective Map
word meanings. They should also encourage students to rephrase these formal definitions into “student-friendly” characterizations of a word’s meaning (Beck, McKeown & Kucan, 2002, 2008). In addition to learning a word’s definition, student’s vocabulary growth is greatly expanded when students learn how to use clues embedded in the text (context clues), when available, to gain approximate word meanings. Not all authors provide an adequate directive context sufficient to allow readers to work out the meaning of an unfamiliar or unknown vocabulary term (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). It is also useful, in terms of exposure and repetition, for students to use the word in writing, in speaking, and in reading other printed contexts (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002, 2008). Finally, to develop understanding of an unfamiliar concept, teachers and authors know that using examples such as photos, illustrations, and so forth; helping students to categorize or relate the new word meaning to other word meanings; and listing characteristics or attributes of word meanings that are unique to that word help students to clarify unfamiliar word meanings (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002, 2008). Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) recommend that teachers only teach about 10 to 11 new word meanings in the English language arts period per week, or about 2 new word meanings per day. This will give students and teachers enough time for sufficient repetitions used in varying tasks to actually learn a new word meaning well. Based on the work of Ainslie (2001), we like the idea of teaching students to think of themselves as word detectives, searching for “suspect” word clues and placing these clues into a word map graphic organizer (See Figure 9.23). MATERIALS
• Dictionaries (traditional print and online) • Glossary
Figure 9.23 Word Detective Map Word Use in Context Find and Read it in the Book/Story
Definitions
Vocabulary Word Dictionary Look Up
Context Clues from Reading Other Texts
Student Friendly
Write the Word in a Sentence. Use is orally in a Sentence.
Examples
Category/Class/Part of Speech
Characteristics
Teaching with Informational Texts 331
• Student-friendly dictionary (e.g., Collins CoBuild New Students’ Dictionary) • Text(s) containing the new vocabulary term in written contexts • 2 · 3-foot laminated “word detective word map” • Dry erase or water clean-up markers • Erasers or wet wipes • Computer and Internet access • Computer printer PROCEDURE The teacher models for students how to use the map to guide the word detective’s efforts in tracking down each of the clues to work out the meaning of the unknown or unfamiliar word (e.g., the word alluvium).
1. First, the teacher shows the students how to locate a glossary in an informational book, if the author included one. If not, the teacher looks up the unknown word, alluvium, in an online or traditional print dictionary: “a deposit of sand, mud, etc., formed by flowing water.” 2. Next, the teacher models how to characterize the meaning of the word using student-friendly terms or to use a dictionary like the Collins CoBuild New Students’ Dictionary to look up a student-friendly definition or description of the word’s meaning, such as: “a bunch of loose rock, soil, and sand that has been shaped by running water like in a river or stream.” 3. Next, the teacher shows where the word is found in the original text by putting the book under a document camera and projecting the page onto a large computer screen. 4. The teacher highlights the sentence in the book where the bolded word alluvium is displayed. 5. The teacher reads the sentence aloud and writes it onto the word detective word map: “After years and years of the great yellow river pushing tons of rocks and soil downstream into the bay, an alluvium is formed at the mouth that looks like a great fan.” 6. The teacher then highlights words in the sentence that are clues to the word’s meaning: “After years and years of the great yellow river pushing tons of rocks and soil downstream into the bay, an alluvium is formed at the mouth that looks like a great fan.” 7. The teacher lists these clues in the area of the word map for listing context clues. 8. Next, the teacher says her own sentence using the word and writes it on the word map. 9. After this, the teacher models how to look up pictures or photos of an alluvium online by performing an Internet search for “alluvium” and then clicking on images for the search. 10. The teacher shows students the many different images of how running water has shaped loose rock, soil, and sand into different shapes, designs, and formations. 11. The teacher selects two photos to print out for inclusion in the word detective word map. 12. Following this, the teacher looks at the word map and sees that she must determine the part of speech and/or category that the word alluvium belongs to. 13. The teacher writes in noun for the part of speech and geography for the category of knowledge. 14. Finally, the teacher lists the characteristics or attributes of an alluvium—running or moving water; rocks, soil, or sand; designs, shapes, or formations.
332 Chapter 9 15. Having done all of this, the word detective has amassed all of the clues into the map and the word search is complete. After modeling how to do this with several words, the teacher distributes laminated word detective word maps to table or pod-grouped students. 16. She gives each student one clue to search out to complete the map for a new word. Each student has a chance with other vocabulary words to practice how to look up words; highlight and list clues; use the word in his or her own sentence; write the sentence; come up with a student-friendly definition; find a picture, object, artifact, or video online as an example; determine the part of speech and the class or category; and list the attributes of the word’s meaning. 17. Once students show they can perform all of the tasks in completing a group word map, then the teacher can reduce the size of the word map to a single page or less and individual students can use all that they have learned to individually complete the map.
Graphic Organizers: Visual Representation of Informational Text Structures Age Range: 5–12 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.K.4-6 through CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.5.4-6: Craft and Structure
MyLab Education
Video Example 9.3: Improving Reading Comprehension by Using Graphic Organizers In this video, you will learn how translating text structure into visual summaries called graphic organizer helps to develop reading comprehension.
PURPOSE Authors of informational texts typically organize their writing using several well-known text patterns or structures. Readers who understand the organizational patterns or text structures an author has used in producing an informational text recall more from their reading than readers who do not (NRP, 2000; Dickson et al., 1998b; Meyer et al., 1980; Pyle,Crowther, Lignugaris-Kraft, Gillam, Reutzel, Olszewski, Segura, Hartzheim, Laing, & Pyle, 2017). The National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) has recommended the use of graphic organizers as a highly useful comprehension strategy for which there is abundant scientific evidence of effectiveness. Pyle, et al. (2017) found that coupling text structure instruction with a graphic organizer has massive effects on students’ comprehension of informational texts, in excess of 1.5 standard deviations or about 40+ percentile point gains on a standard measurement scale. MATERIALS
• One well-formed informational text that uses a single organizational pattern or text structure selected from among the common structures previously discussed: time order, cause and effect, problem and solution, comparison, simple listing, and descriptions • Commercially produced sentence strips • Hand-drawn or copied pictures from the selected text, especially but not exclusively for working with informational texts with younger children • A whiteboard or other display area for displaying the graphic organizer • A felt pen or dry-erase marker for drawing lines of relationships PROCEDURE
1. Begin by selecting an excellent informational text that exemplifies the clear and simple use of one of the six text structures previously discussed, such as problem/solution or cause/effect. For this lesson, we selected Name That Shape! (Stafford, 2004). Name That Shape! uses a problem (question) and solution (answer) text structure. Each page begins with a question about a particular shape. Answers are then offered and reinforced by the use of photographs showing an object that exemplifies that particular geometric shape.
Teaching with Informational Texts 333
2. For younger children, a simple graphic organizer using icons or pictures to accompany the print can be helpful. For older students, a more complex graphic organizer may include student-generated questions for which they will seek and retrieve answers through reading other informational texts on the topic of geometric shapes. An example of a question-and-answer graphic organizer for Name That Shape! is shown in Figure 9.24. 3. It is very important to scaffold graphic organizer instruction effectively in the classroom. Scaffolding refers to gradually releasing the control and responsibility for selecting a graphic organizer design and using it to guide comprehension. Children need to learn to recognize the organizational patterns or text structure the author has used to produce a text. An easy place to begin this process is in the table of contents of the book. Very often, the way the author titles each section in the table of contents and the order of the sections may give away the structure or organization of the text. 4. Next, children need to be helped to select the appropriate graphic organizer to represent the organization of and information in the text. In Figure 9.25, we show several different graphic organizers. We have labeled each graphic organizer type with the text structure or organizational pattern that each is intended to represent. It is important that you, the teacher, understand that the power in using graphic organizers is in selecting the appropriate one to represent the underlying organization or text structure used by the author. Teaching children to recognize text structure and to select the appropriate type of graphic organizer will require multiple lessons using a variety of informational books with other question-and-answer text structures, such as Bridges (Ring, 2003) or How Do Spiders Live? (Biddulph & Biddulph, 1992). 5. In the first lesson, the teacher explains and thinks aloud about how she figured out that the author was using a question-and-answer structure in the graphic organizer. 6. Next, the teacher selects the appropriate graphic organizer from those in Figure 9.25. 7. Finally, she models reading the text aloud and filling in the question on the one side and the answer on the other side of the graphic organizer until the text reading is complete. 8. In the second and third lessons, the teacher gradually releases responsibility to the students for explaining why a text has a question-and-answer expository text
Figure 9.24 Question and Answer Graphic Organizer for Name That Shape (Stafford, 2004)
What is round and does not have corners?
It is a circle. Do you see the circles in the picture?
What has four sides that are the same length and four corners?
It is a square. Do you see the squares in the picture?
MyLab Education Teacher Resource:
Different Expository Text Structure Graphic Organizers
334 Chapter 9
Figure 9.25 Different Expository Text Structure Graphic Organizers
1st
Question and Answer
Simple Listing
Compare and Contrast
Cause and Effect
2nd
3rd
Time Order
4th
Description
structure, performing a thinking aloud, selecting an appropriate graphic organizer, and representing the elements of question-and-answer informational text structure in the graphic organizer. 9. In the fourth lesson, the students do most of the explaining, thinking aloud, selecting, and representing the elements of question-and-answer informational text structure in the graphic organizer. This teaches children the process of determining and using text structure and finding an appropriate graphic organizer to represent the text structure, and provides a structure for organizing and remembering important information from reading informational texts.
Teaching with Informational Texts 335
Close Reading of Informational Texts Age Range: 5–12 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.K.1-9 through CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.51-9: Key Ideas and Details, Craft and Structure, Integration of Knowledge and Ideas PURPOSE The CCSS require that students read proportionately more informational texts at higher levels of challenge than in the past (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). Cummins (2013) defines close readings of informational texts as readers analyzing a given text at the word, sentence, paragraph, or section level, where a determination is made about which ideas are most important and how these fit together to logically convey an author’s central topic or ideas. According to the American College Testing (ACT) service, students continue to reveal that they cannot adequately summarize, synthesize, or determine what is important in informational texts (ACT, 2006). Shanahan (2012a) notes that close reading requires that readers “figure out” the meaning of high-quality, complex informational texts by careful reading and discussion of the text with others, rather than being told about the text by the teacher or in some condensed format such as a textbook commentary. Close reading of text often requires the reader to slow down to process the meaning carefully. Occasionally it will mean the reader must reread the text for meaning. Complex informational texts do not give up their information easily; consequently, informational texts often require close reading in order to understand the author’s intended ideas and the organization of those ideas. For example, a first reading may help the reader understand what the main ideas of the text are and get a general understanding of the content of the text. However, during a second reading, the reader may carefully or closely read the text to determine how the author is structuring the text in order to provide a level of organization around the main ideas and concepts, and how data were organized and presented to support the assertions made by the author. A final reading, according to Shanahan (2012b), might involve evaluating the author’s purpose for writing the text, the quality of the organization and presentation, and making personal connections to how this information may be useful now or at some future point in life. In summary, close readings are intensive analyses of informational text to determine what it says, how it says it, why it was said, and what it all means. When planning lessons for close readings, it is essential that teachers craft their questions very carefully for multiple readings and that they model the cognitive and social processes a reader might use to access the deeper and more complex meanings conveyed in a text. MATERIALS
• A reasonably complex, grade-level appropriate informational text (i.e., in terms of complexity, difficulty, and content) • Lesson plan PROCEDURE Shanahan (2013) notes that not all books should be read closely, but for those that are read closely, repeated readings should be expected, with each repetition focusing on understanding different aspects of the text.
1. Begin the lesson by showing the students how they might preview or survey an informational book prior to reading. Place the book under a document camera and show them how you look first at the cover and read the title. 2. Next, show how you look for a table of contents and read quickly through it to get a sense of what is coming in the book. 3. After that, you might show them how you would page through the book, reading headings and subheadings as well as looking at any graphical devices that help you get a general understanding of the content of the book.
336 Chapter 9 4. As you read, you might note that certain words are bolded, highlighted, or italicized. 5. You might then check to see if there is an index and/or glossary. 6. You might also model making a list of these bolded words before reading. For example, in the informational book Volcano by J. Hunt (2004), words such as active, erupting, and lava are printed in boldface type. 7. Next, you model how to accomplish a first close reading of the book. Model how reading closely requires that you stop reading and ask text-dependent questions such as: What did I learn on this page? What was this about? What was important to remember here? For example, in the book Volcano (Hunt, 2004), the first page tells us there are many volcanoes in the world, and about 1,500 of them are active and could erupt any day. 8. The remainder of the book could be read in two page segments, stopping to ask general kinds of questions or more specific questions framed by restating the thesis statement of a paragraph as a question. For example, the book states, “Volcanoes come in different sizes and shapes” (p. 4). This statement could be rephrased as a question: What are the different sizes and shapes of volcanoes? 9. A second rereading of the text could be to understand the organization of the text. Since this book uses a descriptive text structure and did not have a table of contents, a glossary, or headings, a second close reading could focus on discerning the organization of this informational text. Headings for each section of the book might include: • About volcanoes • Different sizes and shapes • Changing the land • How volcanoes grow • Where volcanoes grow Making a table of contents and putting these headings into the text help the reader understand how the author used a descriptive text structure or organization to present the content of the book. 10. A final close reading of this book might examine the credibility of the information presented in the book by asking and answering several critical questions. Are there really 1,500 active volcanoes in the world? What are the author’s credentials to write such a book? Why did this author write this book? Why did the index in this book list the names of volcanoes pictured in the book and not concepts or terms presented in the book about volcanoes? What other books on volcanoes are there that might give me more information? 11. The focus of a close reading should be on making sense of the text and not so much on preparing the reader’s background knowledge or the reader’s responses to the text. If this is done, it should be brief. Students need to spend the bulk of their time reading and making sense of the text—what it says, how it works, and its quality, value, and gaps—leading to pursuit of information about the topic in other informational texts. 12. Once a close read has been modeled by the teacher, then the role of the teacher changes from modeler of close reading to questioner to guide students’ close readings of the text. The teacher should read the text prior to the lesson. 13. Also prior to the lesson, the teacher should construct a set of text-dependent questions to engage his or her students in a close reading of the text and to guide their subsequent discussions of the text. Text-dependent questions on a first read should probe key ideas and details as well as clarifying any confusion or misunderstandings, such as: What happens when a volcano erupts? Questions on a second read should focus on helping students think about how the text works—its craft and structure and what the author was up to, such as: What is the author doing to
Teaching with Informational Texts 337
Table 9.2 Bands by Grade levels: Old and Aligned to CCS Text Complexity Grade Band in the Standards
Old Lexile Ranges
Lexile Ranges Aligned to CCR expectations
K–1
N/A
N/A
2–3
450–725
450–790
4 –5
645–845
770–980
6–8
860–1010
955–1155
9–10
960–1115
1080–1305
11–CCR
1070–1220
1215–1355
present the information in the Volcano book? What text structure is the author using in this book? What would a graphic organizer look like for this text structure? Questions on a third read center on guiding students to think about what this text means to them; how it connects to their own experiences; and how it leads to seeking information in other texts, movies, websites, and so on. Questions for a third reading might be: What didn’t the book tell you about volcanoes you wanted to know? Where might you go to find out more about volcanoes? What was the most important thing you learned in the book about volcanoes? Modeling and helping students think through a text with text-dependent questions aimed at obtaining deeper and deeper understandings of the text will help students meet the challenge of reading increasingly complex informational texts as recommended in the CCSS.
Increasing Text Complexity Age Range: 5–12 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy Standard 10: Range, Quality, & Complexity PURPOSE Meeting Standard 10: Reading Complex Text of the CCSS requires an unprecedented emphasis on reading more-complex informational texts (Hiebert & Mesmer, 2013). Students not only will be required to read an increasing proportion of informational texts under the CCSS, but they will also need to read these texts at higher difficulty levels than in the past. MATERIALS Table 9.2 shows a comparison of past expectations around text difficulty levels using Lexiles and those aligned with the expectation of the Common Core State Standards. Hiebert (2012) notes that two-thirds of third grade students aren’t reading at proficient and advanced levels. A report entitled “Double Jeopardy” showed that students who leave third grade without proficiency on a standardized reading test using passages written at 540 Lexiles are unsuccessful in subsequent grade levels (Hernandez, 2011). Hiebert and Mesmer suggest two actions that teachers and administrators can take to help students meet the expectations of reading informational texts at increased levels of difficulty and complexity. PROCEDURE The first action to be taken is to encourage students to read widely and deeply. This means supporting students with access to online and vast collections of informational texts written at increasingly challenging levels. Many of these texts can be short texts—article length rather than book length. Access to the varied informational reading materials is a critical action but is insufficient to meet Standard 10. Students also need to spend sustained time immersed in actually reading complex informational texts to develop reading stamina sufficient to comprehend difficult and complex texts (Hiebert & Reutzel, 2010). In addition, teachers can help students by modeling close readings of complex informational texts and then guiding them through text-dependent questions to construct meaning and acquire knowledge, as previously described (Cummins, 2013; Shanahan, 2013).
338 Chapter 9 A second action that can be taken is to encourage and support students’ interests in learning new vocabulary terms. According to Hiebert and Mesmer (2013), “vocabulary is a consistent and strong indicator of how well students comprehend because it is the means of refining known concepts and acquiring new concepts” (p. 32). But building knowledge of just any set of vocabulary words won’t do the job. Coxhead (2000) analyzed a variety of college texts and identified a list of 570 academic words. Of the words on that list, 343 are among the simplest word families, according to Hiebert (2013). Teachers and students need to focus attention on building academic vocabulary words such as those that can be found at www.textproject.org by clicking on the list and forms button, then selecting the Academic Word List for download. According to Hiebert and Mesmer (2013), the English language has an enormous number of words. Not all of these words can be taught. Teachers and students need to know that there is a small number of words that account for the majority of words read in many informational texts. A huge number of words occur very rarely in such academic texts. Even though students will only encounter these rare words occasionally in reading, knowing their meanings is essential for comprehending increasingly difficult and complex informational texts in later grades, secondary schools, and eventually in careers and college. Hiebert (2013) has suggested that teachers begin their efforts to support students in moving up the staircase of text complexity by consulting quantitative information about text complexity, such as Lexiles levels. Next, they should compare the structure, content, vocabulary, comprehension demands, and language used in a benchmark informational book that has been identified as appropriate for the grade level with an informational book to be read. Third, teachers should develop rubrics for use in placing individual informational books on a text complexity gradient of proficiency levels: below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced, as used in the National Assessment of Educational Progress testing (2011). Finally, teachers must consider the reader, the text, and the context, as explained earlier in this chapter. Following these four steps, teachers will be able to support their students’ reading of informational texts at increasing levels of complexity.
Teaching Informational Text: Comprehension Instruction Focused on the Task The third element of reading comprehension in the RAND Reading Study Group’s (2002) definition of reading comprehension is the activity. The activity, as defined by this group, is a set of outcomes or tasks students must perform to demonstrate proficiency in understanding text. These comprehension activities are best known to teachers as comprehension strategies or skills. In recent content analyses of comprehension instruction in core reading programs, Dewitz, Jones, and Leahy (2009) found that these programs are recommending that too many reading comprehension skills and strategies be taught. The net effect of these recommendations is to encourage teachers to teach strategies and skills that have little or no evidence of effectiveness. Moreover, doing so also dilutes the amount of instructional and guided practice time teachers can devote to teaching those comprehension skills and strategies that have been shown to be effective. For many classroom teachers, the sheer number and variety of comprehension skills and strategies purported to help students improve their comprehension is mind-boggling. The National Reading Panel (2000) systematically sorted through the available evidence and found that only eight of these comprehension strategies had sufficient evidence to recommend them for instruction in classrooms. These eight strategies included: (1) question answering; (2) question generation; (3) graphic organizers; (4) story or text structure identification and use; (5) comprehension monitoring; (6) summarizing; (7) collaboration around text; and (8) teaching multiple strategies.
Teaching with Informational Texts 339
This set of comprehension activities has been recently validated in IES Practice Guides on improving K–3 reading comprehension and improving adolescent literacy through effective classroom and intervention practices (Kamil et al., 2008; Shanahan et al., 2010). In what follows, we address the remaining strategies and skills not previously covered in this chapter through activities in which students are asked to demonstrate their comprehension of text. These include question answering, question generation, retelling, summarizing, and multiple strategy instruction.
Question Answering Question–Answer Relationships: Answering Questions about Text—Text-Dependent Questions Age Range: 5–12 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.K.1-3 through CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.5.1-3: Key Ideas and Details PURPOSE The National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) has identified answering and posing questions about texts as comprehension strategies for which there is abundant scientific evidence of effectiveness. Raphael (1982, 1986) identified four question–-answer relationships to help children identify the connection between the type of questions asked of them by teachers and textbooks and the information sources necessary and available to them for answering questions: (1) right there, (2) think and search, (3) author and you, and (4) on my own. Research by Raphael and Pearson (1985) provided evidence that training students to recognize question–answer relationships (QARs) results in improved comprehension and question-answering behavior. In addition, using the QARs question-answering training strategy is useful for another purpose: helping teachers examine their own
Figure 9.26 Illustrations to Explain Question-Answer Relationships to Students
In the Book
Right There The answer is in one place in the text. Words from the question and words that answer the question are often “right there” in the same sentence.
Think & Search The answer is in the text. Readers need to “think and search,” or put together different parts of the text, to find the answer. The answer can be within a paragraph, across paragraphs, or even across chapters and books.
In My Head
On My Own The answer is not in the text. Readers need to use their own ideas and experiences to answer the question.
Author & Me The answer is not in the text. To answer the question, readers need to think about how the text and what they already know fit together.
MyLab Education
Video Example 9.4: Responding to Questions In this video, you will learn how teaching students effective ways to answer and ask questions is important for students to develop reading comprehension.
340 Chapter 9 questioning with respect to the types of questions and the information sources that students need to use to answer their questions. By using QARs to monitor their own questioning behaviors, some teachers may find that they are asking only “right there” types of questions. This discovery very often leads teachers to ask other questions that require the use of additional or seldom-used information sources. MATERIALS
• A variety of texts for asking and answering questions • A poster displaying information about the different types of questions and the information sources available for answering them (see Figure 9.26 for examples of each of the four types of question–answer relationships) PROCEDURE
1. Display graphic in Figure 9.26 for students. 2. Instruction using QARs begins by explaining that when answering questions about reading, there are basically two places a student can look to get information: in the book and in their heads. 3. This concept should be practiced with the students by reading a text aloud, asking questions, and having the students explain or show where they found their answers. 4. Once students understand the two-category approach, expand the “in the book” category to include “right there” and “think and search.” The distinction between these two categories should be practiced by reading and discussing several texts. For older students, Raphael (1986) suggests that students be shown specific strategies for locating the answers to “right there” questions. These include looking in a single sentence or looking in two sentences connected by a pronoun. For “think and search” questions, students can be asked to focus their attention on the structure of the text, such as cause/effect, problem/solution, listing examples, compare/ contrast, and explanation. 5. Next, instruction should be directed toward two subcategories within the “in my head” category: “author and me” and “on my own.” Here again, these categories can be practiced as a group by reading a text aloud, answering the questions, and discussing the sources of information. 6. To expand this training, students can be asked to identify the types of questions asked in their basal readers, workbooks, content-area texts, and tests; in addition, they can determine the sources of information needed to answer these questions. 7. Students may be informed that certain types of questions are asked before and after reading a text. For example, questions asked before reading typically invite students to activate their own knowledge. Therefore, questions asked before reading will usually be “on my own” questions. However, questions asked after reading will make use of information found in the text. Thus, questions asked after reading will typically focus on the “right there,” “think and search,” and “author and me” types of questions. 8. As a culminating training activity for QARs, children are asked to write their own questions for each of the QAR categories.
Question Generation Elaborative Interrogation Age Range: 6–12 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.K.1-3 through CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.5.1-3: Key Ideas and Details
Teaching with Informational Texts 341
Figure 9.27 Example Lesson Using Elaborative Interrogation Question Planning Strategy Purpose for Learning the Strategy: This strategy will help you relate your own experiences and knowledge to the facts you read in books and other texts. By using this strategy, you will improve your understanding of and memory for the text. Objective: Rephrase statements in text as if they were stated as why questions. Teacher Explanation and Modeling: This strategy begins by reading a section of text. For example, in a book about the solar system, I begin by reading the title – Our Solar System. I may ask myself, “Why would someone write a book about the solar system?” My answer may include such ideas as the author wanted to teach others about our sun and the planets that orbit it, or I may wonder if there are other planets can support life like on Earth, and so on. Next, I read about the planet closest to the sun in our solar system, Mercury. “Mercury is very hot.” I may ask myself the why question, “Why is Mercury so hot?” I read on, “It is the planet closest to the sun.” I ask myself, “How is closeness to the sun related a hot temperature?” Guided Application: Now let us try this strategy together. Mariann, come read this statement aloud for the class. After she has read this statement, I will make a why question from the statement. OK, read this statement. Mariann reads, “Mercury’s surface is covered with craters.” My question is, “Why would Mercury be covered with craters?” Students are invited to use their knowledge and background to answer this why question. Now let us reverse the roles. I will read aloud the next statement and you make this statement into a why question. Teacher reads aloud, “Some craters on the planet Mercury craters are bigger than our state of Alaska!” Children raise their hands. Benji is called upon. He asks, “Why are the craters on Mercury so big?” A discussion ensues to potentially answer these why questions. Individual Application: Now I want you to read the rest of this book. When you get to the end of each page, pick one statement to write a why question in your notebooks. Next, see if you can answer the question from your own knowledge or experiences. If not, try using the book to answer your question. If neither source can answer your question, save it for our discussion of the book when we are all finished reading. Now, go ahead and read. If you forget what I want you to do, look at this poster for step-by-step directions. The teacher displays the following poster at the front of the room on the board. Using the Elaborative Interrogation Strategy • Read each page carefully. • Stop at the end of each page and pick a statement. • Write a why question for the statement you pick in your reading notebooks. • Think about an answer to the why question using your own knowledge and experiences. • If you can, write an answer to your why question. • Read the pages again, looking for an answer. Read on to another page to look for the answer. • If you can, write an answer to your why question. • If you can’t write an answer to your why question, save it for our group discussion after reading. Assessment: After the children read, hold a discussion in which children are asked to share their why questions and answers. Ask children to hand in reading notebooks with their why questions and answers. Examine these notebooks to determine the success of using this strategy. Unanswered why questions can be placed into a question web for further reading and research. The web may look something like the one shown here.
Why does Venus have no oxygen in its air?
Why do scientists think that there is graphite on Uranus's moons?
Why Questions We Want to Answer
Why do thin rings of ice and dust circle Saturn?
Why was Pluto the last planet to be discovered in our solar system?
Other trade books, reference books, and textbooks may be used to answer the questions in this why question web. Planned Review: In about one week, plan to review the use of the elaborative interrogation strategy by using trade books or textbooks with other curricular subjects such as health or social studies or with mathematics word problems. SOURCES: Strategy from Reutzel, D. R., Campbell, K., & Smith, J. A., “Hitting the Wall: Helping Struggling Readers Comprehend,” in B. Gambrell, C. Collins-Block,
and M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving Comprehension Instruction: Rethinking Research, Theory, and Classroom Practice (Jossey Bass Education Series). Copyright 2002 by John Wiley & Sons.
342 Chapter 9 PURPOSE Elaborative interrogation is a questioning intervention that uses studentgenerated why questions to promote active processing of factual reading materials (Wood, Pressley, & Winne, 1990). Students are encouraged in elaborative interrogation to activate their prior knowledge and experiences and use these to pose their own why questions for which the answers use statements in the text to link facts together. Facts linked together into a network of relationships improve students’ understanding and memory for text information. It is important that the why questions generated require students to activate their prior knowledge supporting the facts they need to learn; otherwise, such questions will not enhance comprehension and memory for text. Menke and Pressley (1994) assert, “Answering why questions is as good as constructing images to boost memory for facts, providing the questions are well focused” (p. 644). The elaborative interrogation strategy has been validated to improve readers’ comprehension of factual material among students ranging from elementary school children to adults. It is recommended that teachers use elaborative interrogation when they train struggling students to access relevant prior knowledge in situations in which they typically do not do so spontaneously. MATERIALS
• An information or narrative book at the appropriate grade or reading level of your students • A written plan as shown in Figure 9.27 • A graphic organizer containing the why questions generated from the statements found in the book PROCEDURE We describe the elaborative interrogation strategy using a trade book entitled My Picture Book of the Planets (Krulik, 1991) in a model lesson shown in Figure 9.27. For this activity, provide students with these instructions:
1. Read each page carefully. 2. Stop at the end of each page and pick a statement. 3. Write a why question for the statement you pick in your reading notebooks. 4. Think about an answer to the why question using your own knowledge and experiences. 5. If you can, write an answer to your why question. 6. Read the pages again looking for an answer. Read on to another page to look for the answer. 7. If you can, write an answer to your why question. 8. If you can’t write an answer to your why question, save it for our group discussion after reading (Reutzel, Campbell, & Smith, 2002).
Retelling Informational Text Oral Retellings Age Range: 5–8 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.K.2,7 through CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.5.2,7: Key Ideas and Details, Integration of Knowledge and Ideas PURPOSE One of the most effective ways to help children demonstrate their comprehension of an informational text is to teach them how to retell what they have read
Teaching with Informational Texts 343
(Duke & Bennett Armistead, 2003; Reed & Vaughn, 2012). An oral retelling is a detailed oral recounting of the content and organization of an informational text that has been read either silently or orally. Teaching students how to retell an informational text successfully involves showing them how to (1) recognize the underlying organization of the ideas in the text such as compare/contrast, cause/effect, description, problem/ solution, question/answer, sequence or chronological, and so on; (2) attend to the major, main, or superordinate ideas within that organizational structure; and (3) connect minor or subordinate details to the main ideas. Thus, teaching students how to retell informational texts successfully involves teaching them to use their knowledge about informational text structure(s) in a systematic way. MATERIALS
• An informational book, chapter, or text passage PROCEDURE
1. Teaching students to orally retell an information book begins with selecting a brief informational text passage for students to listen to or to read aloud or silently, depending on the grade level and reading abilities of the students. 2. Students listen to the text read aloud in K–-1, read the text aloud themselves in grades 2–3, and silent read the text in grade 4 and beyond. For example, we might select an informational text titled Let’s Measure It! by Rose (2004) for our lesson. 3. Teachers model for students how to determine the text organization or structure used in the informational book. In this book, the author presents four descriptions about measurement: (1) measurement tools, (2) measuring length, (3) measuring weight, and (4) measuring volume. From a quick preview of the table of contents and skimming the headings throughout the book, the teacher determines that this text uses a description text structure. 4. In a think-aloud, the teacher explains that this is a description text structure because it is focused on a single topic—measurement—and the author describes four things about the topic of measurement. 5. The teacher demonstrates how to select a descriptive graphic organizer to represent the organization of this text. Using a graphic organizer is an effective strategy for visually representing the structure of the text. The teacher describes aloud that in her mind she is picturing a circle at the center of the graphic organizer and placing the title or topic of the book in the circle at the center. If necessary, the teacher can physically draw on the whiteboard what she is picturing in her mind for students to see. 6. The teacher describes drawing four lines from the center circle with the title of the book outward to another circle placed at the end of each of the four lines. Then she pictures putting in these four circles at the ends of the lines the major four ideas in the book. 7. Now that the teacher has a mental image or a physical graphic organizer on the whiteboard, she reads the text aloud and records mentally or on the whiteboard the details about each of the four main ideas in this informational book. For example, under the major idea of measurement tools, she describes learning that people use different tools to measure length, weight, and volume of objects in our world. For measuring length, she learned about rulers, yardsticks, and measuring tapes. For measuring small objects, she learned about using a ruler, for larger objects a yardstick, and for really large objects a measuring tape. 8. She finishes up the lesson by reading aloud the next two sections of the book and making note in her mind or on the graphic organizer what she learned about which tools are used to measure weight and volume.
344 Chapter 9 9. The teacher rehearses her retelling by thinking aloud about what was placed into the graphic organizer to help her organize and remember what she read. 10. Once she feels confident that she has all of the information organized and complete for retelling, she puts away the book and any written graphic organizers to give her retelling of the book to the class. 11. Having modeled this process, the teacher subsequently engages students in a gradual release of responsibility model using other informational texts to guide students’ practice in thinking about and giving oral retellings of informational texts.
Multiple Strategy Instruction Reciprocal Teaching Age Range: 5–12 Standard: CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.K.1-9 through CCSS.-ELA-Literacy.RI.51-9: Key Ideas and Details, Craft and Structure, Integration of Knowledge and Ideas PURPOSE Palincsar and Brown (1985) designed and evaluated an approach for improving the reading comprehension and comprehension monitoring of students with special needs who scored two years below grade level on standardized tests of reading comprehension. Their results suggested a teaching strategy called reciprocal teaching that is useful for helping students who have difficulties with comprehension and comprehension monitoring, as well as those who are learning English (Casanave, 1988; Johnson-Glenberg, 2000; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). Although reciprocal teaching was originally intended for use with expository text, we can see no reason why this intervention strategy cannot be used with narrative texts by focusing discussion and reading on the major elements of stories. MATERIALS
• A trade book, basal reader, or textbook selection • A poster displaying the four comprehension strategies and what they mean: predicting, questioning, summarizing, and clarifying PROCEDURE Essentially, this multiple-strategy lesson requires that teachers and students exchange roles, which is intended to increase student involvement in the lesson. The reciprocal teaching lesson comprises four phases or steps (Meyers, 2005; Oczkus, 2004):
1. Prediction. Students predict from the title and pictures the possible content of the text. The teacher records the predictions. 2. Question generation. Students generate purpose questions after reading a predetermined segment of the text, such as a paragraph, page, or section. 3. Summarizing. Students write a brief summary (see previous section) for the text by starting with “This paragraph was about . . . ” Summarizing helps students capture the gist of the text. 4. Clarifying. Students and teacher discuss various reasons a text may be hard or confusing, such as difficult vocabulary, poor text organization, unfamiliar content, or lack of cohesion. Students are then instructed in a variety of comprehension fix-up or repair strategies. When teachers have modeled this process with several segments of text, the teacher assigns one of the students (preferably a good student) to assume the role of teacher for
Teaching with Informational Texts 345
the next segment of text. The teacher may also, while acting in the student role, provide appropriate prompts and feedback when necessary. When the next segment of text is completed, the “teacher” assigns another student to assume that role. Teachers who use reciprocal teaching to help students with comprehension difficulties should follow four simple guidelines suggested by Palincsar and Brown (1985). 1. Assess student difficulties and provide reading materials appropriate to students’ decoding abilities. 2. Use reciprocal teaching for at least 30 minutes a day for 15 to 20 consecutive days. 3. Model frequently and provide corrective feedback. 4. Monitor student progress regularly and individually to determine whether the instruction is having the intended effect. Palincsar and Brown reported positive results for this intervention procedure by demonstrating dramatic changes in students’ ineffective reading behaviors. Other research has demonstrated the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching with a variety of students (Casanave, 1988; Johnson-Glenberg, 2000; Kelly, Moore, & Tuck, 1994; King & Parent-Johnson, 1999; Pressley & Wharton-McDonald, 1997; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994).
Figure 9.28 Concept Oriented Reading Instruction Part I: Observe and Personalize 1. Hands-on experiences 2. Relate hands-on experience to prior experiences 3. Teacher-led discussion 4. Form theories 5. Generate questions for further study Part II: Search and Retrieve Teacher introduces search strategies for finding answers to their questions . . . 1. Goal setting (what they want to learn) 2. Categorizing (learning how information is organized and presented in books and how to find information in the library or on the Internet) 3. Extracting (taking notes, summarizing, and paraphrasing information) 4. Abstracting (forming generalizations) Part III: Comprehend and Integrate Teacher modeling and students’ discussions about . . . 1. Comprehension monitoring (metacognition) 2. Developing images or graphics 3. Rereading to clarify 4. Modifying reading rate to match purpose and varying text types 5. Identification of central ideas and supporting details Part IV: Communication Communication of new knowledge through such media as . . . Debates Discussions Written reports Technology (e.g., Microsoft PowerPoint presentations) Poetry Dramas Raps or songs Graphic illustrations
346 Chapter 9 To add more fun to reciprocal teaching, try assigning characters to each strategy, such as Clara the Clarifier, Sammy the Summarizer, Paula the Predictor, or Quincy the Questioner (Meyers, 2005; Ockzus, 2004). Ockzus (2004) demonstrates how one can dress up using different costumes to assume the roles of each of the four strategy characters in a DVD that accompanies the book cited. More recently, Ockzus (2004) has made reciprocal teaching strategy character puppets available for teaching students in engaging ways.
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction Age Range: 7–12 Standard: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.K.1-3,7-9 through CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.5.1-3,7-9: Key Ideas and Details, Integration of Knowledge and Ideas PURPOSE Guthrie et al. (1996) researched a teaching framework called concept-oriented reading instruction (CORI), designed to improve students’ learning in science. Easily applied to other content areas, CORI helps students become deeply engaged in new content, helps students crystallize and connect new knowledge to what is already known, and shows students how to demonstrate their learning in some interesting ways. The direct-instruction components of CORI have also been shown to be effective with low-achieving students in grades 3 and 5 (Guthrie et al., 1996; Swafford & Bryan, 2000). CORI provides a sound basic platform for teaching and learning in the content areas that can be modified to suit your instructional goals. MATERIALS
• Subject-linked textbooks • Materials for the writing process • Computer with Internet access • Other research tools usually available in the school library or media center It is a little difficult to generalize a specific list of materials for CORI (because that depends heavily on the subject area, content to be studied, and available texts for instruction, which you will see as we move through our description), so the preceding list of materials may have to be adjusted in different cases. PROCEDURE The CORI framework includes the following: real-world observations, conceptual themes, self-directed learning, explicit instruction on strategies, peer collaboration, and self-expression of learning. The instructional model can be described as a four-part process (see Figure 9.28).
1. Part I: Observe and personalize. Students are led through hands-on experiences designed to activate their prior knowledge relating to the new topic and to motivate them to want to know more. After the hands-on experiences, the teacher leads students through a discussion about what they observed and helps them to form theories and generate questions for further study. The teacher-led discussion can help students move from concrete-only thinking into the more sophisticated forms of abstract thinking. 2. Part II: Search and retrieve. In this stage, the teacher introduces search strategies for finding answers to students’ questions. For each search strategy, the teacher provides a clear description, models using the strategy, and leads practice sessions (guided practice) and collaborative group work. Strategies to be learned include goal setting (what they want to learn), categorizing (learning how information is organized and presented in books and learning how to find information in the library or on the Internet), extracting (taking notes, summarizing, and paraphrasing information), and abstracting (forming generalizations).
Teaching with Informational Texts 347
3. Part III: Comprehend and integrate. To help students better understand the new information they have gathered in Part II, the teacher models and the students discuss the strategies of comprehension monitoring (metacognition), developing images or graphics, rereading to clarify, and modifying reading rate to match purpose and varying text types. Identification of central ideas and supporting details is also a priority in this stage of instruction. Guthrie et al. (1996) recommend the use of idea circles (student-led, small-group discussions) and group self-monitoring as ways to transfer learning responsibility to students, leading to more productive discussions. This is especially useful when they discover information that is conflicting or that contradicts their earlier hypotheses. 4. Part IV: Communicate. The communication phase of CORI focuses on students sharing what they have learned. They often communicate their new understandings through debates, discussions, or written reports. Some students prefer more creative expressions such as PowerPoint presentations, poetry, dramas, raps, songs, or graphic illustrations. As with the other phases of CORI, teacher support and modeling are critical in helping students develop effective communication skills to present their new knowledge and strengthen their social development (Swafford & Bryan, 2000). The elements of content-oriented reading instruction (CORI) are summarized in Figure 9.28.
English Language Learners Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol Age Range: 5–12 Standard: Core State Standards: English Language Learners (http://www.corestandards. org/assets/application-for-english-learners.pdf) Application of Common Core Standards for English Language Learners: Coursework that prepares ELLs for postsecondary education or the workplace, yet is made comprehensible for students learning content in a second language (through specific pedagogical techniques and additional resources). See www.corestandards.org/assets/application-for-english-learners.pdf. PURPOSE The Sheltered Instructions Observation Protocol (SIOP) model is among the most widely disseminated, researched, and used models for teaching informational literacy to ELLs in the United States today. Although a complete description of this model is well beyond the scope of this text, we strongly recommend that interested readers obtain a copy of Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP® Model, fourth edition, by Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2013), or go to www.cal.org and search for information about the SIOP model. We will confine our discussion of the SIOP model to information related to lesson planning since this is most pertinent to a chapter devoted to providing reading instructional strategies. Planning effective lessons for ELLs is at the center of providing effective reading instruction for the diverse students found in many U.S. classrooms today. According to Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2013), the SIOP model for lesson planning addresses six features:
1. Write, display, and review with students the clearly defined content objectives. 2. Write, display, and review with students the clearly defined language objectives. 3. Consider age and educational-background appropriateness of content concepts to be taught.
348 Chapter 9 4. Use ample supplementary materials to make the lesson clear and meaningful. 5. Adapt the content to varying levels of student proficiency in the classroom. 6. Plan meaningful activities that integrate lesson concepts for reading, writing, listening, and/or speaking. Content and language objectives are typically written to express in very concrete, explicit ways the teaching and learning of content concepts and language skills that will occur within the lesson. Content and language objectives are often drawn from referencing state or national standards. In today’s CCSS teaching and assessment environment, content and language standards would do well to be clearly related to achieving or drawing from one or more standards found in the English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science and Technical subjects or the Mathematics Common Core Standards. After writing, posting, and discussing the content and language objectives for students, the teacher should consider the content concepts he or she is planning to teach and how the students’ first language literacy, English language proficiency, schooling backgrounds, background knowledge of the concept, availability of age and culturally appropriate instructional materials, and the text complexity of the informational texts to be read affect the reading performance of ELLs. Lessons need to be planned that provide additional supports and adaptation of available materials to help students be able to grasp grade level–appropriate curriculum concepts. Using supplementary materials such as manipulatives, realia, pictures, video, photographs, graphic organizers, charts, demonstrations, simpler trade books read aloud on the same topic or concept, lower text difficulty or complexity trade books on the same topic or concept, chapter summaries, or definitions of unfamiliar vocabulary terms can effectively support ELLs’ informational literacy and knowledge acquisition. Rewriting complicated texts using shorter, simpler sentences, bolded vocabulary terms and definitions, explanations, and examples of unfamiliar concepts can make what is inaccessible content accessible. Finally, teachers integrate informational concept lessons using the multiple language modalities of listening, viewing, speaking, reading, and writing. Lessons that integrate the use of these language modalities provide intended repetition and practice of the conceptual knowledge to be acquired and the language elements that support that acquisition. We now turn our attention to the process of writing a SIOP informational text lesson plan to support ELLs in the classroom. MATERIALS
• An informational book on a grade level–-appropriate content standard • Copies of Common Core State Standards in Mathematics, English Language Arts, and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects • Computer or writing materials for lesson planning • Access to the Internet • Access to a word processing program and printer PROCEDURE
1. Identify a content standard using the set of Common Core State Standards and state-level content or subject area learning standards. The information book The Restless Earth by M. Berger (1995) has a Lexile level of 900. This places this book at the high end of fourth grade and the low end of fifth grade for text complexity. Consequently, given the text complexity level of the informational text selected, we consult the fifth grade–level CCSS and the state-level content learning standards to frame our content and language objectives. The content to be learned in this book is about the geological structure of the Earth’s interior and how geological forces,
Teaching with Informational Texts 349
specifically plate tectonics, change the Earth’s surface or crust. An appropriate fifth grade–level literacy CCSS anchor standard for “craft and structure” for this book would be: “Determine the meaning of general academic and domain-specific words and phrases in a text relevant to a grade 5 topic or subject area.” We will draw from this CCSS standard to write our language objective. 2. To begin the writing of the content objective, we use two acronyms, SW and SWBAT, recommended for writing SIOP content or language objectives. These acronyms stand for “students will” or “students will be able to.” To write content objectives, begin by stating specifically the content or concepts the students will learn; for example, “Students will learn the names of and understand the geological forces in nature that change the Earth’s surface.” 3. Next, write a language objective by stating specifically what language modes and/ or skills will be used in the lesson: “Using domain specific vocabulary words, students will be able to explain the relationship between geological forces of nature and changes in the Earth’s surface.” 4. These two objectives, one content, the other language, should be written, displayed, and reviewed with the students prior to teaching the SIOP lesson or reading the informational text, The Restless Earth. 5. To present these objectives to students, you may want to ask the students to underline the key ideas in the objectives: “Students will learn the names of and understand the geological forces in nature that change the Earth’s surface” and “Using domain specific vocabulary words, students will be able to explain the relationship between the geological forces of nature that cause changes in the Earth’s surface.” 6. Students could turn to a neighbor and discuss some of the things they will be looking for in the book when they read it. 7. After this, the teacher may show a 3-D globe cut-away model of the Earth showing its crust, mantle, and core to increase comprehensibility of the content. 8. This could be followed by a brief viewing of a YouTube video that describes the crust, mantle, and core of the Earth, such as “Layers of the Earth—What is the Earth made up of?” from the MocomiKids YouTube channel. 9. Next, the teacher could show a simple computer-projected photo of the Earth’s structure and with the parts of the structure labeled, taken from a Google image search using the search terms “Earth’s layers.”
Figure 9.29 SIOP Lesson Example Display Academic Vocabulary Word List • magma • lava • glacier • iceberg
Academic Word Maps
Magnitude Richter Scale Mercalli Scale
California Chile Cuba Rocky Mountains
• plates • volcano • erupt • rubble
Earthquake
• fault lines • earthquake • tsunami • fold mountains • geyser • erosion • weathering
Crust Epicenter Seismic Fault line
Get under a table Water storage Emergency plan
Steam Eruption Spout Hot springs Gas Minerals
Yellowstone Iceland Russia Chile New Zealand
Geyser
Old Faithful Morning Glory Pool Castle Stokkur
350 Chapter 9 10. Students could then be asked to come up and point to and name the layers of the Earth’s structure. The words crust, mantle, and core could be orally chanted three times as the teacher taps on the parts of the Earth’s structure pictured in the projected photo. 11. To conclude this part of the lesson, the teacher could show another photo without the labels included. 12. Students could then be asked to write the appropriate words, crust, mantle, and core, for the part of the Earth’s structure the teacher pointed to and respond chorally. Through this activity, students would gain experience writing, saying, and reading the vocabulary words associated with the structure of the Earth. 13. The next part of the lesson involves the students in reading the book. A jigsaw text reading is assigned in which students in the class are divided into several groups of eight. 14. Each student is assigned to read two pages of the book The Restless Earth and locate one or more new vocabulary words they read on their two pages (e.g., magma, lava, glacier, iceberg, plates, volcano, erupt, rubble, fault lines, earthquake, tsunami, fold mountains, geyser, erosion, weathering). 15. Once all students have finished reading their two pages, they come together in groups of eight readers and together make a list to share with the whole class of words they found. 16. After all groups of eight share their word lists with the whole class, a single class list of vocabulary words is created and displayed by the teacher on a whiteboard or bulletin board in the classroom. 17. After this planned learning activity is completed, students are assigned to work in pairs to complete a word detective map for one assigned vocabulary word on the class list, as suggested earlier in this chapter. 18. A bulletin board can be created by adding each pair’s completed academic word map around the class vocabulary word list, like the one in shown Figure 9.29. 19. To check on students’ learning and achievement of the objectives, the teacher gives them a vocabulary matching sort task to complete with the meanings of vocabulary words in one small plastic bag and the vocabulary words in another. Students match these up and, using glue sticks, place the matching pairs of vocabulary words and their meanings on a paper to be handed in to the teacher.
Collaborative Strategic Reading: Helping Students Who Struggle Age Range: 5–12 Standards: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Application of Common Core Standards to Students with Disabilities: Instructional supports for learning—based on the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)—which foster student engagement by presenting information in multiple ways and allowing for diverse avenues of action and expression. See http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-to-students-with-disabilities.pdf. PURPOSE Collaborative strategic reading (CSR) is an instructional framework designed to help students who struggle with learning disabilities that place them at risk for failing to understand concepts and information found in content texts and textbooks (Laing & Dole, 2006; Vaughn, Klingner, & Bryant, 2001). In CSR, the teacher teaches four specific comprehension strategies students can use with all the informational and expository texts they read. The purpose of a CSR lesson is on developing routines and procedures with struggling students for understanding any expository text they read.
Teaching with Informational Texts 351
MATERIALS
• Four comprehension cards with picture icons • An informational text or a textbook chapter in a content area such as science or social studies • Student CSR reading log • Fix-up cards PROCEDURE
1. To begin, the teacher introduces CSR by teaching it to the whole class. Through modeling and think-alouds, the teacher shows students how each of the four key comprehension strategies is used (Laing & Dole, 2006). 2. Students are then grouped into cooperative learning groups in which they move through the use of four CSR cards, based on four key comprehension strategies: (1) preview, (2) monitoring, (3) get the gist, and (4) wrap up. 3. When using the preview card, students look for key features of the text such as headings, diagrams and insets, and bolded words and brainstorm what they already know about the topic. 4. As students preview, they predict or ask questions about what they will learn when they read. 5. Students can use learning logs to record their predictions, questions, and answers generated during the preview. 6. When using the monitoring card, students read a passage from the text looking for clicks and clunks, as described previously. They can use prompts or fix-up strategies shown on a clunk card for figuring out the meaning of the misunderstood word or concept. 7. After reading a passage, students use the get the gist card to determine and record in their logs the most important ideas in the passage. 8. The entire process is repeated with each passage of a text until the entire informational text or content-area textbook chapter is completed. 9. A wrap-up card is then used to help them generate a list of questions and answers that show they understand the most important information in the text. 10. Eventually students can be divided into small mixed-ability groups to practice collaboratively using the four comprehension strategies during reading. The teachers will monitor the CSR groups and provide ongoing assistance as needed.
Chapter 10
Extending our Reach: Summer Learning Loss, Family Involvement, and Professional Learning Communities We have had the opportunity to lead district-wide reading projects in major urban school districts as well as in rural settings. In one such project, only 25 percent of all third grade children in the school district were reading on or above the expected reading level. Said another way, the school district had a 75 percent “failure rate” in teaching children to read proficiently by the end of third grade. That is an important indicator because most children not reading on grade level by third grade tend to grow further behind over the years resulting in increasingly poor academic learning and contributing mightily to the drop out rate. Determined to improve reading achievement in their city, a magnificent collaboration between citizens groups, corporate CEOs, charitable foundations, parent groups, politicians, and many stakeholders created a major initiative to increase the 1) effectiveness of reading instruction practices for teachers in grades 1 through 3; 2) knowledge of principals and other teacher leaders to support reading instruction in their schools; and 3) involvement of parents and community stakeholders in helping all children to succeed in learning to read. One day the director of this effort was invited to visit with a philanthropist (we will call him “Mr. O”) who had donated more than $10 million to the effort. Given that this was such an important contributor to the effort, the project director naturally accepted the invitation and came prepared with a detailed progress report. After listening patiently for several minutes while the project director gave his report, Mr. O held up a finger and said, “This all sounds good, but I have just one question. What is the one thing that really matters?” The project director was a little flummoxed by the question since Mr. O was, in a sense, asking him to guess what the donor was thinking. But in a moment of clarity the director responded, “Mr. O, the only thing that really matters is how the kids are doing. If we do all these things to help teachers and principals be more effective in helping children learn to read but they fail to improve, then it will all be for naught.” Mr. O smiled and leaning back in his chair said, “Quite right. The only thing that really matters is how the kids are doing.”
352
Extending our Reach: Summer Learning Loss, Family Involvement, and Professional Learning Communities 353
How are the Kids Doing? Around 1969 the United States Congress approved funding for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP uses standardized, digitally-based assessments as a kind of “common yardstick” to reliably evaluate how students in America are doing the areas of reading, mathematics, science, writing, the arts, history and other academic areas. The reports are called The Nation’s Report Card for each subject or skill area. For the area of reading, students are tested at grades 4, 8, and 12. With the release of the latest Nation’s Report Card on reading (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2018) one thing is certain: when it comes to reading ability, our kids are not doing well at all. In Table 10.1 we present a partial summary of reading proficiency levels at grade 4. We limit this analysis to grade 4 since the reports for grades 8 and 12 are quite similar except not as positive. We compare NAEP results for several major school districts in the United States in several ways: • The overall percentage of children reading at or above grade level in the school district as compared to the national average of 36 percent of all children in the U.S. reading proficiently • The “failure rate” is the percentage of children not learning to read proficiently by fourth grade • Percentage of children reading at or above level who are living in poverty • Percentages for several racial groups • Achievement gap (percentage difference of the success rate of Black and Hispanic students compared to White students) These NAEP data paint a stark and troubling image. Simply put, the vast majority students in U.S. public schools are not learning to become fully proficient readers. By the way, these reading proficiency levels have essentially stayed the same for more than 20 years. Even the most effective large school districts (MiamiDade, Charlotte, Atlanta, San Diego) have staggering failure rates of 58%, 60%, and 63% respectively. To compound the problem, there is a persistent achievement gap for children from several groups—those from poverty circumstances, African American (Black) students, and Hispanic students—whose average reading proficiency level is only a fraction of that achieved by their White and Asian counterparts. Specifically, about one in five Black students and one in four Hispanic students are learning to read proficiently by fourth grade in many school districts. The negative impact of an illiterate citizenry on society cannot be overstated. Indeed, the Founders of our country believed that a literate and informed electorate was necessary to preserve and protect our way of life.
A Call to Action Change is needed if we as educators are to succeed in giving more children the gift of literacy. This book has focused on evidence-based practices that can help you be more effective as a reading teacher. But there are some other things we can do to increase our reach beyond our own classrooms. In this final chapter we depart from the organization of earlier chapters that were focused on research-proven practices, and turn our attention on ways you can be an effective literacy leader in improving reading in your school. We specifically discuss important interventions for your consideration that can dramatically improve reading development year-round: organizing professional learning communities in your school, ways to reverse summer learning loss, and ideas for helping families assist their child in becoming a better reader.
36%
40%
27%
28%
15%
19%
20%
35%
23%
42%
29%
37%
17%
Atlanta
Charlotte
Chicago
Clark Co. (NV)
Dallas
Fort Worth
Houston
Jefferson Co. (KY)
Los Angeles
Miami- Dade
New York City
San Diego
Shelby Co. (TN)
83%
63%
71%
58%
77%
65%
80%
81%
85%
72%
73%
60%
64%
64%
Failure Rate: Overall (Percent of Students Not Reading on Grade Level)
11% (89% failure rate)
25%(75% failure rate)
23%(77% failure rate)
34%(66% failure rate)
17% (83% failure rate)
25%(75% failure rate)
13%(87% failure rate)
14%(86% failure rate)
13% (87% failure rate)
21% (79% failure rate)
19% (81% failure rate)
20% (80% failure rate)
15% (85% failure rate)
Poverty Level** Students: 4th Grade Reading (All Races)
45%
62%
49%
64%
51%
51%
58%
49%
I.D.
43%
58%
69%
73%
4th Grade Reading – White
11%
21%
17%
29%
13%
16%
10%
13%
10%
18%
16%
27
17%
4th Grade Reading – Black
21%
22%
20%
43%
16%
27%
16%
15%
15%
21%
24%
24%
19%
4th Grade Reading – Hispanic
—
52%
45%
—
59%
—
61%
—
—
50%
50%
61%
—
4th Grade Reading – Asian
—
14%
—
—
I.D.
46%
—
—
—
34%
—
—
—
4th Grade Reading – 2+ Races
34% 24%
41% 40%
32% 29%
35% 21%
38% 35%
35% 24%
48% 42%
36% 34%
Not applicable
25% 22%
42% 34%
42% 45%
56% 54%
Achievement Gap Size: White v. Black White v. Hispanic
SOURCE: National Assessment of Educational Progress: 2017 NAEP Reading Report Card https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2017/#/?grade=8 * At or above grade level reading defined using NAEP definitions for “Proficient” and “Advanced Levels” combined. ** = Students eligible for the National School Lunch Program
36%
Nation
Overall/ All Racial Groups 4th Grade Reading
Table 10.1 2017 National/School District Comparisons & Failure Rates: Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Reading at or Above Grade Level* by Selected Races
354 Chapter 10
Extending our Reach: Summer Learning Loss, Family Involvement, and Professional Learning Communities 355
Professional Learning Communities As with medicine and other professions, teachers and school leaders have at least one thing in common: no matter how talented you may be, all educators will arrive at an “effectiveness plateau” and stay there unless there is continuous learning and practice. Professional learning communities are one way for teachers to continually improve their practice. In terms of literacy education, professional learning communities (PLCs) may be defined as groups of educators who come together for shared learning, enriched discussion, and strategic planning about teaching and learning issues affecting student learning. PLCs are not the same thing as grade-level planning. When implemented with rigor and administrative support, PLCs can serve as an effective job-embedded professional development strategy leading to improved students’ reading outcomes in urban and rural schools (Bates & Morgan, 2018; Williams, 2012).
What Effective PLCs Look Like Though they make vary in terms of how they are structured, there seems to be several common characteristics of effective PLCs in literacy education according to research (Satterfield, 2014; Smith, 2012; Stahl, 2015; Thoma, Hutchison, D. Johnson, K. Johnson & Stromer, 2017). 1. Literacy-focused PLCs share a common focus: improvement of student learning. PLC members use reliable student data across grade levels to identify student needs, establish learning goals and strategies, and to monitor the effectiveness of interventions. Agreement on clear learning targets is critical. 2. Studying evidence-based research to increase professional knowledge. PLC groups typically discuss assigned readings about new innovations in literacy education supported by the research. This may take the form of a book study, review of new commercially available materials using respected resources like What Works Clearinghouse (https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/), or selected journal articles. Suggestions for books and journal articles may come from the group, or an outside source such as a university professor knowledgeable about the focus area. 3. PLC meetings are held regularly over time (virtually and/or face-to-face). It is important that there is agreement as to how often the PLC members will meet and for how long. The duration of a particular PLC project should be long enough so as to allow for formative assessments to be conducted and adjustments made to strategies to maximize the potential impact on student learning. Some PLCs meet only a couple of times each month, while others meet weekly. The group should choose a discussion leader to keep things on track and an agenda. This could be one of the teachers, a literacy coach, or an outside facilitator. Some after-hours sessions may be held virtually using chat rooms, Twitter, Skype or other technologies. 4. PLCs must have administrative support to work. One thing that can derail a PLC is for teachers to feel that this is just “one more burden for teachers to bear” without support from the principal or school district. Teachers should be allowed time “on the clock” for their meetings during the school day, or compensated for after hours work. Compensation for after hours work may take the form of credit toward required inservice hours, a cash stipend at the end of the year, etc. Teachers should also be supported in the effort with professional development on ways to organize and participate in PLCs. 5. Group norms should be established for PLC meetings. Establishing group norms can help teachers avoid some of the things they tend to hate about meetings such as one person dominating the conversation, some not participating, and so forth.
356 Chapter 10 However, you also want to avoid a “rule book” approach by having too many norms. In Figure 10.1 are some group norms we have found to be effective in our work with teachers. Issue a final report for each project to the principal or administration and stakeholders. In this way you will be able to inform school leaders and others as to ongoing student needs, research-based solutions you have used, and data showing student growth and plans for next steps.
Addressing Summer Learning Loss Why American Schools Have Summer Vacation There is a myth in American culture that summer vacation for school children was created in the 19th Century so that they could help work their family farms. As it happens, however, this is almost completely untrue (Cooper, Borman, & Fairchild, 2010; de Melker & Weber, 2014). Even former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is reported to have stated that the long summer break is based on an agrarian economy. If you think about it, children would have been needed most during planting season in the spring, and for harvest in the fall. In reality, many children attended school in the summer when they were needed less on the farm. It is far more likely that summer breaks were placed on the school calendar by wealthy and middle-class school board members and their constituents who liked to retreat from the city heat during summer months and vacation in cooler climes (Gold, 2002). In the 19th Century when public schools came into being, the school year was much longer. For example New York City in 1842 had a school year lasting 248 days—that’s 68 more days (about 14 weeks) than the 180-day school year calendar in most states. In those days attendance was not compulsory, but children came as often as they could (de Melker & Weber, 2014). School reformers near the end of the 1900s began calling for a standardized school calendar that would provide time for teachers to train and to give students a break. Summer seemed the logical time and the modern school calendar was created. Unfortunately, no consideration was apparently given to the potential impact of a 14-week break on student achievement.
What’s Wrong With Summer Vacation? Several things. Years of research going back as far as 1906 documents that students experience a substantial loss of academic skills over the vacation months, sometimes called the summer learning loss or summer setback (e.g., Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2013; Bowers & Schwarz, 2018). Research has also verified time and again that lowincome students suffer a greater loss that middle- or higher income peers—about threemonths every summer regardless of gender or race (Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay, &
Figure 10.1 Example of Group Norms for PLCs In our Professional Learning Community, we will work together as a community of scholars. To that end, I agree to the following group norms: • I seek equity of voice so everyone is heard. • I am willing to discuss sensitive issues in a professional manner. • I listen for understanding and am fully present. • I appreciate the strengths and contributions of other PLC members. • I bring positive energy to our discussions. • If I have an issue, I will take it to the source.
Extending our Reach: Summer Learning Loss, Family Involvement, and Professional Learning Communities 357
Greathouse, 1996; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2018) and contributes mightily to the so-called achievement gap. The achievement gap refers to differences in academic performance between groups of kids based on family income, race, or some other characteristic; and more than half of the achievement gap between lower- and higher-income youths can be explained by unequal access to summer learning opportunities (Cooper, Borman, & Fairchild, 2010). On average, all students regardless of income level lose about two months each summer in reading, and nearly the same amount (1.8 months) in mathematics (K.S. Cooter, 2018). Over time, this summer learning loss can and often does result in an estimated three-year learning loss in reading by the end of grade 5 for low-income students (Allington, McGill-Franzen, Camilli, Williams, Graff, et al., 2010; Cooper, Borman, & Fairchild, 2010). In addition, summer learning loss appears to be worse for high-achieving Black students than high achieving White students (McCall, Hauser, C., Cronin, Kingsbury, & Houser, R., 2006; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2018). There are several negative outcomes when students go without summer learning opportunities. Each summer at-risk students fall farther behind and have difficulty closing the gap during the school year. Since at-risk students start out behind each fall, teachers are unable to start introducing new content right away. Over time, students who have fallen behind due to accumulated summer learning losses may not be able to attend college, a trade school, or even complete high school. In a study done in Baltimore, Maryland, students from all backgrounds showed similar academic gains during the school year; however, the achievement gap between low-income and higher-income students widened due to losses during the summer months and unequal access to summer learning programs. Out of the sample group studied, just 7% of the low-income students went on to attended a 4-year college, compared to 60% of the higher-income students (Cooper, Borman, & Fairchild, 2010).
Why Low-Income Students Suffer More Summer Learning Loss Put simply, parents with more financial resources are more likely to be able to afford to enroll their children in summer camps and educational programs. They also tend to have the academic knowledge and ability to provide their children with supplemental educational support at home such as reading aloud to their children. Though low-income parents want their children to learn just as much as higher-income parents do, they often lack the ability, time and/or means to help them be successful in school or provide summer learning experiences or the high quality day care their children deserve. Later in this chapter several strategies parents can use to help their children become better readers even if they themselves are not fully literate will be discussed.
Why Preventing Summer Learning Loss Is Difficult In America Summer learning loss is a persistent problem that could be reversed if the school year were increased by about six weeks, but a lack of political will and cost factors keep this detrimental tradition in place in spite of student needs. Before turning our attention to some possible remedies for summer learning loss, let’s consider some of the obstacles that must be overcome in the event you decide to plan summer learning opportunities. Some of these are especially problematic for low-income and single parent families, as well as families where both parents work. • Cost Issues. For many families on tight budgets, paying for a summer learning experience for their children is simply not possible. Museum events, zoos, and summer
358 Chapter 10 learning camps are all beyond the financial reach of millions of families due to cost. Thus, if you decide to plan a summer learning program, make sure to seek external funding for food, materials, and staff costs so that some kids are not left behind. • Access. According to research reported by the National Summer Learning Association (NSLA), more than half (51%) of families say they would have their children participate in a summer learning program if one were available to them. • Transportation Issues. A number of cities have science and museum camps led by highly trained staff at their facilities. That is a terrific opportunity for families where a parent or caregiver is able to transport the child to and from the summer camp, or if the child is old enough to take public transportation (assuming that is available). But for many lower income families, transportation is not an option and these students miss out unless we address the issue. • Language Barriers for English Learners. Many schools have parents who are English learners (EL) and may need assistance in communicating with the teacher. • Trained Staff. A summer program is only as good as the staff that works with the children. Effective programs typically involve experienced teachers who have been trained to offer the special learning experiences, or other professional staff with extensive training (Bowers & Schwarz, 2018). However, finding experienced teachers to staff these programs and the funds to pay them can a serious challenge for most communities (Cooper, Charlton, Valentine, & Muhlenbruck, 2000). • High-quality, evidence-based programming. Just as it is true for school-based curriculums, effective summer programs must use evidence-based teaching strategies. Frankly, there is a number of reading, mathematics, and writing programs on the market that look nice and may be expensive, but are not effective. When considering instructional components for a summer program, be sure to consult resources like What Works Clearinghouse (https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/) to make sure there is research evidence of their effectiveness.
Ways To Reverse Summer Learning Loss Effective summer reading programs seem to two things in common if they are reverse the effects of summer learning loss (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2013; Lindsay, 2013): 1) students are engaged in reading books of interest and on their reading level at least 30-minutes each day, and 2) children must have easy “fingertip” access to engaging books, magazines, eBooks, or other reading materials. These two essential ingredients are present in the strategies and resources that follow.
Summer Programs Sponsored by Public Libraries Each summer, public libraries host the largest summer reading programs in the United States and Canada to help prevent loss of reading skills. Here are a few examples. • Summer Reading PLUS is an effort recommended by the Urban Libraries Council (www.urbanlibraries.org) and the National Summer Learning Association (NSLA) that pairs inquiry-based learning activities with incentive based summer reading programs so that students are doing as well as reading. Denver, Ottawa, San Francisco and St. Paul public libraries all have versions of Summer Reading PLUS that you may want to explore online as well as consider use some of their free tools. • Skill-based Drop-in Learning Activities are typically five- or six-week summer camps offered by public libraries designed to help students gain academic and 21st Century skills such as working in teams, problem-solving, and experimentation.
Extending our Reach: Summer Learning Loss, Family Involvement, and Professional Learning Communities 359
Camps can be effective in attacking summer learning loss if students are actively engaged in books of interest for at least 30 minutes each day (Garst & Ozier, 2015). Some examples you may wish to investigate are Chicago Public Library’s collaboration with the Museum of Science and Industry to offer STEM focused activities, and Fort Worth Library’s “Worth Reading” project to stimulate year-round reading. • National Summer Learning Association (NSLA) is a non-profit organization whose primary goal is to close the achievement gap by investing in research-based summer programs. Their website offers many resources for your consideration: http://www.summerlearning.org/
Summer Programs and Resources Sponsored by Non-Profit Organizations There are numerous summer learning efforts sponsored by non-profit organizations that help families and teachers identify programs for children. Some, like the National Center for Families Learning (NCFL) provide resources for starting your own summer program. • National Center for Families Learning (NCFL)- Supported in part by Toyota, this organization’s primary goal is the eradication of poverty through education solutions for families. Their website (http://www.familieslearning.org) provides many tools for educators and families such as online interactive tools. These include games, a comprehensive toolkit of educational resources for Spanish-speaking families, Foto-Novelas, summer fun tips, and much more. Wonderopolis® is one of NCFL’s flagship resources first launched in 2010 and has had more than 45 million visitors since that time. It is available free online at: https://wonderopolis.org and includes more than 2,000 Wonders of the Day covering a wide range of engaging topics. Also provided by NCFL are ideas for starting your own summer learning project, as well as tips for parents on ways they can help their children continue learning. Here are a few of the tips they provide families online at: http://familieslearning. org/our-solutions/summer-fun-tips.html 1. Tie family outings to books. Create an activity around a book that you read with your child. Have the child look at the pictures and tell the story in his or her own words or create a song about the book. Then, follow up with a related outing. If the book is about animals, take a trip to the zoo or the park . . . 2. Ask your children to illustrate stories and engage them in dialogue about their artwork. Keep an album of their artwork so the family can continue to talk about it and so children can see their progress. 3. Take advantage of the warm weather and grow a garden together. You don’t need a large space — even a window garden will suffice. Pick flowers or vegetables that will grow quickly so children can see fast progress. 4. Bring science home by borrowing science experiment books from the library and then trying them together. Pick some that take advantage of the warm weather. • Wallace Foundation & RAND Education- The Wallace Foundation (WF) (www. wallacefoundation.org) sponsors research into ways education can be improved for all children. Their many projects include research and dissemination of evidencebased best practices for improving the principal and assistant principal pipeline, quality arts programs for kids, and information for summer learning program developers. This includes WF’s guide for recruiting children to summer programs available free online at: http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/ summer-learning/recruitment/pages/default.aspx
360 Chapter 10 RAND Education partnered with Wallace Foundation to provide objective data for the improvement of education policies, programs, and practices related to effective summer learning programs. Two summer learning research reports are available for download online as free eBooks: McCombs, Augustine, Schwartz, Bodilly, McInnis, et al. (2011). Making Summer Count: How Summer Programs Can Boost Children’s Learning available at https:// www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1120.html • Augustine, McCombs, Schwartz, & Zakaras. (2013). Getting to Work on Summer Learning: Recommended Practices for Success available at https://www.rand.org/ pubs/research_reports/RR366.html • The Campaign for Grade Level Reading-This organization (http://gradelevelreading.net/) has as one of its primary goals getting all children reading on grade level by the end of grade 3 since it is one of the best predictors oh high school graduation and career success. Their many free resources and online links include technology resources for successful parenting such as: • Pioneering Literacy in the Digital Wild West: Empowering Parents and Educators (monograph available for download) • Storytime Online (http://daybydayid.org) • Comienza en Casa (It Starts At Home)- Resources for assisting parents and teachers having children who are English Learners (EL): https://www.manomaine.org/comienza-en-casa-resources • Reading is Fundamental (RIF)- First established in 1966, RIF (www.rif.org) has the core value that all children have the right to learn to read. From its earliest days, RIF has provided free, high quality “books for ownership” to underprivileged and other children (Baron, 2015). RIF also offers the Read for Success, an evidencebased program aimed at motivating children to read by providing high-quality classroom book collections, summer books for students to select and keep, STEAMthemed classroom activities (science, technology, engineering, the arts, and mathematics), training for teachers, and parent involvement resources. • Also offered by RIF is Literacy Central, an online resource for teachers, parents, and volunteers providing free digital resources tied to the books children and teachers use everyday. There are also tools that help teachers easily organize reading resources using customizable book lists, printable lesson plans, activities, games, reading passages, calendars, and videos.
MyLab Education Application Exercise 10.1: Summer Learning Loss Case Study
• English Learners (EL) Option - Every Child Ready to Read (ECRR)- ECRR is an early literacy parent education initiative sponsored public libraries designed to help parents teach early literacy skills to their children. Their website offers an ECRR Toolkit for libraries and other providers using five primary strategies for language development and other early literacy foundational skills: talking, singing, reading, writing and playing. Also available is an ECRR Toolkit for Spanish-Speaking Communities. The cost for these toolkits is nominal and information is available online at: http://everychildreadytoread.org/shop/
Getting Families More Involved Many of the resources listed earlier have parent training components to sustain literacy and math learning during the summer months. In addition, there are many activities teachers can recommend to parents and caregivers that may be used year-round. In this section we provide some activities that parents can use—even those who have limited literacy. We begin with ways teachers can set the stage for parent-led summer learning activities at home.
Extending our Reach: Summer Learning Loss, Family Involvement, and Professional Learning Communities 361
How Teachers Can Set The Stage There is much a proactive teacher can do to help parents help their children become successful readers. The idea is to realize that even though most parents are not trained educators and, in some cases, may have limited literacy skills, we can use the valuable skills they do possess—talking and listening—to help their children become strong readers. Following are some research-supported recommendations for working with mothers to increase children’s language and literacy (K. Cooter, 2006, p. 701): 1. Build on what the mother can do—talk. 2. Value what she knows, how she lives, and the uniqueness of her family. 3. Teach her to use books to make up stories for her children. 4. Urge her to have her own Show-and-Tell times at home. 5. Teach her to use dialogic reading techniques with her children. 6. Teach her to choose books that engage and can be manipulated with her child. 7. Teach her that speaking in long sentences models strong language for her child. 8. Teach her to be responsive to her child’s speech and language—to spend time in language activities. 9. Teach her how to combine language and play. 10. Teach her to use complex or uncommon words when she talks to her child. 11. Urge her to tell her child family stories and share her favorite childhood songs and family rituals. 12. Have her point as she talks with her child about objects in the environment to grow vocabulary (e.g., during trips to the grocery store). The underlying point here is to teach parents that just by talking and listening they can help their child become better readers.
Easy Strategies For Parents To Use Using the guidelines presented in the previous section, we suggest below some easyto-use strategies parents can use at home and in the community during summer months and beyond to help their children continue their cognitive and literacy growth. • Visit the Public Library Weekly. It is well established through research that the summer learning loss can be lessened significantly if children have self-selected books to read (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2013). If students have a library card and make weekly visits to the public library they will have access to books at no cost. This strategy works because students are able to choose books of interest and, if done right using the rule of five, they are able to choose book son an appropriate reading level. The rule of five for self-selecting books works like this: 1) Find a book you want to read. 2) Open to a page somewhere around the middle of the book. 3) Begin reading. When you come to a word you do not know, put down one of your fingers. 4) If you use less than five fingers (i.e., the page has fewer than five words you do not know), the book is just right for you. But, if you use all five fingers on one page (i.e., there are five or more words you do not know), the book is too hard and you should put the book back on the shelf and find another book you like just as well and try the rule of five again. • Television As A Learning Tool. Though television has often been reviled since its creation as an “idiot box,” it actually has the potential of being a tool for learning
362 Chapter 10 when child and parent watch shows together and interact. Suggest that parents do the following simple tasks: 1. Talk about the program. Use who, what, when, where, why questions to get conversations started. 2. Take a book out of the library about the topic and read together. For example, if you watch the Weather Channel, check out a book on dramatic weather events (e.g., tornados, hurricanes, Nor’easters, monsoons) to read and discuss. 3. Draw a picture and/or write a short summary about a show. For example, after watching an episode of American Pickers where they discover old bicycles and bargain with a family to buy one they like, work together to create a picture that retells what happened and share with another family member. 4. Use the closed-captioning option on the television and read along with the sound turned down. Research dating back to 1985 and since (Koskinen, Wilson, & Jensema, 1985) has consistently demonstrated that students interacting with closed-captioned television can benefit in such areas comprehension, vocabulary, and oral reading fluency.
Enhanced etext
Video Example 10.1: Involving English Learner Parents in Word Study with Their Child at Home Watch this video of a teacher explaining how she is able to involve EL parents in helping their children expand their word knowledge and, in the process, becoming more fluent in English. When you are finished, describe how you might use this strategy for teaching EL parents how to do dialogic reading with their child.
• Play school at home twice a week. In the classic conducted by Dolores Durkin (1966) titled, Children Who Read Early: Two Longitudinal Studies, it was learned that many pre-school children who learned to read before kindergarten had older siblings who would play school with them at home. Prior to that time it was often thought that children could not possibly learn to read before age 6.5. The older siblings would likely do such things as repeat instruction they had heard at school on the alphabet and simple phonics skills, have dialogues with the younger child about content-oriented subjects, present lessons on simple mathematics, and so on. Some of the other playing school tasks parents might do with their child could include (depending on the child’s age): creating and checking a calendar of events on the fridge, practice “school words” learned about academic subjects, counting exercises with pennies, buy inexpensive workbooks at the dollar store and reinforce completing tasks by exchanging pages done for time allowed on technology, reading aloud together from rhyming books, and practicing the “rule of five” for oral language (We speak in complete sentences). • Involving Parents Who Are English Learners (EL). Meet with EL parents to explain homework they can do to help their child become strong readers. In some cases you may need to arrange for someone to translate to help them understand (sometimes the child can serve this role). In this way you cannot only help parents to help their child, you can also help parents become more proficient in English. • Having Conversations: Reading Menus. Many restaurants have free take-out menus for families. Practice reading menus to the child, or have the child read them to you. • Having Conversations: Car trips. Discuss how to use a map. “Find us on the map. How far are we going? What will we pass along the way?” • Having Conversations: Trips to the grocery. Discuss different things around you in the grocery store and ask questions: Where is the aisle with cereal? Potato chips? Milk? What is this vegetable called? The idea is to use the ability every parent has, conversation, to help their child expand their speaking vocabulary and concept knowledge.
Extending our Reach: Summer Learning Loss, Family Involvement, and Professional Learning Communities 363
In Conclusion . . . We sincerely thank you for your service to children and the myriad ways you help them attain literacy proficiency. Like you, we know that literacy is the gateway to meaningful participation in society. Our hope is that you have found many new tools for your educator’s tool box in our book, and have considered adopting our IF – THEN strategy for data-based decision making. In conclusion, we leave you with the inspiring words of Malala Yousafzai who in 2014 became the youngest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize: “Let us remember: one book, one child, and one teacher can change the world.”
References Chapter 1 Adams, M. J. (2001). Alphabetic anxiety and explicit, systematic phonics instruction: A cognitive science perspective. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 66–80). New York: Guilford Press. Afflerbach, P. (2012). Understanding and using reading assessment, K–12. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Afflerbach, P. (2016). Reading Assessment. The Reading Teacher, 69(4), 413–419. doi:10.1002/trtr.1430 Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Covey, S.R. (2013). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal change. New York: RosettaBooks. Kame’enui, E. J., & Baumann, J. F. (2012). Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (2013). Assessment of reading and writing difficulties: An interactive approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. McCook, J. E. (2007). Implementing a response to intervention (RTI) model. Paper presented at Striving Readers Grantee Annual Conference, Washington, DC. McIntyre, E., Hulan, N., & Layne, V. (2011). Reading instruction for diverse classrooms: Research-based culturally responsive practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press. McKenna, M. C., & Stahl, K. A. D. (2015). Assessment for reading instruction (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. McLaughlin, M., & Overturf, B. J. (2013). The common core: Teaching K–5 students to meet the reading standards. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2015). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): 2015 Reading Assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_ math_2015/#reading?grade=4 National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implications for intervention. Jessup, MD: ED Publishers. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
364
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: Author. Pearce, D. L., & Verlann, W. E. (2012). Using formal assessments to guide instruction. In E. Ortlieb & E. H. Cheek, Jr. (Eds.), Using informative assessments toward effective literacy instruction (pp. 73–106). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Pearson, P. D. (2013). Research foundations of the common core state standards in English language arts. In S. B. Neuman, L. B. Gambrell, & Massey, C. (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the age of common core standards (pp. 237–261). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Polat, N., Zarecky-Hodge, A., & Schreiber, J. B. (2016). Academic growth trajectories of ELLs in NAEP data: The case of fourth- and eighth-grade ELLs and non-ELLs on mathematics and reading tests. Journal of Educational Research, 109(5), 541–553. doi:10.1080/00220671.2014.993461 Rathvon, N. (2004). Early reading assessment: A practitioner’s handbook. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B., Jr. (2018). Teaching children to read: The teacher makes the difference (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Scheffel, D., Lefly, D., & Houser, J. (2016). The predictive utility of DIBELS reading assessment for reading comprehension among third grade English language learners and English speaking children. Reading Improvement, 53(2), 87–100. Schulte, A. C., Stevens, J. J., Elliott, S. N., Tindal, G., & Nese, J. T. (2016). Achievement gaps for students with disabilities: Stable, widening, or narrowing on a statewide reading comprehension test? Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(7), 925–942. doi:10.1037/edu0000107 Shanahan, T. (2013). Common Core State Standards: Educating young children for global excellence. In D. R. Reutzel (Ed.), Handbook of research-based practice in early education (pp. 207–221). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Stahl, K. A. D., & McKenna, M. C. (2013). Reading assessment in an RTI framework. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Stahl, S. A., Duffy-Hester, A. M., & Dougherty-Stahl, K. A. (2006). Everything you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). In K. Stahl & M. McKenna (Eds.), Reading research at work: Foundations of effective practice (pp. 126–154). New York: Guilford Press. Walker-Dalhouse, D., & Risko, V. J. (2012). Be that teacher! Breaking the cycle for struggling readers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
References 365
Chapter 2 Agne, K., Greenwood, G., & Miller, L. (1994). Relationship between teacher belief systems and teacher effectiveness. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(3), 141–152. Allington, R. L. (1994). What’s special about special programs for children who find learning to read difficult? Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(1), 95–115. Allington, R. L. & McGill-Franzen, A. (2013). Summer reading: Closing the rich/poor reading achievement gap. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., and Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of Response to Intervention Practices for Elementary School Reading (NCEE 2016-4000). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Brophy, J. (1998). Classroom management as articulating students into clearly articulated roles. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 33(1), 1–4. Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with previously low-achieving secondgrade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18–37. Brown-Chidsey, R. & Steege, M. W. (2010). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Bursuck, B. & Blanks, B. (2010). Evidence-based early reading practices within a response to intervention system. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 421–431. Ciullo, S., Lembke, E. S., Carlisle, A., Thomas C. N., Goodwin, M., & Judd, L. (2016). Implementation of an evidence-based literacy practices in middle school response to intervention: An observation study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(1), 44–57. Davis, M. M. & Wilson, E. K. (1999). A Title I teacher’s beliefs, decision-making, and instruction at the third and seventh grade levels. Reading Research and Instruction, 38(4), 289–300. Duffy, G. G. (2009). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Durbin, J. (2010). American teachers embrace the Japanese art of lesson study. The Education Digest, 75(6), 23–29. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., and Tilly, W.D. (2008).
Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http:// ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/. Gettinger, M. & Stoiber, K. (2007). Applying a responseto-intervention model for early literacy development in low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27 (4), 198–213. Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Barquero, L. A., & Cho, E. (2013). Efficacy of a first-grade responsiveness-to-intervention prevention model for struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 135–154. Gregory, G. H. & Chapman, C. (2002). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Guthrie, J. T. (2003). Concept-oriented reading instruction. In C. E. Snow & A. P. Sweet (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 115–140). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Haager, D., Klinger, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Hancock, J. (1999). The explicit teaching of reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, H.R. 1350, 108th Cong. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr1350 Institute of Educational Sciences. (2013). Reading recovery: What Works Clearinghouse Report summary. Washington, DC: Author. Johnson, D. D. (2001). Vocabulary in the elementary and middle school. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. McCook, J. E. (2007). Implementing a response to intervention (RTI) model. Paper presented at the Striving Readers Grantee Annual Conference, Washington, DC. McKenna, M. C. (2002). Help for struggling readers: Strategies for grades 3–8. New York, NY: Guilford Press. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform. Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: Routledge. Morrow, L. M., Reutzel, D. R., & Casey, H. (2006). Organization and management of language arts teaching: Classroom environments, grouping practices, and exemplary instruction. In C. Evertson (Ed.), Handbook of classroom management (pp. 559–582). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from http:// www.corestandards.org
366 References National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: Author. Neuman, S. B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 286–311. Neuman, S. B. & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in lowincome and middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 8–26. Neuman, S. B. & Celano, D. (2006). The knowledge gap: Implications of leveling the playing field for low-income and middle-income children. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 176–201. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425, 20 U.S.C. §§6301 et seq. Opitz, M. F. & Rasinski, T. V. (2008). Good-bye round robin: 25 effective oral reading strategies (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Palincsar, A. S. (2003). Collaborative approaches to comprehension instruction. In C. E. Snow & A. P. Sweet (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 99–114). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Pianta, R., LaParo, K., & Hamre, B. (2007). Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Raphael, T. E., George, M. A., Weber, C. M., & Nies, A. (2009). Approaches to teaching reading comprehension. In G. G. Duffy & S. E. Israel (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 449–469). New York, NY: Routledge. Raskinski, T. V. (2010). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Scholastic. Reutzel, D. R. (2013). Implementation of the common core state standards and the practitioner: Pitfalls and possibilities. In S. B. Neuman & L. B. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the age of common core standards (pp. 59–74). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Reutzel, D. R., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C. (2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(3), 276–305. RTI Network. (2009). What is RTI? The National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www. rtinetwork.org/Learn/What/ar/WhatIsRTI Shanahan, T. (2004, November). How do you raise reading achievement? Paper presented at the Utah Council of the International Reading Association Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah. Stahl, K. A. D. & McKenna, M. C. (2013). Reading assessment in an RTI framework. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Stanovich, P. J. & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Using research and reason in education: How teachers can use scientifically-
based research to make curricular and instructional decisions. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Swan, E. A. (2003). Concept-oriented reading instruction: Engaging classrooms, lifelong learners. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Tomlinson, C. A. & Imbeau, M. B. (2013). Differentiating instruction. In D. R. Reutzel (Ed.), Handbook of researchbased practice in early education (pp. 119–139). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Tyner, B. (2009). Small-group reading instruction: A differentiated teaching model for beginning and struggling readers (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Vaughn, S., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 432–444. Wonder-McDowell, C., Reutzel, D. R., & Smith, J. A. (2011). Does instructional alignment matter: Effects on struggling second-grade readers’ achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 112(2), 259–279.
Chapter 3 Barnes, E. M., Grifenhagen, J. F., & Dickinson, D. K. (2016). Academic language in early childhood classrooms. Reading Teacher, 70(1), 39–48. doi:10.1002/trtr.1463 Byington, T. A., & Kim, Y. (2017). Jump-starting preschoolers’ emergent literacy: The entomologist tool kit. Reading Teacher, 70(5), 601–604. doi:10.1002/trtr.1540 California Department of Education. (2013). Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education Office of Bilingual Education. Conley, D.T. (2014). Common Core development and substance. Social Policy Report, 28(2), 1–15. Fedesco, H. N. (2015). The impact of (in)effective listening on interpersonal interactions. International Journal of Listening, 29(2), 103–106. doi:10.1080/10904018.2014.965389 Gavin, W.J., & Giles L. (1996). Sample size effects on temporal reliability of language sample measures of preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 1258–1262. [PubMed: 8959610] Hirsch, E.D. (2003, Spring). Reading comprehension requires knowledge—of words and the world. American Educator, 10–22, 28–44. Johnson, D. (1996). Helpful listening and responding. In K. M. Galvin & P. Cooper (Eds.), Making connections: Readings in relational communication (pp. 91–97). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Lonigan, C. J., & Milburn, T. F. (2017). Identifying the dimensionality of oral language skills of children with typical development in preschool through fifth grade. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 60(8), 2185–2198. doi:10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-15-0402
References 367
Luna, S. M. (2017). Academic language in preschool: Research and context. Reading Teacher, 71(1), 89–93. doi:10.1002/trtr.1582 five strategies Moses, L., Ogden, M., & Kelly, L. B. (2015). Facilitating meaningful discussion groups in the primary grades. Reading Teacher, 69(2), 233–237. doi:10.1002/trtr.1392 Rice M.L., Redmond, S.M., Hoffman, L. (2006). Mean length of utterance in children with specific language impairment and in younger control children shows concurrent validity, stable and parallel growth trajectories. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 793–808. Rice, M.L., Smolik, F., Perpich, D., Thompson, T., Rytting, N., & Blosson, M. (2010). Mean length of utterance levels in 6-month intervals for children 3 to 9 years with and without language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(2), 333–349. doi:10.1044/1092-4388 (2009/08-0183). Stevens, M.B. (2014). The effect of a summer oral language and literacy intervention on the literacy acquisition of at-risk first grade emergent readers. Louisville, KY: Doctoral Dissertation. Tosto, M. G., Harlaar, N., Dale, P. S., Hayiou-Thomas, M. E., Prom-Wormley, E., & Plomin, R. (2017). The genetic architecture of oral language, reading fluency, and reading comprehension: A twin study from 7 to 16 years. Developmental Psychology, 53(6), 1115–1129. doi:10.1037/ dev0000297 Whorrall J, & Cabell S. (2016). Supporting children’s oral language development in the preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal [serial online]. July 2016; 44(4):335–341. Wolber, D. (2017). Unlocking English oral language with wordless picture books. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 46(1), 13–24.
Chapter 4 Adams, M. J. (2001). Alphabetic anxiety and explicit, systematic phonics instruction: A cognitive science perspective. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 66–80). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Anderson, C. J. (2012). In how own words: Creating instructional text with an impact. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 40(2), 12–22. Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2010). Early warning! Why reading by the end of third grade matters. Baltimore, MD: Author. Available at: http://datacenter.kidscount. org/reports/reading matters.aspx Aram, D. (2005). Continuity in children’s literacy achievements: A longitudinal perspective from kindergarten to school. First Language, 25, 259–289. Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Base, G. (1986). Animalia. New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams. Blaiklock, K. E. (2004). The importance of letter knowledge in the relationship between phonological awareness and reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(1), 36–57. Bowman, M., & Treiman, R. (2004). Stepping stones to reading. Theory into Practice, 43, 295–303. Burgess, S. R., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Bidirectional relations of phonological sensitivity and prereading abilities: Evidence from a preschool sample. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 117–141. Burns, M. S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (1999). Starting out right: A guide to promoting children’s reading success. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Calkins, S. L. (2013). Beyond concepts about print: Development of concepts of graphics in text, PreK to grade 3. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(2), 175–203. Carnine, D., Silbert, J. & Kameenui, E. (1990). Direct instruction reading (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Cepeda, N. J., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., Mozer, M. C., & Pashler, H. (2009). Optimizing distributed practice: Theoretical analysis and practical implications. Experimental Psychology, 56(4), 236–246. Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Clay, M. (1972a). Sand. Exeter, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Clay, M. (1972b). Stones. Exeter, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Clay, M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behaviour. Exeter, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Clay, M. (2013). An observation survey of early literacy achievement, 3rd edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Clay, M. (2017). Concepts about print: What has a child learned about the way we print language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Clay, M. (2000a). Follow me, moon. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Clay, M. (2000b). No shoes. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Clay, M. (2003). Sigueme, Luna. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Clay, M. (2003). Descalzo. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Cooper, D., & Costa, K. (2012). Increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of existing public investments in early childhood education: Recommendations to boost program outcomes and efficiency. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Cooter, K.S., & Cooter, R.B. (2017). The Phonemic Awareness Assessment System (PAAS). Louisville, KY: Unpublished manuscript. Used with permission of the authors.
368 References Day, K. C., & Day, H. D. (1979). Development of kindergarten children’s understanding of concepts about print and oral language. In M. L. Damil & A. H. Moe (Eds.), Twenty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 19–22). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference. Downing, J., & Oliver, P. (1973). The child’s concept of a word. Reading Research Quarterly, 9, 568–582. Duke, N. K,. Martin, N.M., Norman, R. R., Knight, J. A., Roberts, K. L., Morsink, P. M., & Calkins, S. L. (2013). Beyond concepts about print: Development of concepts of graphics in text, PreK to grade 3. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(2), 175–203. Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early: Two longitudinal studies. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press. Durkin, D. (1989). Teaching them to read (5th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. Early Childhood–Head Start Taskforce. (2002). Teaching our youngest: A guide for preschool teachers and child care and family providers. Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. Ehri, L. C. (2009). Learning to read in English: Teaching phonics to beginning readers from diverse backgrounds. In L. M. Morrow, R. Rueda, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy and diversity (pp. 292–319). New York: Guilford Press. Ehri, L., Deffner, N., & Wilce, L. (1984). Pictorial mnemonics for phonics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 880–893. Ehri, L. C., & Sweet, J. (1991). Fingerpoint-reading of memorized text: What enables beginners to process the print? Reading Research Quarterly, 26(4), 442–462. Elkonin, D. B. (1963). The psychology of mastering the elements of reading. In B. Simon & J. Simon (Eds.), Educational psychology in the U.S.S.R (pp. 165–179). London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Foy, J. G., & Mann, V. (2006). Changes in letter sound knowledge are associated with development of phonological awareness in pre-school children. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(2), 143–161. Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2007). English language learners: The essential guide. New York: Scholastic. Gately, S. E. (2004). Developing concept of word. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(6), 16–22. Gibson, E. J. & Levin, H. (1975). The psychology of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Goldenberg, C., Tolar, T. D., Reese, L., Francis, D. J., Bazan, A. R., & Mejia-Arauz, R. (2014). How important is teaching phonemic awareness to children learning to read in Spanish? American Educational Research Journal, 51(3), 604–633. Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Shinn, M., Bratten, J., Shinn, M., Laimon, L., Smith, S., & Flindt, N. (2004). Technical Adequacy and Decision Making Utility of DIBELS (Technical Report No. 7). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Goodson, B., Layzer, C., Simon, P., & Dwyer, C. (2009). Early beginnings: Early literacy knowledge and instruction: A guide for early childhood administrators and professional development providers. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Available at http://lincs.ed.gov/ publications/pdf/ NELPEarlyBeginnings09.pdf Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological representations, reading development and dyslexia: Towards a cross-linguistic theoretical framework. Dyslexia, 6(2), 133–51. Goswami, U. (2001). Rhymes are important: A comment on Savage. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(1), 19–29. Griffith, P. L., & Olson, M. W. (1992). Phonemic awareness helps beginning readers break the code. The Reading Teacher, 45, 516–523. Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London, England: Edward Arnold. Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, P. D., Taylor, B., Richardson, V., & Paris, S. G. (1998). Every child a reader. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. Ihmeideh, F. M. (2014). The effect of electronic books on enhancing emergent literacy skills of pre-school children. Computers and Education 79, 40–48. Israelson, M. H. (2015). The app map: A tool for systematic evaluation of apps for early literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 69(3), 339–349. Johns, J. L. (1980). First graders’ concepts about print. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 529–549. Johnston, P. H. (1992). Constructive evaluation of literate activity. New York, NY: Longman. Jones, C. D., & Reutzel, D. R. (2015). Write to read: An exploratory study of the effects of theoretically different writing instruction on the reading and writing of kindergarteners. Reading & Writing Quarterly 31 (4), pp. 297–315. Jones, C. D., & Reutzel, D. R. (2012). Enhanced alphabet knowledge instruction: Exploring a change of frequency, focus, and distributed cycles of review. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 33(5), 448–464. Jones, C. D., Reutzel, D. R., & Clark, S. K. (2013). Enhancing alphabet knowledge instruction: Research implications and practical strategies for early childhood educators. Early Childhood Education Journal 41(2), pp. 81–89. DOI 10.1007/s10643-012-0534-9. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of the fifty-four children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447. Justice, L. M., Pence, K., Bowles, R. B., & Wiggins, A. (2006). An investigation of four hypotheses concerning the order by which 4-year-old children learn the alphabet letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(3), 374–389.
References 369
Kervin, L. & Mantei, J. (2016). Assessing emergent readers’ knowledge about online reading. The Reading Teacher, 69(6), p. 647–651. DOI:10.1002/trtr.1458 Kyle, F., Kujala, J., Richardson, U., Lyytinen, H., & Goswami, U. (2013). Assessing the effectiveness of theoretically motivated computer-assisted reading interventions in the United Kingdom: GG rime and GG phoneme. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 61–76. Labat, H., Ecalle, J., Baldy, R., & Magnan, A. (2013). How can low-skilled 5-year-old children benefit from multisensory training on the acquisition of the alphabetic principle? Learning and Individual Differences. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/learning-andindividual-differences Lenters, K. (2004). No half measure: Reading instruction for young second-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 58, 328–336. Liberman, I., Shankweiler, D., Liberman, A., Fowler, C., & Fuscher, F. (1977). Phonetic Segmentation and decoding in the beginning reader. In A. S. Reber & D. L. Scarborough (Eds.), Toward a psychology of reading (pp. 207–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiter, D., Fischer, F. W., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201–212. Lobel, A. (1981). On Market Street. New York, NY: Scholastic. Lomax, R. G., & McGee, L. M. (1987). Young children’s concepts about print and reading: Toward a model of word reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(2), 237–256. Longcamp, M., Zerbato-Poudou, M., & Velay, J. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychologica, 119, 67–79. McBride-Chang, C. (1999). The ABCs of the ABCs: The development of letter-name and letter-sound knowledge. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 45, 285–308. McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (2003). Designing early literacy programs: Strategies for at- risk preschool and kindergarten children. New York: Guilford. McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (2012). Literacy’s beginnings: Supporting young readers and writers, 6th Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Meltzer, N. S., & Himse, R. (1969). The boundaries of written words as seen by first graders. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1,3–13. Mesmer, H. A. E., & Williams, T. O. (2014). Modeling fist grade reading achievement. Reading Psychology, 35 (4); 468–495. Morris, D. (1993). The relationship between children’s concept of word in text and phoneme awareness in learning to read: A longitudinal study. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(2), 133–154.
Murray, B. A., Brabham, E. G., Villaume, S. K., & Veal, M. (2008). The Cluella study: Optimal segmentation and voicing for oral blending. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(4), 395–421. National Institute for Literacy. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Jessup, Maryland: ED Publications. Neuman, S. B. (2013). How can we change the odds for children at risk: Principles for effective leadership in early childhood. Reutzel, D. R. (Ed.), Handbook of research-based practice in early education. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Neuman, S. B. (2006, October). N is for nonsensical: Lowincome preschool children need content-rich instruction, not drill in procedural skills. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 28–31. Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in lowincome and middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 8–26. Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. C. (2012). Giving our children a fighting chance: Poverty, literacy, and the development of information capital. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Neuman, S. B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 286–311. Neumann, M. M. (2014). Using environmental print to foster emergent literacy in children from a low-SES community. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29: 310–318. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nichols, W. D., Rupley, W. H., Rickelman, R. J., & Algozzine, B. (2004). Examining phonemic awareness and concepts of print patterns of kindergarten students. Reading Research and Instruction, 43(3), 5–81. Parette, H. P., Blum, C., & Luthin, K. (2015). A quantitative features analysis of recommended No- and Low-Cost Preschool e-books. Early Childhood Education Journal 43: 181–190. Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184–202. Phillips, B. M., & Piasta, S. B. (2013). Phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge: Key precursors and instructional targets to promote reading success. In T. Shanahan & C. J. Lonigan (Eds.), Early childhood literacy: The National Early Literacy Panel and beyond (pp. 95–116). Baltimore MD: Brookes. Piasta, S. B., & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis of alphabet learning and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 8–38. Reutzel, D. R. (2013). Handbook of Research-Based Practice in Early Education. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 978-14625-1018-4.
370 References Reutzel, D.R., & Cooter, R.B. (2018). Teaching children to read: The teacher makes the difference, 8th Ed. Boston: Pearson Education. Reutzel, D. R. & Jones, C. D. (in preparation). Alphabet Knowledge Text – Draft Version (7.25.13). Working paper, Utah State University. Logan, UT: Emma Eccles Jones Early Childhood Education and Research Center. Reutzel, D. R. (2017). Planting the seeds of reading comprehension: Teaching the foundations of reading. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates. See also: http://www. edweek.org/ew/marketplace/webinars/webinars.html Reutzel, D. R. (2015). The Inside Track: Early literacy research: Findings primary grade teachers will want to know! The Reading Teacher 69 (1), 12–22. Reutzel, D. R., Child, A, Jones, C. D., & Clark, S. K. (2014). Explicit Instruction in Core Reading Programs. The Elementary School Journal 114 (3), 406–430. Reutzel, D. R., Young, J. R., Fawson, P.C., Morrison, T. G., & Wilcox, B. (2003). Reading environmental print: The role of concepts of print in discriminating young readers’ responses. Reading Psychology 24(2), 123–162. Reutzel, D. R., Oda, L. K., & Moore, B. H. (1989). Developing print awareness: The effect of three instructional approaches on kindergartners: Print awareness, reading readiness, and word reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21(3), 197–217. Reutzel, P., Mohr, A. J., & Jones, C. D. (2017). Exploring the relationship between letter recognition and handwriting in early literacy development. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 18 (1), 1–26. Roberts, B. (1992). The evolution of the young child’s concept of “word” as a unit of spoken and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(2), 124–138. Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. Educational Researcher, 39(5), 406–412. Rozin, P., Bressman, B., & Taft, M. (1974). Do children understand the basic relationship between speech and writing? The mow-motorcycle test? Journal of Reading Behavior, 6, 327–334. Smith, F. (1977). The uses of language. Language Arts, 54(6), 638–644. Smythe, P. C., Stennett, R. G., Hardy, M., & Wilson, H. R. (1971). Developmental patterns in elemental skills: Knowledge of uppercase and lower-case letter names. Journal of Reading Behavior, 3, 24–33. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading failure in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Soderman, A. K., & Farrell, P. (2008). Creating literacy- rich preschools and kindergartens. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Stage, S., Sheppard, J., Davidson, M. M., & Browning, M. M. (2001). Prediction of first- graders’ growth in oral
reading fluency using kindergarten letter fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 39(3), 225–237. Stahl, K. A. D. (2014). New insights about letter learning. The Reading Teacher, 68 (4), 261–265. Strickland, D. S., & Schickedanz, J. A. (2004). Learning about print in school: Working with letters, words, and beginning links with phonemic awareness. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Taylor, N. E. (1986). Developing beginning literacy concepts: Content and context. In D. B. Yaden, Jr., & S. Templeton (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literacy (pp. 173–184). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Treiman, R., Levin, I., & Kessler, B. (2007). Learning of letter names follows similar principles across languages: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(2), 87–106. Treiman, R., & Broderick, V. (1998). What’s in a name: Children’s knowledge about the letters in their own names. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 97–116. Treiman, R., Weatherston, S., & Berch, D. (1994). The role of letter names inchildren’s learning of phoneme-grapheme relations. Applied Psycholinguistics,15, 97–122. Treiman, R., & Zukowski, A. (1991). Levels of phonological awareness. In S. Brady & D. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy (pp. 67–83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ushomirsky, N. (2011). Stuck schools revisited: Beneath the averages. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Van Allen, R. (1982). Language experience activities (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Van Allsburg, C. (1987). The Z was zapped. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Venezky, R. L. (1975). The curious role of letter names in reading instruction. Visible Language, 9, 7–23. Venn, E. C., & Jahn, M. D. (2004). Teaching and learning in preschool: Using individually appropriate practices in early childhood literacy instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Vukelich, C., & Christie, J. (2009). Building a foundation for preschool literacy: Effective instruction for children’s reading and writing development. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. T., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., Donahue, J., & Garon, T. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 468–479. Worden, P. E., & Boettcher, W. (1990). Young children’s acquisition of alphabet knowledge. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 277–295. Yaden, D. B., Jr. (1982). A multivariate analysis of first graders’ print awareness as related to reading achievement,
References 371
intelligence, and gender. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 1912A. Yaden, D. B., Jr., & Templeton, S. (Eds.). (1986). Reading research in metalinguistic awareness: A classification of finding according to focus and methodology (pp. 41– 62). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 159–177. Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 45(9), 696–703. Yopp, H. K., & Troyer, S. (1992). Training phonemic awareness in young children. Unpublished manuscript.
Chapter 5 Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Armbruster, B. B., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved from http://www.nifl.gov August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in -second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on -language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Betts, E. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction, with emphasis on differentiated guidance. Oxford, U.K.: American Book Company. Blevins, W. (1996). Phonics: -Quick-and-easy learning games. New York, NY: Scholastic Professional Books. Bowers, J.S., & Bowers, P. N. (2017). Beyond phonics: The case for teaching children the logic of the English spelling system. Educational Psychologist 52 (2), 124-141. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2017.1288571; Byrne, B. (2013). Experimental analysis of the child’s discovery of the alphabetic principle. In T. G. Gunning (Ed.), Creating literacy instruction for all students (pp. 75–84). Boston, MA: Pearson. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kameenui, E. J., Tarver, S. G., & Jongjohann, K. (2006). Teaching struggling and at-risk readers: A direct instruction approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Clay, M. M. (1966). Emergent reading behavior Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auchland, Auchland, N.Z. Clay, M. M. (1972). The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M. M. (1993). An observation survey for early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. Cooter, R. B. (2000). End-of-year benchmark skills (K-3): Dallas Reading Plan. Unpublished manuscript. Cooter, R. B., Flynt, E. S., & Cooter, K. S. (2007). The Comprehensive Reading Inventory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cooter, R. B., Flynt, E. S., & Cooter, K. S. (2014). The Comprehensive Reading Inventory (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education/Allyn & Bacon. Cooter, R. B., Mathews, B., Thompson, S., & Cooter, K. S. (2004). Searching for lessons of mass instruction? Try reading strategy continuums. The Reading Teacher, 58(4), 388–393. Cunningham, J. (2017). Supporting phonics instruction: Foundation for reading. North Billerica, MA: District Administration and Curriculum Associates. Retrieved October 21, 2017 from http://www.districtadministration.com/ ws040517 Cunningham, P. (1990). The Names Test: A quick assessment of decoding ability. The Reading Teacher, 44, 124–129. Devault, R., & Joseph, L. M. (2004). Repeated readings combined with word boxes phonics technique increases fluency levels of high school students with severe reading delays. Preventing School Failure, 49(1), 22–27. Duffelmeyer, F. A., Kruse, A. E., Merkley, D. J., & Fyfe, S. A. (1994). Further validation and enhancement of the names test. The Reading Teacher, 48, 118–128. Durrell, D. (1940). Improvement of basic reading abilities. Oxford, U.K.: World Book. Elkonin, D. B. (1963). The psychology of mastering the elements of reading. In B. Simon & J. Simon (Eds.), Educational psychology in the U.S.S.R (pp. 165–179). London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Fawson, P. C., Ludlow, B. C., Reutzel, D. R., Sudweeks, R., & Smith, J. A. (2006). Examining the reliability of running records: Attaining generalizable results. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 113–126. Gambrell, L. B. (2007). Technology and the engaged literacy learner. In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Keiffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology (Vol. II, pp. 289–294). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Goodman, Y. M. (1967). A psycholinguistic description of observed oral reading phenomena in selected young beginning readers. Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Goodman, Y. M., & Burke, C. L. (1972). Reading miscue inventory. New York: Macmillan. Goswami, U. (1990). A special link between rhyming skill and the use of orthographic analogies by beginning readers. Journal Of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 31(2), 301–311. doi:10.1111/-1469-7610. ep12415304 Glazer, S. M. (1998). A format for explicit phonics instruction. Teaching -PreK—8, 28(4), 102–105. Honig, B., Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. (2000). Teaching reading: Sourcebook for kindergarten through eighth grade. Novato, CA: Arena Press. Hughes, J. (2010). Connecting to the 21st-century student: Educators must work to understand and motivate a new kind
372 References of digital learner. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from www. edutopia.org/ikid-digital-learner. Hull, M. A. (1989). Phonics for the teacher of reading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York, NY: Crown. La Pray, M. H. & Ross, R. (1969). The graded word list: Quick gauge of reading ability. Journal of Reading, 12, 305–307. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Leu, D.J., & Kinzer, C.K. (2017). Phonics, phonemic awareness, and word analysis for teachers: An interactive tutorial (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Lonigan, C. J., Schatschneider, C., & Westberg, L. (2008). Identification of children’s skills and abilities linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, and spelling. Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy panel (55–106). Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Mather, N., Sammons, J., & Schwartz, J. (2006). Adaptations of the names test: Easy-to-use phonics assessments. The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 114–122. Moats, L.C. (2010). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Murray, B. A., Brabham, E. G., Villaume, S. K., & Veal, M. (2008). The Cluella study: Optimal segmentation and voicing for oral blending. Journal of Literacy Research, 4(4), 395–421. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards: English Language Arts Standards. Washington, DC: Author. National Institute for Literacy. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Jessup, MD: Author. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Osborn, J., Lehr, M. A., & Hiebert, E. H. (2003). Focus on fluency: ResearchBased practices in early reading series. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Powell, D. A., & Aram, R. (2008). Spelling in parts: A strategy for spelling and decoding polysyllabic words. The Reading Teacher, 61(7), 567–570. Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2012). The essentials of teaching children to read (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2015). Teaching children to read: The teacher makes the difference (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Reutzel, D. R., Brandt, L., Fawson, P. C., & Jones, C. D. (2014). Examining the reliability and validity of the
Consortium on Reading Excellence Phonics Survey: An instrument for assessing students’ phonics knowledge. The Elementary School Journal 115 (1), 49–72. Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Shanahan, T. (2013). Common core state standards: Educating young children for global excellence. In D. R. Reutzel (Ed.), Handbook of research-based practice in early education, (p. 207–221). Stahl, S. (1992). Saying the “p” word: Nine guidelines for exemplary phonics instruction. The Reading Teacher, 45(8), 618–625. Stahl, K. A. D., & McKenna, M. C. (2013). Reading assessment in an RTI framework. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Suh, R. & Gerson, V. (2013). Using technology for phonics instruction in kindergarten, The California Reader, 46 (3), 30–33. Williams, S. G., Cooter, K. S., & Cooter, R. B. (2003). The Starpoint Phonics Quick Test. Unpublished manuscript. Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word guide. New York: Touchstone Applied Science.
Chapter 6 Adams, M. J. (2002). Insights: Reading fluency. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge. Allington, R. L. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Benjamin, R. G., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Meisinger, E. B., Groff, C., Kuhn, M. R. & Steiner, L. (2013). A spectrographically grounded scale for evaluating reading expressiveness. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 105–133. Cooter, R. (2005). Fluency flow chart: The Memphis Literacy Academy. Unpublished manuscript, Bellarmine University, Kentucky. Cooter, R. (2009). Choral reading: An implementation continnum. Unpublished manuscript, Bellarmine University, Kentucky. Donovan, C. A., Smolkin, L. B., & Lomax, R. G. (2000). Beyond the independent-level text: Considering the reader-text match in first-graders’ self-selections during recreational reading. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 21(4), 309–333. Dowhower, S. (1987). Effects of repeated readings on second-grade transitional readers’ fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 389–406. Dowhower, S. (1989). Repeated reading: Research into practice. The Reading Teacher, 42(7), 502–507.
References 373
Duffy, G. G. (2004). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Eldredge, J. L., Reutzel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1996). Comparing the effectiveness of two oral reading practices: Round-robin reading and the shared book experience. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(2), 201–225. Eldredge, J. L., & Quinn, D. W. (1988). Increasing reading performance of low-achieving second graders with dyad reading groups. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 40–46. Fitzgerald, J., Amendum, S. J., & Guthrie, K. M. (2008). Young Latino students’ English-reading growth in allEnglish classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(3), 59–94. Flynn, R. M. (2005). Curriculum-based readers theatre: Setting the stage for reading and retention. The Reading Teacher, 58(4), 360–365. Fresch, M. J. (1995). Self selection of early literacy learners. The Reading Teacher, 49(5), 220–227. Gambrell, L. B. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that foster reading motivation. The Reading Teacher, 50(1), 14–25. Good, R. H., & Jefferson, G. (1988). Contemporary perspectives on curriculum-based measurement validity. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 61–88). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved from http://dibels.uoregon.edu Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257–288. Greene, F. (1979). Radio reading. In C. Pennock (Ed.), Reading comprehension at four linguistic levels (pp. 104–107). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Greene, F. P. (1970). Paired reading. Unpublished manuscript, Syracuse University, New York. Griffith, L. W., & Rasinski, T. V. (2004). A focus on fluency: How one teacher incorporated fluency with her reading curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 58(2), 126–137. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Gutiérrez, G., & Vanderwood, M. L. (2013). A growth curve analysis of literacy performance among second-grade, Spanish-speaking, English-language learners. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 3–21. Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636–644.
Heckleman, R. G. (1966). Using the neurological impress remedial reading technique. Academic Therapy, 1, 235–239, 250. Heckleman, R. G. (1969). A neurological impress method of remedial reading instruction. Academic Therapy, 4, 277–282. Henk, W. A. (1983). Adapting the NIM to improve comprehension. Academic Therapy, 19, 97–101. Hennings, K. (1974). Drama reading, an ongoing classroom activity at the elementary school level. Elementary English, 51, 48–51. Hiebert, E. H. (2006). Becoming fluent: Repeated reading with scaffolded texts. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 204–226). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Hoffman, J. V. (1987). Rethinking the role of oral reading in basal instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 87(3), 367–374. Hollingsworth, P. M. (1970). An experiment with the impress method of teaching reading. The Reading Teacher, 24, 112–114. Hollingsworth, P. M. (1978). An experimental approach to the impress method of teaching reading. The Reading Teacher, 31, 624–626. Homan, S. P., Klesius, J. P., & Hite, C. (1993). Effects of repeated readings and nonrepetitive strategies on students’ fluency and comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 87(2), 94–99. Ihnot, C. (1997). Read naturally. St. Paul, MN: Reading Naturally: The Fluency Company. Koskinen, P., Wilson, R., & Jensema, C. (1985). Closed captioned television: A new tool for reading instruction. Reading World, 24, 1–7. Kuhn, M. (2005). Helping students become accurate, expressive readers: Fluency instruction for small groups. The Reading Teacher, 58(4), 338–345. Kuhn, M. R., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2008). Fluency in the classroom. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lefever-Davis, S., & Pearman, C. (2005). Early readers and electronic texts: CD-ROM storybook features that influence reading behavior. The Reading Teacher, 58(5), 446–454. Martin, B., & Archambault, J. (1987). Knots on a counting rope. New York, NY: Henry Holt. Martinez, M., Roser, N., & Strecker, S. (1999). “I never thought I could be a star”: A reader’s theatre ticket to reading fluency. The Reading Teacher, 52, 326–334. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards: English Language Arts Standards. Washington, DC: Author. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching
374 References children to read. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nelson, L., & Morris, D. (1986). Supported oral reading: A year-long intervention study in two inner-city primary grade classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Neuman, S. B., & Koskinen, P. (1992). Captioned television as comprehensible input: Effects of incidental word learning from context for language minority students. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 94–106. Opitz, M. F., & Rasinski, T. V. (2008). Good-bye round robin: 25 effective oral reading strategies (updated edition). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Paige, D. D. (2011). “That sounded good!”: Using wholeclass choral reading to improve fluency. The Reading Teacher, 64(6), 435–438. Rasinski, T. (1990). Effects of repeated reading and listening-while-reading on reading fluency. The Journal of Educational Research, 83(3), 147–150. Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. NY: Scholastic. Rasinski, T. V. (2012). Why reading fluency should be hot! The Reading Teacher, 65(8), 516–522. Rasinski, T. V., & Padak, N. (1996). Five lessons to increase reading fluency. In L. R. Putnam (Ed.), How to become a better reading teacher: Strategies for assessment and intervention. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., McKeon, C. A., Wilfong, L. G., Friedauer, J. A., & Heim, P. (2005). Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(1), 22–27. Rasinski, T. V., Reutzel, D. R., Chard, D., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2011). 13 Reading Fluency. Handbook of Reading Research, 4, 286. Reutzel, D. R. (2006). Hey teacher, when you say fluency, what do you mean?: Developing fluency and metafluency in elementary classrooms. In T. V. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 62–85). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2015). Teaching children to read: The teacher makes the difference (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson. Reutzel, D.R., & Hollingsworth, P.M. (1993). Effects of fluency training on second graders’ reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 86(6), 325–331. Reutzel, D. R., Jones, C. D., Fawson, P. C., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Scaffolded silent reading (ScSR): An alternative to guided oral repeated reading that works! The Reading Teacher, 62(3), 194–207. Reutzel, D. R. & Juth, S. (2014). Supporting the development of silent reading fluency: An evidence-based
framework for intermediate grades (3–6). International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(1), 27–46. Ring, J. J., Barefoot, L. C., Avrit, K. J., Brown, S. A., & Black, J. L. (2012). Reading fluency instruction for students at risk for reading failure. Remedial and Special Education 34(2), 102–112. Robinson, B. (1972). The best Christmas pageant ever. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated reading. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403–408. Samuels, S. J. (2012). Reading fluency: Its past, present and future. In Timothy V. Rasinski, Camille Blachowicz, & Kristin Lems (Eds.), Fluency Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices (2nd ed, pp. 3–16). New York: Guilford Press. Searfoss, L. W. (1975). Radio reading. The Reading Teacher, 29, 295–296. Shake, M. (1986). Teacher interruptions during oral reading instruction: Self-monitoring as an impetus for change in corrective feedback. Remedial and Special Education, 7(5), 18–24. Shanahan, T., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). The challenge of challenging text. Educational Leadership, 69(6), 58–62. Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Silverman, R. D., Speece, D. L., Harring, J. R., & Ritchey, K. D. (2013). Fluency has a role in the simple view of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(2), 108–133. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.618153 Sloyer, S. (1982). Reader’s theater: Story dramatization in the classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Stahl, S. A., & Heubach, K. (2006). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. In K. A. Dougherty Stahl & M. C. McKenna (Eds.), Reading research at work: Foundations of effective practice (pp. 177–204). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Stahl, S. A., Heubach, K., & Cramond, B. (1997). Fluencyoriented reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Reading Research Center and U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center. Tindal, G., Marston, D., & Deno, S. L. (1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement (Research Rep. No. 109). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (1998). Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Topping, K. J. (2006). Building reading fluency: Cognitive, behavioral, and socioemotional factors and the role of peer-mediated learning. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 106–129). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
References 375
Turner, J., & Paris, S. G. (1995). How literacy tasks influence children’s motivation for literacy. The Reading Teacher, 48(8), 662–673. Viorst, J. (1972). Alexander and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. New York, NY: Atheneum. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wesson, C. L., King, R. P., & Deno, S. L. (1984). Direct and frequent measurement of student performance: If it’s good for us, why don’t we do it?. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7(1), 45–48. Wood, K. D. (1983). A variation on an old theme: 4-way oral reading. The Reading Teacher, 37(1), 38–41. Worthy, J., & Broaddus, K. (2002). Fluency beyond the primary grades: From group performance to silent, independent reading. The Reading Teacher, 55(4), 334–343. Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading fluency. Theory into Practice, 30(3), 211–217.
Chapter 7 Armbruster, B.B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2008). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: The U.S. Department of Education. Beck, I., McKeown, M.; &Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Cooter, R.B., Flynt, E.S., & Cooter, K.S. (in press). The Comprehensive Reading Inventory, 3rdEd (CRI-3).Boston: Pearson Education. Used with permission of Pearson Education. Craig, S. (2017). Touching on vocabulary: Using multiple methods to energize vocabulary instruction. Literacy Today (2411-7862), 35(2), 32–33. Ganske, K. (2014). Word journeys: Assessment-guided phonics, spelling, and vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Ganske, K. (2018). Word sorts and more: Sound, pattern, and meaning explorations K-3 (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Goldstein, H., Ziolkowski, R. A., Bojczyk, K. E., Marty, A., Schneider, N., Harpring, J., &Haring, C. D. (2017). Academic vocabulary learning in first through third grade in low-income schools: Effects of automated supplemental instruction. Journal Of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 60(11), 3237-3258. doi:10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-17-0100 Gomes-Koban, C., Simpson, I. C., Valle, A., &Defior, S. (2017). Oral vocabulary training program for Spanish third-graders with low socio-economic status: A randomized controlled trial. Plos ONE, 12(11), 1–25. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0188157 Kelley, E.S. (2017). Measuring explicit word learning of preschool children: A development study.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26, 961–971.
Kennedy, M. J., Rodgers, W. J., Romig, J. E., Lloyd, J. W., & Brownell, M. T. (2017). Effects of a multimedia professional development package on inclusive science teachers’ vocabulary instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(2), 213–230. doi:10.1177/0022487116687554 Lee, C., Roberts, C., & Coffey, D. (2017). Using purposefully created stories to teach academic vocabulary. Intervention In School & Clinic, 52(5), 304–310. doi:10.1177/1053451216676802 Padak, N., Newton, E., Rasinski, T., & Newton, R. M. (2008). Getting to the root of word study: Teaching Latin and Greek word roots in elementary and middle grades. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary instruction (pp. 6–31). Newark, DE: International Literacy Association. Picot, C. J. (2017). Using academic word lists to support disciplinary literacy development. Reading Teacher, 71(2), 215–220. doi:10.1002/trtr.1593 Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., Figueroa, V. A., & López, M. J. (2018). Interactive highlighting for just-in-time formative assessment during whole-class instruction: effects on vocabulary learning and reading comprehension. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(1), 42–60. doi:10.108 0/10494820.2017.1282878 Rasinski, T., Padak, N., & Newton, J. (2017). The roots of comprehension. Educational Leadership, 74(5), 41–45. Reutzel, D.R., & Cooter, R.B. (2019). Teaching children to read: The teacher makes the difference (8th ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson. Swanson, E., Vaughn, S., & Wexler, J. (2017). Enhancing adolescents’ comprehension of text by building vocabulary knowledge. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(2), 84–94. doi:10.1177/0040059917720777 Wright, T. S., &Cervetti, G. N. (2017). A systematic review of the research on vocabulary instruction that impacts text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 203-226. doi:10.1002/rrq.163
Chapter 8 Abrami, P. C., Venkatesh, V., Meyer, E. J., & Wade, C. A. (2013). Using electronic portfolios to foster literacy and self-regulated learning skills in elementary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1188–1209. doi:10.1037/a0032448 Alvermann, D. E. (1991). The discussion web: A graphic aid for learning across the curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 45, 92–99. Avalos, M. A., Pazos-Rego, A. M., Cuevas, P. D., Massey, S. R., & Schumm, J. S. (2009). Ready for the classroom?: Preparing reading teachers with authentic assessments. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1981). Developing questions that promote comprehension: The story map. Language Arts, 58, 913–918.
376 References Botsas, G. (2017). Differences in strategy use in the reading comprehension of narrative and science texts among students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities – A Contemporary Journal, 15(1), 139–162. Boyd-Batstone, P. (2010). Focused anecdotal records assessment: A tool for standards-based authentic assessment. In P. Afflerback (Ed.), Essential readings on assessment (pp. 135–145). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Boyle, J. R. (1996). The effects of cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(3), 86–98. Bromley, K. (1993). Webbing with literature: Creating story maps with children’s books (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54, 968–979. Brown, H., & Cambourne, B. (1987). Read and retell. North Ryde, NSW (Australia): Methuen. Carr, E. (1985). The vocabulary overview guide: A metacognitive strategy to improve vocabulary comprehension and retention. Journal of Reading, 28(8), 684–689. Chase, R. (2003). The Jack Tales. Boston: HMH Books for Young Readers. Chase, R. (2015). Grandfather tales. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Cooter, R. B. (2009). A fidelity of implementation continuum for question-answer relationships. Unpublished manuscript, Memphis Striving Readers Project. Cooter, R. B., & Cooter, K. S. (2006). The Reading Retelling Record (R3) for narrative texts Unpublished manuscript. Cooter, R. B., Flynt, E. S., & Cooter, K. S. (2014). The comprehensive reading inventory (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education/Allyn & Bacon. Cooter, R. B., Joseph, D. G., & Flynt, E. S. (1986/87). Eliminating the literal pursuit in reading comprehension. Journal of Clinical Reading, 2(1), 9–11. doi:10.1006/ ceps.1999.1044 De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2012). The relation between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A selfdetermination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1006–1021. doi:10.1037/a0027800 Dougherty Stahl, K. A. (2014). Fostering inference generation with emergent and novice readers. The Reading Teacher, 67(5), 384–388. doi:10.1002/trtr.1230 Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read. Des Moines, IA: Allyn & Bacon. Fahey, K., Lawrence, J., & Paratore, J. (2007). Using electronic portfolios to make learning public. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(6), 460–471.
Filiatrault-Veilleux, P., Bouchard, C., Trudeau, N., & Desmarais, C. (2016). Comprehension of inferences in a narrative in 3- to 6-year-old children. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 59(5), 1099–1110. doi:10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0252 Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Close reading in elementary schools. The Reading Teacher, 66(3), 179–188. doi:10.1002/ TRTR.01117 Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2016). Systems for teaching complex texts. Reading Teacher, 69(4), 403–412. doi:10.1002/ trtr.1409 Fox, M. (2013). What next in the read-aloud battle? Win or lose? The Reading Teacher, 67(1), 4–8. doi: 10.1002/ TRTR.1185 Frayer, D., Frederick, W. C., & Klausmeier, H. J. (1969). A schema for testing the level of cognitive mastery. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Gewertz, C. (2012). Common standards ignite debate over prereading. Education Week, 31(29), 22–23. Gordon, C. J., & Braun, C. (1983). Using story schema as an aid to reading and writing. The Reading Teacher, 37(2), 116–121. Gouldthorp, B., Katsipis, L., & Mueller, C. (2018). An investigation of the role of sequencing in children's reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(1), 91–106. doi:10.1002/rrq.186 Graesser, A. C., D’Mello, S., & Stahl, K. (2012). Moment-tomoment emotions during reading. The Reading Teacher, 66(3), 238–242. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01121 Graesser, A., Golding, J. M., & Long, D. L. (1991). Narrative representation and comprehension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp.171–205). New York: Longman. Greenfader, C. M., & Brouillette, L. (2013). Boosting language skills of English learners through dramatization and movement. The Reading Teacher, 67(3), 171–180. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1192 Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 329–354). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Guthrie, J. T., Seifert, M., Burnham, N. A., & Caplan, R. J. (1974). The maze technique to assess and monitor reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 28(2), 161–168. Heathington, B. S., & Alexander, J. E. (1978). A child-based observation checklist to assess attitudes toward reading. Reading Teacher, 31(7), 769–771. Hiebert, E. H. (2013). Supporting students’ movement up the staircase of text complexity. Reading Teacher, 66(6), 459–468. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1149 Iwasaki, B., Rasinski, T., Yildirim, K., & Zimmerman, B. S. (2013). Let’s bring back the magic of song for teaching
References 377
reading. The Reading Teacher, 67(2), 137–141. doi:10.1002/ TRTR.1203 Jetton, T. L. (1994). Information-driven versus story-driven: What children remember when they are read informational stories. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 15(2), 109–130. Johnson, D. D. (2001). Vocabulary in the elementary and middle school. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D. D., & Johnson, B. (2011). Word: The foundation of literacy. Philadelphia, PA: Westview. Kim, Y. G. (2016). Do live versus audio-recorded narrative stimuli influence young children's narrative comprehension and retell quality? Language, Speech & Hearing Services In Schools, 47(1), 77–86. doi:10.1044/2015_ LSHSS-15-0027 Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood. CO: Libraries Unlimited. Krauss, R. (1945). The carrot seed (Crockett Johnson, Illustrator). New York: Scholastic. Leal, D. J. (1992). The nature of talk about three types of text during peer group discussions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 313–338. Lee, C. D., & Goldman, S. R. (2015). Assessing literary reasoning: Text and task complexities. Theory Into Practice, 54(3), 213–227. doi:10.1080/00405841.2015.1044369 Lenski, S. D., Ehlers-Zavala, F., Dabiel, M. C., & SunIrminger, X. (2010). Assessing English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. In P. Afflerback (Ed.), Essential readings on assessment (pp.166–177). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Lowry, L. (1993). The giver. Boston: HMH Books for Young Readers. Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111–151. Manyak, P. C., & Bauer, E. B. (2008). Explicit code and comprehension instruction for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 432–434. Marzano, R. (2013). Asking questions at four different levels. Educational Leadership, 70(5), 76–77. McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43(9), 626–639. McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4) 934–956. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218–253. McLaughlin, M., & Overturf, B. J. (2012). The Common Core: Insights into the K–5 standards. Reading Teacher, 66(2), 153–164. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01115
McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., Best, R., & O’Reilly, T. (2007). The 4-pronged comprehension strategy framework. Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies, 465–496. Merkley, D. M., & Jeffries, D. (2001). Guidelines for implementing a graphic organizer. The Reading Teacher, 54(4), 350–357. Miller, D. (2013). I can create mental images to retell and infer big ideas. The Reading Teacher, 66(5), 360–364. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01135 Mills, K.A., Sunderland, N., & Davis-Warra, J. (2013). Yarning circles in the literacy classroom. The Reading Teacher, 67(4), 285–289. doi:10.1002/trtr.1195 Mohr, K. A. (2003). Children’s choices: A comparison of book preferences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic first-graders. Reading Psychology, 24(2), 163–176. Morrow, L. M. (2005). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write (5th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2018). The nation’s report card: Highlights of the 2017 mathematics and reading assessments. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards: English Language Arts Standards. Washington, D.C.: Author. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read, an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Noyce, R. M., & Christie, J. F. (1989). Integrating reading and writing instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Ogle, D.M. 1986. K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570. Pappas, C. C., Kiefer, B. Z., & Levstik, L. S. (1999). An integrated language perspective in the elementary school: An action approach (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II., pp. 641–668). New York, NY: Longman. Partnership for Reading. (2001). Put reading first: Helping your child learn to read. Washington, DC: Author. Pearson, P. D., & Duke, N. K. (2002). Comprehension instruction in the primary grades. In C. CollinsBlock & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:
378 References Research-based best practices (pp. 247–258). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2000). English learners reading English: What we know, what we need to know. Theory Into Practice, 39(4), 237. Pereira-Laird, J. A., & Deane, F. P. (1997). Development and validation of a self-report measure of reading strategy use. Reading Psychology, 18(3), 185–235. Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. Pratt, S. M., & Urbanowski, M. (2016). Teaching early readers to self-monitor and self-correct. Reading Teacher, 69(5), 559–567. doi:10.1002/trtr.1443 Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Raphael, T. E. (1982). Question-answering strategies for children. The Reading Teacher, 36, 186–191. Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516–523. Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1982). The effect of metacognitive training on children’s question answering behaviors. Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED215315) Read, S., Reutzel, D. R., & Fawson, P. C. (2008). Do you want to know what I learned? Using informational trade books as models to teach text structure. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(3), 213–219. doi:10.1007/s10643-008—0273-0 Reutzel, D. R. (1985). Story maps improve comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 38(4), 400–405. Reutzel, D. R. & Jones, C. D. (2013). Designing and managing effective early childhood classroom environments. In D. R. Reutzel (Ed.), Handbook of research-based practices in early childhood education (pp. 81–99). New York: Guilford Press. Reutzel, D. R., & Fawson, P. C. (1989). Using a literature webbing strategy lesson with predictable books. The Reading Teacher, 43, 208–215. Reutzel, D. R., & Fawson, P. C. (1991). Literature webbing predictable books: A prediction strategy that helps below-average, first-grade readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 30(4), 20–30. Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2019). Teaching children to read: The teacher makes the difference,(8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education/Allyn & Bacon. Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. B. (2012). Formative assessment: Simply, no additives. The Reading Teacher, 65(8), 534–538. Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teach-
ing: Research reviews (pp. 3––26). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Sadler, C. R. (2011). Comprehension strategies for middle grade learners: A handbook for content area teachers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Santos, S., Cadime, I., Viana, F. L., Chaves-Sousa, S., Gayo, E., Maia, J., & Ribeiro, I. (2017). Assessing reading comprehension with narrative and expository texts: Dimensionality and relationship with fluency, vocabulary and memory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58(1), 1–8. doi:10.1111/sjop.12335 Scieszka, J. (1996). The True Story of the Three Pigs! By A. Wolf. London, UK: Puffin Books. Schimmel, N., & Ness, M. (2017). The effects of oral and silent reading on reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 38(4), 390–416. doi:10.1080/02702711.2016.1278416 Schwartz, R. M., & Raphael, T. E. (1985). Concept of definition: A key to improving students’ vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 39(2), 198––205. Shapiro, E. S., Gebhardt, S., Flatley, K., Guard, K. B., Qiong, F., Leichman, E. S., & Hojnoski, R. (2017). Development and validity of the Rating Scales of Academic Skills for Reading Comprehension. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(4), 509–524. doi:10.1037/spq0000193 Sigmon, C. M. (1997). Implementing the four-blocks literacy model. Greensboro, NC: Carson Dellosa. Simmons, D., & Kame’enui, E. (1998). What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Skurzynski, G. (1992). Up for discussion: Blended books. School Library Journal, 38(10), 46––47. Smith, F. (1987). Insult to intelligence. New York: Arbor House. Smith, R. J., & Johnson, D. D. (1980). Teaching children to read. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Spencer, K. M. (1997). Vocabulary bingo!: A language review activity. Unpublished manuscript, Texas Christian University. Stahl, K. A. D. (2009). Assessing the comprehension of young children. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 428–448). New York, NY: Routledge. Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stauffer, R. G. (1969). Directing reading maturity as a cognitive process. New York: Harper & Row. Stahl, K. D. (2016). A new priority. Reading Teacher, 69(6), 627–631. doi:10.1002/trtr.1454 (The) Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE). (2010). The CREDE five standards for effective pedagogy and learning: Instructional
References 379
conversation. Mānoa, HI: Author (University of Hawai’i at Mānoa). Thorndyke, P. N. (1977). Cognitive structure in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 77–110. Toyama, Y., Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. D. (2017). An analysis of the text complexity of leveled passages in four popular classroom reading assessments. Educational Assessment, 22(3), 139–170. doi:10.1080/10627197.2017.1344091 Van Allsburg, C. (1992). The widow’s broom. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Vygotsky, L.S. (1968). Thought and language. Boston: MIT Press. Watson, D., & Crowley, P. (1988). How can we implement a whole-language approach? In C. Weaver (Ed.), Reading process and practice (pp. 232–279). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. White, A. (2016). Using digital think-alouds to build comprehension of online informational texts. Reading Teacher, 69(4), 421–425. doi:10.1002/trtr.1438 Wigfield, A., Gladstone, J. R., & Turci, L. (2016). Beyond cognition: Reading motivation and reading comprehension. Child Development Perspectives, 10(3), 190–195. doi:10.1111/cdep.12184 Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 6–18. Wixson, K. K. (2017). An interactive view of reading comprehension: Implications for assessment. Language, Speech & Hearing Services In Schools, 48(2), 77–83. Student performance on any given reading assessment should be interpreted in relation to the specific reading demands of the assessment, rather than as a fixed ability that generalizes to any given reading situation. Yin, Y. (2012). Using tree diagrams as an assessment tool in statistics education. Educational Assessment, 17(1), 22–49. doi:10.1080/10627197.2012.697850
Chapter 9 ACT. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author. Ainslie, D. (2001). Word detective. The Reading Teacher 54(4), 360–362. Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, (Vol. II, pp. 951–983). White Plains, NY: Longman. Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 331–346. Armbruster, B., & Anderson, T. (1981). Content area textbooks (Reading Education Report No. 23). Urbana—
Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Asher, S. R. (1980). Topic interest and children’s reading comprehension. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 525–534). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Baker, L., Dreher, M., Shiplet, A., Beall, L., Voelker, A, Garrett, A., Schugar, H., & Bartlett, B. J. (1978). Top-level structure as an organizational strategy for recall of classroom text (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe. Bartlett, B. J. (1978). Top-level structure as an organizational strategy for recall of classroom text (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe. Beaver, J. (1997). Developmental reading assessment (DRA). New York, NY: Pearson Learning Group. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2008). Creating robust vocabulary: Frequently asked questions and extended examples. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2007). Increasing low-income children’s oral vocabulary repretoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251–271. Berger, M. (1995). The restless Earth. New York, NY: Newbridge Educational Publishing. Bernfeld, L. E. S., Morrison, T. G., Sudweeks, R. R., & Wilcox, B. (2013). Examining reliability of reading comprehension ratings of fifth grade students’ oral retellings. Literacy Research and Instruction, 52(1), 65–86. Biddulph, F., & Biddulph, J. (1992). How do spiders live? Bothell, WA: The Wright Group. Casanave, C. P. (1988). Comprehension monitoring in ESL reading: A neglected essential. TESOL Quarterly, 22(2), 283–302. Casteel, C. A. (1990). Effects of chunked text materials on reading comprehension of high and low ability readers. Reading Improvement, 27, 269–275. Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Clay, M. M. (1991). Introducing a new storybook to young readers. The Reading Teacher, 45, 264–273. Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clyne, M., & Griffiths, R. (2005). Sand. Lebanon, IN: Celebration Press. Collins-Block, C., & Lacina, J. (2009). Comprehension instruction in kindergarten through grade three. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 494–509). New York, NY: Routledge.
380 References Collins-Block, C., Parris, S. R., & Whiteley, C. S. (2008). CPMs: A kinesthetic comprehension strategy. The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 460–470. Corno, L., & Randi, J. (1997). Motivation, volition, and collaborative innovation in classroom literacy. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 51–67). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. Cummins, S. (2013). Close readings of informational texts: Assessment-driven instruction in grades 3–8. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Cutting, B., & Cutting, J. (2002). Is it a fish? Sunshine Science Series. Bothell, WA: Wright Group/McGraw-Hill. Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension strategy instruction in core reading programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(2), 102–126. Dickson, S. V., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998a). Text organization: Instructional and curricular basics and implications. In D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dickson, S. V., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998b). Text organization: Research bases. In D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs (pp. 239–278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dole, J. A., Reutzel, D. R., & Rodgers, K. (2013). Teachers’ understandings of text complexity. Presentation at the Research Institute of the Annual Meeting of the International Reading Association, San Antonio, TX. Donaldson, R. S. (2011). What classroom observations reveal about primary grade reading comprehension instruction within high poverty schools participating in the federal Reading First Initiative (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3461336) Donovan, C. A. (1996.) First graders’ impressions of genrespecific elements in writing narrative and expository texts. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the twenty-first century (pp. 183–194). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference. Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2002). Considering genre, context, and visual features in the selection of trade books for science instruction. The Reading Teacher, 55(6), 502–520. Doronco, M., & Presti, L. (2011). Measuring tools. New York, NY: Benchmark Publishing. Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202–224.
Duke, N. K. (2002). Improving comprehension of informational text. Presentation at the Center for Improvement of Early Reading Achievement Summer Institute, Ann Arbor, MI. Duke, N. K. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 40–44. Duke, N. K., & Bennett-Armistead, S. (2003). Reading and writing informational text in the primary grades: Researchbased practices. New York, NY: Scholastic. Duke, N. K., & Kays, J. (1998). “Can I say ‘Once upon a time’?”: Kindergarten children developing knowledge of informational book language. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 295–318. Duke, N. K., Bennett-Armistead, S., & Roberts, E. M. (2002). Incorporating informational text in the primary grades. In C. M. Roller (Ed.), Comprehensive reading instruction across the grade levels: A collection of papers from the 2001 Reading Research Conference (pp. 41–54). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader-text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 515–528. doi:10.1037/a0027182 Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2013). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP® model. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Elleman, A. M., Olinghouse, N. G., Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., and Spencers, J. L. (2017). Developing content knowledge in struggling readers. The Elementary School Journal 118 (2), 232-256. Ellis, S. S., & Whalen, S. F. (1990). Cooperative learning: Getting started. New York, NY: Scholastic. Feely, J. (2004). City and country. Marlborough, MA: Sundance Publishing, Inc. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fowler, G. L. (1982). Developing comprehension skills in primary students through the use of story frames. The Reading Teacher, 36(2), 176–179. Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C., et al. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 306–332. Hall, K. M., Sabey, B. L., & McClellan, M. (2005). Expository text comprehension: Helping primary-grade teachers use expository texts to full advantage. Reading Psychology, 26, 211–234. Hiebert, E. H. (2012, January). The common core’s staircase of text complexity: Getting the size of the first step right. Reading Today, pp. 26–27.
References 381
Hiebert, E. H. (2013). Supporting students’ movement up the staircase of text complexity. The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 459–468. Hiebert, E. H., & Cervetti, G. N. (2011). What differences in narrative and informational texts mean for the learning and instruction of vocabulary. Retrieved from http://www. textproject.org Hiebert, E. H., & Mesmer, H. A. E. (2013). Meeting standard 10: Reading complex text. Principal Leadership, January, 30–33. Hiebert, E. H., & Reutzel, D. R. (2010). Revisiting silent reading: New directions for teachers and researchers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Hunt, J. (2004). Volcano! Northborough, MA: Sundance Publishers. Irvin, J. L., & Connors, N. A. (1989). Reading instruction in middle level schools: Results of a U. S. survey. Journal of Reading 32, 306–311. Irwin, J. (1986). Understanding and teaching cohesion comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Jenkins, H. (1993). “How Do Fish Live? Bothel, WA: The Wright Group, Inc. Jiang, H., & Davis, D. (2017). Let’s know! Proximal impacts on prekindergarten through grade 3 students’ comprehension-related skills. The Elementary School Journal 118 (2), 177-206. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2000). Training reading comprehension in adequate decoders/poor comprehenders: Verbal versus visual strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 772–782. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Jones, C. D., Clark, S. K., & Reutzel, D. R. (2016). The Elementary School Journal, 117 (1), 143–169, Jones, C. D., Reutzel, D. R., & Clark, S. K. (2014). Teaching text structure: Examining affordances in young children’s informational texts. Manuscript in preparation. Kamil, M. L., & Lane, D. (1997a). A classroom study of the efficacy of using information text for first grade reading instruction. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www. stanford.edu/~mkamil Kamil, M. L., & Lane, D. (1997b). A follow-up report on the classroom study of the efficacy of using information text for first grade reading instruction. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~mkamil Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE Publication No. 2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Kelly, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 53–61. King, C. M., & Parent-Johnson, L. M. (1999). Constructing meaning via reciprocal teaching. Reading Research and Instruction, 38(3), 169–186. Kletzien, S. B., & Szabo, R. (1998). Information text or narrative? Children’s preferences revisited. Rountable Presentation at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Krulik, N. E. (1991). My picture book of the planets. New York, NY: Scholastic. Laing, L. A., & Dole, J. A. (2006). Help with teaching reading comprehension: Comprehension instructional frameworks. The Reading Teacher, 59(8), 742–753. Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory—3. New York, NY: Longman. Lyman, F. T., & McTighe, J. (1988). Cueing thinking in the classroom: The promise of theory-embedded tools. Educational Leadership, 45, 18–24. Marinak, B. A., Gambrell, L. B., & Mazonni, S. A. (2013). Maximizing motivation for literacy learning, Grades K–6. New York, NY: Guilford Press. McGee, L. M. (1982). Awareness of text structure: Effects on children’s recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(4), 581–590. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Reading Research Quarterly, 44 (3), 218-253. Menke, D. J., & Pressley, M. (1994). Elaborative interrogation: Using “why” questions to enhance learning from text. Journal of Reading, 37(8), 642–645. Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: NorthHolland Publishing. Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103. Meyer, B., & Wijukumar, K. (2007). A web-based tutoring system for the structure strategy: Theoretical background, design, and findings. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 347–374). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. Meyers, P. A. (2005). The princess storyteller, Clara clarifier, Quincy questioner, and the wizard: Reciprocal teaching adapted for kindergarten students. The Reading Teacher, 59(4), 314–324. Miller, S. D., & Fairchild, B. S. (2009). Motivation and reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research comprehension (pp. 307–322). New York, NY: Routledge. Mohr, K. A. J. (2003). Children’s choices: A comparison of book preferences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic
382 References first-graders. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 24(2), 163–176. Morgan, A., Wilcox, B. R., & Eldredge, J. L. (2000). Effect of difficulty levels on second-grade delayed readers using dyad reading. Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 113–119. Morrow, L. M. (1985). Retelling stories: A strategy for improving children’s comprehension, concept of story structure and oral language complexity. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 647–661. Morrow, L. M. (2005). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Moss, B. (2003). The information text gap: The mismatch between nonnarrative text types in basal readers and 2009 NAEP recommended guidelines. Journal of Literacy Research, 40, 201–219. NAEP. (2015). The Nation’s report card: 2015 mathematics and reading assessments. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2011). Reading framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA & CCSSO). (2010). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGO & CCSSO). (2010). Supplemental information for Appendix A of the common core state standards for English language arts and literacy: New Research on Text Complexity. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read, an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nelson, R. (2003). From cocoa bean to chocolate. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner Publishing Group. Neuman, S. B. (2001). The role of knowledge in early literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 468–475. Neuman, S. B., & Wright, T. S. (2013). All about words: Increasing vocabulary in the common core classroom, PreK—2. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Nichols, J. (1980). Using paragraph frames to help remedial high school students with written assignments. Journal of Reading, 24, 228–231. Oczkus, L. D. (2004). Reciprocal teaching at work: Strategies for improving reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Oyler, C., & Barry, A. (1996). Urban first graders intertextual connections in the collaborative talk around information books during teacher-led read-alouds. Language Arts, 73, 324–329. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255–287. Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1985). Reciprocal teaching: A means to a meaningful end. In J. Osborn, P. T. Wilson, & R. C. Anderson (Eds.), Reading education: Foundations for a literate America (pp. 299–310). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company. Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(3), 272–280. Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083–2093. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 641–668). New York, NY: Longman. Pereira-Laird, J. A., & Deane, F. P. (1997). Development and validation of a self-report measure of reading strategy use. Reading Psychology, 18(3), 185–235. Pressley, M., & Wharton-McDonald, R. (1997). Skilled comprehension and its development through instruction. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 448–466. Pyle, N., Vasquez, A. C., Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Gillam, S. L., Reutzel, D. R. R. Olszewski, A. Segura, H., Harzheim, Laing, W. & Pyle, D. (2017). Effects of expository text structure interventions on comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 52 (4), 469-501. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Science and Technology Policy Institute, RAND Education. Raphael, T. E. (1982). Question-answering strategies for children. The Reading Teacher, 36, 186–191. Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516–523. Raphael, T. E. & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students’ awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 217–235. Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test-taking across grade and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206–221. Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1982). The effect of metacognitive training on children’s question answering behaviors. Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED215315) Raphael, T. E., Highfield, K., & Au, K. H. (2006). QAR now: A powerful and practical framework that develops
References 383
comprehension and higher-level thinking in all students. New York, NY: Scholastic. Read, S., Reutzel, D. R., & Fawson, P. C. (2008). Do you want to know what I learned? Using information trade books as models to teach text structure. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 213–219. Reed, D. K., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Retell as an indicator of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(3), 187–217. Reutzel, D. R., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C. (2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(3), 276–305. Ring, S. (2003). Bridges. Boston, MA: Newbridge. Romine, B. G., McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1996). Reading coursework requirements for middle and high school content area teachers: A U.S. survey. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(3), 194–198. Rose, E. (2004). Let’s measure it! Northborough, MA: Sundance Publishing. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479–530. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2013). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 886–922). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Sadoski, M., Paivio, A., & Goetz, E. T. (1991). A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 463–484. Schmitt, M. C. (1988). The effect of an elaborated directed reading activity on the metacomprehension skills of third graders. In J. E. Readence & R. S. Baldwin (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research (pp. 167–189). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference. Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43, 454–461. Schmitt, M. C. (2005). Measuring students’ awareness and control of strategic processes. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 101–119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Seidenberg, P. L. (1989). Relating text-processing research to reading and writing instruction for learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Focus, 5(1), 4–12. Shanahan, T. (2012a). What is close reading? Retrieved from http://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/2012/07/-planning-for-close-reading.html
Shanahan, T. (2012b). Planning for close reading. Retrieved from http://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/2012/07/planning-for-close-reading.html Shanahan, T. (2013). The common core ate my baby. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 10–16. Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE Report No. 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practice guides Shanahan, T., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). The challenge of challenging text. Educational Leadership, 69(6), 58–62. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Stafford, J. (2004). Name that shape!—Reading Power Works series. Northborough, MA: Sundance. Stahl, K. A. D. (2004). Proof, practice, and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 598–609. Stahl, K. A. D. (2008). The effects of three instructional methods on the reading comprehension and content acquisition of novice readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(3), 359–393. Stanovich, K., & Cunningham, A. E. (1992). Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory & Cognition, 20(1), 51–68. Swafford, J., & Bryan, J. K. (2000). Instructional strategies for promoting conceptual change: Supporting middle school students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16(2), 139–161. Sweet, A. P. (1997). Teacher perceptions of student motivation and their relation to literacy learning. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 86–101). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Thomson, S. (2006). Amazing snakes. New York, NY: Scholastic. van Dijk, T. A. (1999). Context models in discourse processing. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 123–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., & Bryant, D. P. (2001). Collaborative strategic reading as a means to enhance peermediated instruction for reading comprehension and content-area learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22(2), 66–75. Walpole, S., McKenna, M. C., Amendum, S., Pasquarella, A., & Strong, J. Z. (2017). The promise of a literacy
384 References reform effort in the upper elementary grades. The Elementary School Journal, 118 (2), 257- 280. Whittingham, C. E., Hoffman, E. B., & Teale, W. H. (2017). Research you can use: Do your literacy practices reflect the latest research? Principal (Nov/Dec.), 20-22. Wigfield, A. (1997). Children’s motivations for reading and reading engagement. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 14–33). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., & McGough, K. (1996). A questionnaire measure of children’s motivations for reading (Instructional Resource No. 22). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 6–18. Williams, J. P. (2007). Literacy in the curriculum: Integrating text structure and content area instruction. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 199–220). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wood, E., Pressley, M., & Winne, P. H. (1990). Elaborative interrogation effects on children’s learning of factual content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 741–748. Wood, K. D., & Jones, J. P. (1994). Integrating collaborative learning across the curriculum. Middle School Journal, 20, 19–23.
Chapter 10 Allington, R. L., McGill-Franzen, A., Camilli, G., Williams, L., Graff, J., Zeig, J., & Nowak, R (2010). Addressing summer reading setback among economically disadvantaged elementary students. Reading Psychology, 31(5), 411–427. doi:10.1080/02702711.2010.505165 Allington, R.L., & McGill-Franzen (2013). Summer reading loss. In Allington, R.L. & McGill-Franzen, A. (Eds.). Summer Reading: Closing the Rich/Poor Reading Achievement Gap. Newark, DE: International Literacy Association. Augustine, C.H., McCombs, J.S., Schwartz, H.L., & Zakaras, L. (2013). Getting to Work on Summer Learning: Recommended Practices for Success. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: https://www. rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR366.html. Baron, K. (2015). Read for success: Combating the summer learning slide in America. Education Week, 34(31), 5. Bowers, L. M., & Schwarz, I. (2018). Preventing summer learning loss: Results of a summer literacy program for students from low-SES homes. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34(2), 99–116. doi:10.1080/10573569.2017.1344943 Cooper, H., Borman, G., & Fairchild, R. (2010). School calendars and academic achievement. In J. Meece & J.
Eccles (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Schools, Schooling, and Human Development (pp. 342–355). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J., & Muhlenbruck, B. (2000). Making the most of summer school: A metaanalytic and narrative review. Monograph Series for the Society for Research in Child Development, 65(1), 1–127. doi:10.1111/1540-5834.00063 Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66, 227–268. Cooter, K.S. (2006). When mama can’t read: Counteracting intergenerational illiteracy. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 698–702. Cooter, K.S. (2018). Transitioning from school year to summer and back again. Louisville, KY: Unpublished manuscript. D’Ardenne, C., Barnes, D. G., Hightower, E. S., Lamason, P. R., Mason, M., Patterson, P. C., & Erickson, K. A. (2013). PLCs in action: Innovative teaching for struggling grade 3–5 Readers. Reading Teacher, 67(2), 143–151. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1180 David, J. L. (2009). Learning communities for administrators. Educational Leadership, 67(2), 88–89. de Melker, S., & Weber, S. (September 7, 2014). Agrarian roots? Think again. Debunking the myth of summer vacation’s origins. Washington, D.C.: PBS New Hour. Retrieved May 1, 2018. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/debunking-myth-summer-vacation Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early: Two longitudinal studies. New York: Teachers College Press. Garst, B. A., & Ozier, L. W. (2015). Enhancing youth outcomes and organizational practices through a campbased reading program. Journal of Experiential Education, 38(4), 324–338. doi:10.1177/1053825915578914 Gold, K.M. (2002). School’s in: The history of summer education in American public schools. Bern, CH: Peter Lang. Ivey, G., & Fisher, D. (2005). Learning from what doesn’t work. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 8–14. Koskinen, P.S., Wilson, R.M., & Jensema, C.J. (1985). Closed-captioned television: A new tool for reading instruction. Reading World, 24(4), 1–7. Lindsay, J.J. (2013). Interventions that increase children’s access to print material and improve their reading proficiencies. In Allington, R.L. & McGill-Franzen, A. (Eds.). Summer Reading: Closing the Rich/Poor Reading Achievement Gap. Newark, DE: International Literacy Association. McCall, M. S., Hauser, C., Cronin, J., Kingsbury, G. G., & Houser, R. (2006). Achievement gaps: An examination of differences in student achievement and growth. Lake Oswego, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association.
References 385
McCombs, J.S., Augustine, C.H., Schwartz, H.L., Bodilly, S.J., McInnis, B., Lichter, D.S. & Cross, A.B. (2011). Making Summer Count: How Summer Programs Can Boost Children’s Learning, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, MG-1120-WF, 2011. Retrieved from: https:// www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1120.html McDaniel, S.C., McLeod, R., Carter, C.L., & Robinson, C. (2017). Supplemental summer literacy instruction: Implications for preventing summer leaning loss. Reading Psychology, 38(7), 673–686. doi:10.1080/0270271 1.2017.1333070 National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2018). The nation’s report card: Highlights of the 2017 mathematics and reading assessments. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Bates, C. C., & Morgan, D. N. (2018). Seven elements of effective professional development. Reading Teacher, 71(5), 623–626. doi:10.1002/trtr.1674
Pietsch, L. (2013). A step-by-step study of formative assessment. School Library Monthly, 29(5), 5–7. Satterfield, A. (2014). An endless professional learning community. Reading Teacher, 67(6), 478. doi:10.1002/ trtr.1240 Smith, W. R. (2012). Culture of collaboration. Education Digest, 77(9), 23–27. Stahl, K. A.D. (2015). Using professional learning communities to bolster comprehension instruction. Reading Teacher, 68(5), 327–333. doi:10.1002/trtr.1311 Thoma, J., Hutchison, A., Johnson, D., Johnson, K., & Stromer, E. (2017). Planning for technology integration in a professional learning community. Reading Teacher, 71(2), 167–175. doi:10.1002/trtr.1604 Williams, D. J. (2012). Urban education and professional learning communities. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 79(2), 31–39.
Name Index A
Abrami, P. C., 264 Ada, A. F., 61 Adams, M. J., 4, 69, 70, 121, 129, 195 Afflerbach, P., 12 Agne, K., 24 Ainslie, D., 330 Alexander, J. E., 249 Alger, H., Jr., 235 Algozzine, B., 72 Allen, J., 239 Allington, R. L., 27, 199, 356, 357, 358, 361 Alvermann, D. E., 269, 291 Amendum, S. J., 181, 293 Anderson, C. J., 110 Anderson, T. H., 294, 295, 313 Aram, D., 108 Aram, R., 169 Archambault, J., 196 Armbruster, B. B., 4, 69, 121, 212, 213, 227, 294, 295, 313 Asher, S. R., 305 Au, K. H., 308, 316 August, D., 158, 181 Augustine, C. H., 360 Avalos, M. A., 261 Avrit, K. J., 194
B
Baker, L., 291 Baldwin, L. E., 289 Baldy, R., 105 Balu, R., 15 Barefoot, L. C., 194 Barnes, E. M., 56 Baron, K., 360 Barquero, L. A., 15 Barry, A., 290 Bartlett, B. J., 295, 314 Base, G., 106 Baumann, J. F., 5 Bear, D. R., 177 Beaver, J., 310 Beck, I. L., 25, 219, 239, 269, 290, 329, 330 Benjamin, R. G., 184, 185, 186 Bennett-Armistead, S., 290, 295, 310, 343 Berch, D., 71 Berger, M., 348 Bernfeld, L. E. S., 310 Best, R., 243 Betts, E., 138 Biddulph, F., 333 Biddulph, J., 333 Black, J. L., 194 Blaiklock, K. E., 70, 71 Blake, R. G. K., 290 Blevins, W., 118, 123 Block, C. C., 323, 326
386
Blosson, M., 40, 53 Blum, C., 116 Bluth, G. J., 295 Bodilly, S. J., 360 Boettcher, W., 108 Bojczyk, K. E., 212 Borchordt, K. M., 278 Borman, G. D., 323, 329, 339, 356, 357 Botsas, G., 241, 242 Bouchard, C., 282 Bouton, B., 15 Bowers, J. S., 118 Bowers, L. M., 356, 358 Bowers, P. N., 118 Bowman, M., 71, 108 Boyd-Batstone, P., 261 Boyle, J. R., 269 Brabham, E. G., 69, 130 Brandt, D. M., 295 Brandt, L., 137 Braun, C., 268 Broaddus, K., 180 Bromley, K., 269 Brophy, J., 24 Brouillette, L., 285 Brown, A., 344, 345 Brown, H., 254 Brown, R., 25 Brown, S. A., 194 Brown-Chidsey, R., 15, 18, 31, 32 Brownell, M. T., 213, 229 Bryan, J. K., 292, 346, 347 Bryant, D. P., 350 Burgess, S. R., 70 Burke, C. L., 139 Burns, M. S., 69, 72 Byington, T. A., 56 Byrne, B., 158
C
Cabell, S., 38 Cadime, I., 241 Caldwell, J., 310 Calkins, L., 80 Calkins, S. L., 75 Cambourne, B., 254 Camilli, G., 357 Campbell, K., 341 Carlisle, A., 20 Carnine, D., 80, 121 Carr, E., 259 Casanave, C. P., 344, 345 Casey, H., 24 Casteel, C. A., 294 Celano, D., 20 Cepeda, N. J., 71 Cervetti, G. N., 294
Name Index 387
Chall, J. S., 289 Chapman, C., 27 Chard, D., 179, 195 Charlton, K., 356–357, 358 Chase, R., 267, 282 Chaves-Sousa, S., 241 Child, A., 72 Cho, E., 15 Christie, J. F., 279 Ciullo, S., 20 Clark, S. K., 72, 108, 295 Clay, M. M., 72, 74, 86, 94, 95, 113, 117, 138, 139, 142, 172, 326 Clyne, M., 314, 316 Coffey, D., 238 Collins-Block, C., 323, 341 Compton, D., 15, 16, 32, 293 Conley, D. T., 37, 56 Connor, C. M., 15, 16, 32 Connors, N. A., 292 Cooper, H., 356–357, 358 Cooter, K. S., 81, 82, 84, 135, 149, 225, 249, 250, 258, 357, 361 Cooter, R. B., 4, 5, 7, 72, 81, 82, 84, 121, 135, 140-144, 149, 161, 185, 207, 208, 212, 225, 243, 245, 249, 250, 258, 266, 276 Corno, L., 305 Coxhead, A., 338 Craig, S., 220 Cramond, B., 193 Cronin, J., 357 Crowley, P., 274 Cuevas, P. D., 261 Cummins, S., 291, 335, 337 Cunningham, A. E., 329 Cunningham, J., 121, 131 Cunningham, P., 132, 173 Cutting, B., 310 Cutting, J., 310 Cutting, L. E., 316
D
Dabiel, M. C., 252 Dale, P. S., 33 Daronco, M., 316 Davis, D., 293 Davis, M. M., 27 Davis-Warra, J., 285, 286 de Melker, S., 356 De Naeghel, J., 249, 251, 252 Deane, F. P., 247, 297 Deffner, N., 106 Defior, S., 219 Deno, S. L., 182 Denton, C. A., 31 Desmarais, C., 282 Devault, R., 172 Dewitz, P., 338 Diamond, L., 137, 160 Dickinson, D. K., 56 Dickson, S. V., 294, 295, 314, 332 Dimino, J., 15, 16, 32 Doering, A. H., 174 Dole, J. A., 292, 323, 329, 339, 350
Donaldson, R. S., 292 Donovan, C. A., 198, 290, 294 Doolittle, F., 15 Dougherty-Stahl, K. A., 5 Dowhower, S., 194 Downing, J., 74 Duffelmeyer, F. A., 132 Duffy, G. G., 26, 199, 200 Duffy-Hester, A. M., 5 Duke, N. K., 75, 243, 289, 290, 291, 294, 295, 296, 310, 343 Durbin, J., 21 Durkin, D., 72, 241, 362 Durrell, D., 138 Duvvuri, R., 131, 151
E
Eason, S. H., 316 Ecalle, J., 105 Echevarria, J., 347 Ehlers-Zavala, F., 252 Ehly, S., 195 Ehri, L. C., 74, 106, 107 Eldredge, J. L., 195, 197, 206, 290 Elkonin, D. B., 103, 172 Elleman, A. M., 293 Elliott, S. N., 1 Ellis, S. S., 307
F
Fahey, K., 264 Fairchild, B. S., 292 Fairchild, R., 356, 357 Fawson, P. C., 25, 117, 137, 144, 198, 200, 269, 272, 290 Fedesco, H. N., 38 Feely, J., 316 Figueroa, V. A., 217 Filiatrault-Veilleux, P., 282 Fisher, D., 180, 290, 291, 292, 293, 328, 329 Fitzgerald, J., 181 Flatley, K., 241 Fleischman, P., 61 Fletcher, J. M., 31 Florian, D., 61 Flynn, R. M., 196, 197 Flynt, E. S., 141, 225, 245, 249, 250 Fountas, I. C., 327 Fowler, G. L., 312 Fox, M., 286 Foy, J. G., 70 Freeman, D., 110 Freeman, Y., 110 Fresch, M. J., 198 Frey, N., 180, 290, 291, 292, 293, 328, 329 Fry, E. B., 177 Fuchs, D., 15, 16, 17, 32 Fuchs, L. S., 15, 16, 17, 32
G
Gambrell, L. B., 32, 174, 198, 291, 292, 341 Ganske, K., 228, 229 Gardner, H., 323 Garst, B. A., 359 Gavin, W. J., 53
388 Name Index Gayo, E., 241 Gebhardt, S., 241 Geist, M. C., 316 George, M. A., 26 Gerson, V., 174 Gersten, R., 15, 16, 32 Gettinger, M., 15 Gibson, E. J., 71 Gilbert, J. K., 15, 16, 18, 293 Giles, L., 53 Gillam, S. L., 295, 332 Glenn, C. G., 243 Goetz, E. T., 323 Gold, K. M., 356 Goldberg, L. F., 316 Goldstein, H., 212 Gomes-Koban, C., 219 Good, R. H., 88, 182 Goodman, Y. M., 138, 139 Goodwin, M., 20 Gordon, C. J., 268 Goswami, U., 129 Gouldthorp, B., 243, 254 Graesser, A., 243 Graff, J., 357 Gray, W. S., 138 Greathouse, S., 356–357 Greene, F., 195, 197 Greenfader, C. M., 285 Greenfield, E., 61 Greenwood, G., 24 Gregory, G. H., 27 Grifenhagen, J. F., 56 Griffin, P., 69, 72 Griffith, L. W., 196, 197 Griffith, P. L., 79, 81, 103, 105 Griffiths, R., 314, 316 Groff, C., 186 Guard, K. B., 241 Guthrie, J. T., 198, 291, 303, 346, 347 Guthrie, K. M., 181 Gutiérrez, G., 181 Gutlohn, L., 137, 160
H
Haager, D., 18 Hall, K. M., 291–292, 295 Halliday, M. A. K., 73, 74 Hamre, B., 23 Hancock, J., 26 Hare, V. C., 278 Harlaar, N., 33 Harris, V., 61 Harzheim, D., 295, 332 Hasbrouck, J., 184, 185 Hauser, C., 357 Hayiou-Thomas, M. E., 33 Heathington, B. S., 249 Heckleman, R. G., 203 Henk, W. A., 203 Hennings, K., 197 Herrera, J. F., 61 Heubach, K., 193
Hiebert, E. H., 198, 214, 241, 290, 291, 292, 294, 337, 338 Highfield, K., 316 Himse, R., 74 Hite, C., 206 Hoffman, J. V., 193 Hoffman, L., 53 Holbrook, S., 61, 62 Hollingsworth, P. M., 194, 197, 203, 205, 206 Homan, S. P., 206 Honig, B., 137, 160 Hopkins, L. B., 61 Horn, E., 177 Houser, J., 8 Houser, R., 357 Hughes, J., 174 Hughes, L., 61 Hulan, N., 9 Hunt, J., 336 Hutchison, A., 355
I
Ihmeideh, F. M., 116 Ihnot, C., 195 Imbeau, M. B., 23, 24 Invernizzi, M., 177 Irvin, J. L., 292 Irwin, J., 293 Israelson, M. H., 92, 93 Ivens, S. H., 131, 151 Iwasaki, B., 286, 287
J
Jacobs, J. E., 299 Jacobs, V. A., 289 Jahn, M. D., 109 Jefferson, G., 182 Jeffries, D., 273 Jenkins, H., 289 Jenkins, J., 15 Jensema, C. J., 204, 362 Jiang, H., 293 Johns, J. L., 74 Johnson, D., 38, 355 Johnson, D. D., 25 Johnson, D. W., 307 Johnson, K., 355 Johnson, N. S., 243 Johnson, R. T., 307 Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., 344, 345 Johnston, P. H., 74 Johnston, R., 177 Johnston, T., 61 Jones, C. D., 32, 71, 72, 89, 108, 137, 198, 200, 295 Jones, J., 338 Jones, J. P., 327 Joseph, D. G., 245 Joseph, L. M., 172 Judd, L., 20 Justice, L. M., 71 Juth, S., 198
Name Index 389
K
Kame'enui, E. J., 5., 80, 182, 294 Kamil, M. L., 290, 323, 329, 339 Kaminski, R. A., 182 Katsipis, L., 243, 254 Kays, J., 290 Kear, D. J., 249 Kelly, L. B., 38 Kelly, M., 345 Kennedy, M. J., 213, 229 Kervin, L., 94 Kessler, B., 71, 108 Kim, Y., 56, 243 King, C. M., 345 King, R. P., 182 Kingsbury, G. G., 357 Kinzer, C. K., 117, 118, 177 Klesius, J. P., 206 Kletzien, S. B., 290 Klinger, J., 18 Klingner, J. K., 350 Knight, J. A., 75 Koskinen, P., 204 Koskinen, P. S., 204, 362 Kozol, J., 121 Krauss, R., 66 Kress, J. E., 177 Krulik, N. E., 309, 316, 317, 342 Kucan, L., 25, 219, 239, 330 Kuhn, M. R., 186, 193, 198 Kumar, T., 295 Kuskin, K., 61
L
La Pray, M. H., 152 Labat, H., 105 Laing, L. A., 350 Laing, W., 295, 332 Lane, D., 290 LaParo, K., 23 Lawrence, J., 264 Layne, V., 9 Leahy, S., 338 Lee, C., 238 Lefever-Davis, S., 195 Lefly, D., 8 Lehr, F., 4, 69, 212, 213, 227 Lembke, E. S., 20 Lenski, S. D., 252 Lenters, K., 110 Leslie, L., 310 Leu, D. J., 117, 118, 177 Levin, H., 71 Levin, I., 71 Liberman, I. Y., 77, 104 Lignugaris-Kraft, B., 295, 332 Linan-Thompson, S., 15, 16, 32, 179, 195 Lindsay, J. J., 356–357, 358 Lipson, M. Y., 12 Lloyd, J. W., 213, 229 Lobel, A., 106 Lomax, R. G., 74, 198 Longcamp, M., 108
Lonigan, C. J., 34, 39, 70, 120, 122 López, M. J., 217 Lowry, L., 279, 280 Ludlow, B. C., 144 Luna, S. M., 37 Luthin, K., 116 Lyman, F. T., 327
M
Magnan, A., 105 Maia, J., 241 Mandler, J. M., 243 Mann, V., 70 Mantei, J., 94 Manzo, A. V., 128, 129 Manzo, U. C., 128, 129 Marinak, B. A., 32, 291, 292 Marston, D., 182 Martin, B., 194, 196 Martin, N. M., 75 Martinez, M., 196, 197 Marty, A., 212 Marzano, R., 239, 244 Massey, S. R., 261 Mather, N., 132, 133, 134 Mathews, B., 149 Mayer, R. E., 217 Mazonni, S. A., 32, 291, 292 McBride-Chang, C., 71 McCall, M. S., 357 McCann, A. D., 305 McClellan, M., 291–292, 295 McCombs, J. S., 360 McCook, J. E., 8, 17, 31 McEvoy, P., 66 McGee, L. M., 72, 74, 310 McGill-Franzen, A., 27, 356, 357, 358, 361 McGough, K., 303 McInnis, B., 360 McIntyre, E., 9 McKee, D., 118 McKenna, M. C., 9, 12, 15, 16, 25, 32, 137, 249, 293 McKeown, M. G., 25, 219, 239, 269, 290, 329, 330 McLaughlin, M., 9 McNamara, D. S., 243 McNeil, L., 23 McTighe, J., 327 Meisinger, E. B., 186 Meister, C., 344, 345 Meltzer, N. S., 74 Menke, D. J., 342 Merkley, D. M., 273 Mesmer, H. A. E., 69, 290, 291, 292, 337, 338 Meyer, B., 294, 295, 313, 314, 332 Meyer, E. J., 264 Meyers, P. A., 344, 346 Milburn, T. E., 34, 39 Millard, R. T., 131, 151 Miller, L., 24 Miller, S. D., 292 Mills, K. A., 285, 286 Moats, L. C., 126, 177 Mohr, A. J., 71
390 Name Index Mohr, K. A. J., 290 Moore, B. H., 74, 110 Moore, D. W., 291, 345 Mora, P., 61 Morgan, A., 290 Morris, D., 191 Morrison, T., 117, 310 Morrow, L. M., 24, 29, 50, 51, 54, 255, 310 Morsink, P. M., 75 Moses, L., 38 Moss, B., 290, 311, 312 Mueller, C., 243, 254 Muhlenbruck, B., 358 Murray, B. A., 69, 130
N
Nelson, L., 191 Nelson, R., 316 Nese, J. T., 1 Ness, M., 241 Neuman, S. B., 20, 72, 204, 290, 312, 329 Newton, E., 212 Newton, J., 212 Newton, R. M., 212 Nichols, J., 312 Nichols, W. D., 72 Nies, A., 26 Norman, R. R., 75 Noyce, R. M., 279 Nye, B., 356–357 Nye, N. S., 61
O
O'Connor, R. E., 177 Oczkus, L. D., 344, 346 Oda, L. K., 74, 110 Ogden, M., 38 Ogle, D. M., 284 Olinghouse, N. G., 293 Oliver, P., 74 Olson, M. W., 79, 105 Olszewski, A., 295, 332 Opitz, M. F., 25, 196, 206 O'Reilly, T., 243 Osborn, J., 4, 69, 121, 212, 213, 227 Ostertag, J., 294 Overturf, B. J., 9, 239 Oyler, C., 290 Ozier, L. W., 359 Ozuru, Y., 243
P
Padak, N., 180, 212 Paige, D. D., 179, 180, 206 Paivio, A., 323 Paley, V., 63 Palincsar, A. S., 25, 279, 344, 345 Pappas, T., 61 Paratore, J., 264 Pardo, L. S., 297 Parent-Johnson, L. M., 345 Parette, H. P., 116 Paris, S. G., 70, 198, 247, 297, 299
Parris, S. R., 323, 326 Pashler, D., 71 Pasquarella, A., 293 Pazos-Rego, A. M., 261 Pearce, D. L., 10 Pearman, C., 195 Pearson, P. D., 7, 241, 243, 275, 308, 316, 339 Pereira-Laird, J. A., 247, 297 Perpich, D., 40, 53 Pianta, R., 23 Piasta, S. B., 71 Picot, C. J., 228 Pinnell, G. S., 327 Plomin, R., 33 Polat, N., 1 Ponce, H. R., 217 Powell, D. A., 169 Prelutsky, J., 61, 62, 194 Pressley, M., 25, 243, 341, 342 Presti, L., 316 Prom-Wormley, E., 33 Pyle, D., 295, 332 Pyle, N., 295, 332
Q
Qiong, F., 241 Quinn, D. W., 195
R
Randi, J., 305 Raphael, T. E., 26, 275, 276, 308, 316, 339, 340 Rasinski, T. V., 25, 179, 180, 182, 187, 191, 194, 195, 196, 197, 206, 212, 286, 287 Rathvon, N., 10, 32 Redmond, S. M., 53 Reed, D. K., 343 Reutzel, D. R., 4, 5, 7, 20, 24, 25, 27, 32, 69, 71, 72, 74, 89, 108, 110, 117, 121, 137, 144, 161, 179, 180, 187, 194, 195, 197, 198, 200, 202, 205, 206, 212, 243, 266, 269, 272, 290, 292, 295, 332, 337, 341 Reutzel, P., 71 Ribeiro, I., 241 Rice, M. L., 40, 53 Richgels, D. J., 72 Rickelman, R. J., 72 Ring, J. J., 194 Ring, S., 333 Risko, V. J., 9 Roberts, C., 66, 238 Roberts, E. M., 295 Roberts, K. L., 75 Robinson, B., 196 Roblyer, M. D., 174 Rodgers, K., 292 Rodgers, W. J., 213, 229 Rohrer, D., 71 Romig, J. E., 213, 229 Romine, B. G., 292 Rose, E., 343 Rosenshine, B., 344, 345 Roser, N., 196 Rosow, B., 177 Ross, R., 152
Name Index 391
Rosseel, Y., 249, 251 Rupley, W. H., 72 Rytting, N., 40, 53
S
Sabey, B. L., 291–292, 295 Sadler, C. R., 254, 259, 260 Sadoski, M., 323 Sammons, J., 133, 134 Samuels, S. J., 179, 194 Santoro, L., 15, 16, 32 Santos, S., 241 Satterfield, A., 355 Schatschneider, C., 120 Scheffel, D., 8 Schiller, E., 15 Schimmel, N., 241 Schmitt, M. C., 299, 302, 303 Schneider, N., 212 Schreiber, J. B., 1 Schuder, T., 25 Schulte, A., 1 Schumm, J. S., 261 Schwanenflugel, P. J., 186, 193 Schwartz, H. L., 360 Schwartz, J., 133, 134 Schwarz, I., 356, 358 Scieszka, J., 267 Searfoss, L. W., 197 Segura, H., 295, 332 Seidenberg, P. L., 294 Shake, M., 180, 181 Shanahan, T., 7, 24, 27, 118, 158, 180, 181, 290-294, 307, 308, 314, 323, 328, 329, 335, 337, 339 Shapiro, E. S., 241 Shields, C. D., 61 Shinn, M. R., 182 Short, D. J., 347 Silbert, J., 80 Silverman, R. D., 179 Silverstein, S., 61, 194 Simmons, D. C., 182, 294 Simpson, I. C., 219 Slavin, R. E., 327 Sloyer, S., 196 Smith, F., 73, 74 Smith, J. A., 25, 27, 144, 198, 200, 290, 341 Smith, W. R., 355 Smolik, F., 40, 53 Smolkin, L. B., 198, 294 Smythe, P. C., 108 Snow, C. E., 69, 72 Soto, G., 61 Spencers, J. L., 293 Stafford, J., 332, 333 Stahl, K. A. D., 9, 12, 15, 16, 32, 137, 254, 255, 263, 292, 326, 355 Stahl, S. A., 5, 121, 131, 193 Stanovich, K. E., 19, 329 Stanovich, P. J., 19 Stauffer, R. G., 282 Steege, M. W., 15, 18, 31, 32 Stein, N. L., 243
Steiner, L., 186 Stevens, J. J., 1 Stoiber, K., 15 Strecker, S., 196 Stromer, E., 355 Strong, J. Z., 293 Sudweeks, R. R., 144, 310 Suh, R., 174 Sun-Irminger, X., 252 Sunderland, N., 285, 286 Swafford, J., 292, 346, 347 Swanson, E., 212, 213 Sweet, A. P., 305 Sweet, J., 74 Szabo, R., 290
T
Taylor, N. E., 72 Templeton, S., 72, 177 Thoma, J., 355 Thomas, C. N., 20 Thompson, S., 149 Thompson, T., 40, 53 Thomson, S., 316 Thorndyke, P. N., 243 Tilly, W. D., 15, 16, 32 Tindal, G., 1, 182, 184, 185, 186, 188 Tomlinson, C. A., 23, 24 Topping, K. J., 195 Tosto, M. G., 33 Toyama, Y., 241 Treiman, R., 71, 77, 108 Troyer, S., 103 Trudeau, N., 282 Tuck, B. F., 345 Turner, J. C., 198, 247, 297 Tyner, B., 27
V
Valentine, J., 358 Valle, A., 219 Van Allen, R., 110 Van Allsburg, C., 106, 272 Van Keer, H., 249, 251 Van Meter, P., 25 Vanderwood, M. L., 181 Vansteenkiste, M., 249, 251 Vasquez, A. C., 295, 332 Vaughn, S., 16, 17, 18, 31, 32, 212, 213, 343, 350 Veal, M., 69, 130 Venezky, R. L., 87 Venkatesh, V., 264 Venn, E. C., 109 Verlann, W. E., 10 Viana, F. L., 241 Villaume, S. K., 69, 130 Viorst, J., 196 Vogt, M. E., 347 Vygotsky, L. S., 203, 279
W
Wade, C. A., 264 Wagner, R. K., 70, 71
392 Name Index Walker-Dalhouse, D., 9 Walpole, S., 293 Wamsley, A., 65 Wasik, B., 247, 297 Watson, D., 274 Weatherston, S., 71 Weber, C. M., 26 Weber, S., 356 Wesson, C. L., 182 Westberg, L., 120 Wexler, J., 212, 213 Whalen, S. F., 307 Whiteley, C. S., 323, 326 Whorrall, J., 38 Wigfield, A., 198, 303, 305 Wijukumar, K., 294 Wilce, L., 106 Wilcox, B., 117, 290, 310 Williams, D. J., 355 Williams, J. P., 292, 294, 295 Williams, L., 357 Williams, S. G., 135 Williams, T. O., 69 Wilson, E. K., 27 Wilson, R. M., 204, 362 Winne, P. H., 342 Wixson, K. K., 9, 12, 263
Wolber, D., 67 Wonder-McDowell, C., 27 Wong, J., 61 Wood, E., 342 Wood, K. D., 208, 209, 327 Worden, P. E., 108 Worthy, J., 180 Wright, F. L., 57 Wright, T. S., 329
Y
Yaden, D. B., Jr., 72 Yildirim, K., 286, 287 Yin, Y., 256 Yopp, H. K., 79, 80, 102, 103 Young, J., 117 Young, K. M., 316
Z
Zakaras, L., 360 Zarecky-Hodge, A., 1 Zeno, S. M., 131, 151 Zhu, P., 15 Zimmerman, B. S., 286, 287 Ziolkowski, R. A., 212 Zukowski, A., 77
Subject Index A
aaronshep.com, 196 Academic language, 37 Academic vocabulary, 36–37, 56, 228 Academic word list (AWL), 228 Achievement gap, 353, 357 Acquainted words, 213f, 214 ACT. See American College Testing (ACT) Action, 75 Adobe Acrobat Reader, 116 Advanced fluency, 37f Affixes, 130 Affordance, 92 Aimsweb computer-based reading assessment, 8 AKT. See Alphabet Knowledge Test (AKT) Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, On Good, Very Bad Day (Viorst), 196 Alliteration, 69, 100t Alphabet Knowledge Test (AKT), 76t, 89–92 letter classification subtest, 90–91 letter dictation subtest, 91 letter discrimination subtest, 91 letter free write subtest, 89, 91 letter names subtest, 90 letter-sound-picture association subtest, 89, 91 letter sounds subtest, 90 name writing subtest, 91 Alphabet trade books, 106 Alphabetic principle, 131 Alphaboxes, 55–56 Amazing Snakes (Thomson), 316 American College Testing (ACT), 335 Analogy-based phonics, 121 Analytic phonics instruction, 121 Anaphora, 293 Anecdotal records, 261–263 Animalia (Base), 106 Antiphonal: call and response, 62 Antiphonal reading, 24, 206 App evaluation rubric, 93f Application Exercise (MyLab Education) comprehension case study: comprehension of informational text, 297 comprehension case study: Mr. Strauss’s case study, 266 concepts about print case study, 94 decoding and word recognition case study, 132 Early Names Test, 132 letter name knowledge case study, 72 Mr. Clancy and Chang Hu case study, 183 one-minute reading with prosody, 187 oral language case study, 39 oral story retelling, 255, 256 phonological and phonemic awareness case study, 70 reading vocabulary case study, 217 running record, 142
sequential blending strategy, 167 sequential segmenting strategy, 164 SOLOM with Alejandro, 42 SOLOM with Yousuf, 42 summer learning loss case study, 360 Assisted and partner reading, 195–196 ATOS, 318, 318f Auditory acuity, 39 Auditory discrimination, 39 Auditory perception, 39 Auditory Sound Blending Task, 76t, 78–79 Auditory telescoping, 80 Authoritative/contractual function of language, 73 Author’s chair, 25 Automaticity, 179f, 188f, 191t AWL. See Academic word list (AWL)
B
Background briefing concepts about print, 72–75 informational texts, 289–296 letter name knowledge, 70–72 narrative texts, 241–243 oral language and listening, 33–39 phonics, decoding, and word recognition skills, 118–121 phonological and phonemic awareness, 69–70 reading fluency, 178–179 BACs: Let’s Get Ready to Read, 175 Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print (Adams), 121 Behaviorist theory of language development, 35 Bell curve, 10, 11f Benchmark assessment, 8 Best Christmas Pageant Ever, The (Robinson), 196 Big five building blocks of reading development comprehension, 5 fluency, 5 grade levels, 6t phonics, 4–5 phonological and phonemic awareness, 4 reading vocabulary, 5 schematic representation, 5f Blending individual sounds, 83 Blending sounds, 127, 154f, 156f Blending Sounds Assessment (BSA), 76t, 82–84 Blind peer-reviewed research journals, 19 Bloom’s Question Stems and Question Verbs, 243–247 Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, 244, 245 Body word chunks, 130 Book response projects, 199 Bound morpheme, 130 Bridges (Ring), 333 Brown Bear, Brown Bear (Martin), 194 BSA. See Blending Sounds Assessment (BSA) Buddy reading, 195
393
394 Subject Index
C
C rule, 123, 154f, 156f Campaign for Grade Level Reading, 360 CAP test. See Concepts about Printing (CAP) test Cataphora, 293 Cause and effect organization, 295 CBA. See Curriculum-based assessment (CBA) CCSS. See Common core state standards (CCSS) CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF, 146–147t, 147–149f Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE), 266, 267 CFA. See Components of fluency assessment (CFA) charlesbridge-fluency.com, 195 Children Who Read Early: Two Longitudinal Studies (Durkin), 362 Children’s information books, 295 Choral reading, 24, 206–209 Chunking (phrasing), 179f, 188f, 191t, 294 Cinderella skill, 39 City of Country (Feely), 316 Classroom-modified reading strategy use (CMRSU) Scale, 247, 248f Classroom profile form, 2, 2t informational texts comprehension skills, 322t letter name knowledge & concepts, 99t oral language and listening, 54t phonics, decoding, and word recognition skills, 155t phonological and phonemic awareness, 97t, 98t reading fluency skills, 189t, 190t reading vocabulary learning skills and needs, 227t Classroom routines, 24–25 Click or Clunk, 259–260 Close reading of informational texts, 335–337 Closed-caption television, 204 Closed word sort, 230 Cloze test, 223–225 CMRSU. See Classroom-modified reading strategy use (CMRSU) Scale Coda word chunks, 130 Coherence, 293–294 Cold read, 205 Collaborative strategic reading (CSR), 291, 350–351 Comienza en Casa, 360 “Common Core Ate My Baby, The” (Shanahan), 292 Common core state standards (CCSS) decoding, 146–147t ELACCS, 7 narrative texts, 243, 244f reading fluency, 181, 181–182t reading vocabulary, 214, 215–216t Reutzel/Cooter phonics and word recognition record (PWRR), 147–149f speaking and listening, 34 Comparison type of organization, 295 Complex informational texts, 320 Components of fluency assessment (CFA), 185–187, 188f Comprehension, 5 See also Reading comprehension Comprehension monitoring, 241 Comprehension process motions (CPMs), 323–326 Comprehension strategies instructional block, 24f, 25 Comprehensive reading inventory, Second Edition (CRI-2), 249
Computer-assisted reading, 195, 196 Concept map, 220 Concept-oriented reading instruction (CORI), 291, 345f, 346–347 Concepts about print assessing the children, 94–96 background briefing, 72–75 CAP test, 94–95 classroom profile form, 99t directionality, 74 e-books, 116 functions of print, 73 if-then teaching strategy guide, 100t instructional strategies, 109–117 language experience approach (LEA), 110–113 location concepts, 74–75 mapping speech onto print, 73–74 Mow Motorcycle Task, 95–96 ordinal concepts, 74 skills matched to assessment strategies, 76t spatial orientation, 74 technical aspects of print, 74–75 Verbal Punctuation, 114–115 visual clues embedded in books and print, 74 Voice Pointing, 113–114 Concepts about Print: What Has a Child about the Way We Print Language? (Clay), 94, 95 Concepts about Printing (CAP) test, 94–95 Consonant blends, 121, 125, 154f, 157f Consonant digraphs, 125, 154f, 157f Consonant sounds identification, 137t Consonant trigraphs, 125 Cooperative learning, 241 “Copycat” (Holbrook), 62 Core classroom intervention, 17f See also Tier 1 literacy instruction CORE Phonics Survey (CORE-PS), 137–138, 137t corestandards.org, 7, 106, 347 CORI. See Concept-oriented reading instruction (CORI) Cost-benefit analysis, 131 CPMs. See Comprehension process motions (CPMs) CREDE Center. See Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) CRI-2. See Comprehensive reading inventory, Second Edition (CRI-2) Criterion-referenced reading assessment, 10 Criterion-referenced test (CRT), 10 Critical Dialogue Planning and Lesson Guide, 66f Critical dialogues, 65–67 CROWD, 64 CRT. See Criterion-referenced test (CRT) CSR. See Collaborative strategic reading (CSR) Curricular alignment, 27 Curriculum, 21 Curriculum-based assessment (CBA), 50 CV pattern, 124, 154f, 157f CVC generalization, 123–124, 154f, 156f
D
Dadirri, 286 Dallas Reading Plan (DRP), 147t, 149f Dash4Teachers, 262t DECENT stories, 238–239
Subject Index 395
Decoding, 118, 157 See also Phonics, decoding, and word recognition skills Degrees of Reading Power (DRP), 318, 318f Developing fluency, 37f Developmental Reading Assessment (Beaver), 310 Diagnostic assessment, 8 Dialogic learning, 266 Dialogic reading, 64–65 DIBELS. See Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), 76t, 87–89 DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF), 182–183 DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), 8 DIBELS Word Use Frequency (WUF) Test, 46–47, 52t Dictation, 76t, 80–81 Diphthongs, 127 Direct, explicit instruction, 242 Direct explanation approach, 242 Directed listening-thinking activity (DL-TA), 282 Directed reading-thinking activity (DR-TA), 281–284 Directionality, 74, 110 Directive and explicit contexts in elaborated narrative texts (DECENT) stories, 238–239 Discussion web, 269, 273f Divertive function of language, 73 DL-TA. See Directed listening-thinking activity (DL-TA) DORF. See DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) Double consonants, 125, 154f, 157f “Double Jeopardy,” 337 DR-TA. See Directed reading-thinking activity (DR-TA) Dragon Apps, 39 Dragon Dictation, 113 Drastic strategy, 173–174 DRP. See Dallas Reading Plan (DRP); Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Dyad reading, 195 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), 76t, 87–89 Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), 8, 182–183 website, 183 what is it?, 46 Word Use Frequency (WUF), 46–47
E
E-books, 116 E-portfolios, 263 Early Detection of Reading Difficulties, The (Clay), 139 Early literacy skills, 68–117 app evaluation rubric, 93f assessing applications, 92–93 assessing children’s concepts about print, 94–96 assessing letter name knowledge, 86–92 assessing phonemic awareness, 81–86 assessing phonological awareness, 77–81 background briefing - concepts about print, 72–75 background briefing - letter name knowledge, 70–72 background briefing - phonological and phonemic awareness, 69–70 classroom profile form - letter name knowledge & concepts, 99t classroom profile form - phonological and phonemic awareness, 97t, 98t ELLs - letter name and sound mnemonics, 106–109
if-then teaching strategy guide, 100t instructional strategies - concepts about print, 109–117 instructional strategies - letter name knowledge, 104–106 instructional strategies - phonological and phonemic awareness, 101–104 letter name knowledge. See Letter name knowledge phonemic awareness. See Phonological and phonemic awareness print concepts. See Concepts about print skills matched to assessment strategies, 76t using assessment data to guide instruction, 96–101 Early Names Test, 132–134 Early production, 37f Easability Indicator, 318 EBR additions. See Evidence-based reading research (EBR additions) Echoic (echo) reading, 24, 206, 208 ECRR. See Every Child Ready to Read (ECRR) ECRR Toolkit for Spanish-Speaking Communities, 360 Education of All Handicapped Children Act, 31 Elaborative interrogation, 340–342 ELACCS. See English Language Arts (K-12) Common Core Standards (ELACCS) Electronic portfolios (e-portfolios), 264 Elkonin boxes picture box sound counting, 102–103 word boxes, 171–172, 172f Elmer (McKee), 118 Embedded phonics instruction, 121 Emergent speech, 37f English Language Arts (K-12) Common Core Standards (ELACCS), 7, 34 See also Common core state standards (CCSS) English language learners (ELLs) Every Child Ready to Read (ECRR), 360 involving parents, 362 language experience approach (LEA), 110–113 letter name and sound mnemonics, 106–109 phonics, decoding, and word recognition skills, 158, 158–159t, 160, 160t predictability log (PL), 252–253 reading fluency, 204–209 Sheltered Instructions Observation Protocol (SIOP), 347–350 Vocabulary Bingo!, 235–236 vocabulary cluster, 234–235 yarning circles, 285–286 ePEARL, 264 Established words, 213f, 214 Every Child Ready to Read (ECRR), 360 Evidence-based literacy instructional practices, 19–20 Evidence-based reading research (EBR additions), 147t, 149f Evidence-based Tier 1 instruction, 26–27 Evidence-based vocabulary instruction, 329 EVT. See Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT) Example lesson plan. See Sample lesson Expert reader, 193 Explicit alphabet letter knowledge lessons, 108, 109f Explicit fluency instruction, 199–203 Explicit instruction, 25–27 alphabet and letter name lessons, 72 defined, 25
396 Subject Index Explicit instruction (continued) gradual release of responsibility model of instruction, 26, 26f narrative texts, 241–242 reading vocabulary, 213 Expository test frames for students, 313f Expository texts, 241, 295 Expressive language, 33–34 See also Oral language and listening Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT), 50 Extended discourse, 57 Extension, 75
F
familieslearning.org, 359 Family involvement, 360–362 Fisher-Price, 175 Five-step method, 231–232 Flesch-Kincaid, 318, 318f Fluency, 5, 179f See also Reading fluency Fluency fix-up strategies, 202f Fluency flow chart, 179f Fluency instructional block, 24, 24f Fluency-oriented reading instruction (FORI), 193–194 Fluent Reader, The (Rasinski), 25 Flynt/Cooper Comprehensive Reading Inventory2, The (Cooter et al.), 135, 144, 145f Flynt/Cooper Reading Inventory for the Classroom, The (Flynt/ Cooter), 141f Flynt/Cooter Reading Attitude Survey, 249, 250f Follow Me, Moon (Clay), 94, 95 FORI. See Fluency-oriented reading instruction (FORI) Formative reading assessment, 9 Four-way oral reading, 208, 209 Frayer model, 233–234 Free morpheme, 130 From Canal Boy to President: Or, The Boyhood of James A. Garfield (Alger, Jr.), 235 From Cocoa Bean to Chocolate (Nelson), 316 Fry Readability Graph, 318
G
G rule, 123, 154f, 156f Get It Got It Go! database, 47 Getting to Work on Summer Learning: Recommended Practices for Success (Augustine et al.), 360 Giver, The (Lowry), 279, 280 Good-Bye Round Robin (Opitz/Rasinski), 25 Google CLOUD SPEECH API, 39 Google Sites, 264 Grab the Odd One Out, 101–102 Grade-level anchor standard, 20 Gradual release of responsibility model of instruction, 26, 26f Grandfather Tales (Chase), 282 Graphemes, 70 Graphic organizer defined, 269 example question and answer organizer, 333f high frequency sight words, 174f informational texts, 313–316, 332–334 narrative texts, 269–273 reading comprehension, 241–242
sequential blending, 168f sequential segmentation, 162f story grammar map, 256 types, 334f Graphical device awareness, 75 Graphophonic cues, 142–143 Great or classic literature, 241 Group experience chart, 110–111 Guided practice, 242
H
Hard c sound, 123 Heuristic function of language, 73 Hierarchical blending, 167–169 Hierarchical segmenting, 164, 165f, 166f High frequency sight word lesson, 173f High frequency sight word strategy, 174f High-frequency words, 130–131 Highlighting Letters Strategy, 105 Hot read, 206 “Hot Shoes,” 144 House calls, 192, 262 How Do Fish Live? (Jenkins), 289 How Do Spiders Live? (Biddulph/Biddulph), 333
I
ICSA. See Initial Consonant Sounds Assessment (ICSA) IDEA. See Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Ideational language, 73 IES. See Institute of Education Sciences (IES) IES Practice Guide, 307 If-then teaching strategy guide, 2, 3t early literacy skills, 100t informational texts, 324f narrative texts, 264f oral language and listening, 54t phonics, decoding, and word recognition skills, 156–157f reading fluency, 188, 191t reading vocabulary, 227t If-then thinking, 2 IGDI. See Individual growth and development indicator (IGDI) IGDI Picture Naming Test, 47–48 ILA. See International Literacy Association (ILA) ILI. See Informal language inventory (ILI) Imaginative function of language, 73 Imitative reading, 208 See also Echoic (echo) reading Importance, 75 Individual growth and development indicator (IGDI), 47 Individual language experience story, 112 Individual teacher-student reading conferences, 199 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 31–32 Informal language inventory (ILI), 41, 42f, 52t Informal language inventory worksheet, 41, 42f Informal reading inventory (IRI), 138 Informational text complexity, 317–321, 321f, 337–338 Informational text frames, 312–313, 321f Informational text oral retelling, 310–312, 342–344 Informational text structure assessment (ITSA), 313, 321f
Subject Index 397
Informational texts, 289–351 assessing comprehension, 297–322 assessing text complexity, 317–321 background briefing, 289–296 classroom profile form, 322t close reading, 335–337 coherence, 293–294 collaborative strategic reading (CSR), 350–351 comprehension process motions (CPMs), 323–326 concept-oriented reading instruction (CORI), 345f, 346–347 elaborative interrogation, 340–342 graphic organizer, 313–316, 332–334 graphical aids, 294 headings/subheadings, 294 if-then teaching strategy guide, 324f implicit text structure or organization, 295–296 increasing text complexity, 337–338 individual and group self-assessment, 306–308 instructional strategies, 323–351 Modified Informational Text Reading Strategy Use (MITRSU) scale, 297–299 Modified Meta-Comprehension Strategy Index (MMSI), 299–303 Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ), Revised Version, 303–305 multiple strategy instruction, 344–347 narrative texts, compared, 294 oral retelling, 310–312, 342–344 picture walk, 326–327 Question-Answer Relationships (QARs): answering questions about text, 339–340 Question-Answer Relationships (QARs): Author and Me, On My Own, 308–309 Question-Answer Relationships (QARs): Right There, Think and Search, 316–317 question answering, 339–340 question generation, 340–342 reader, text, and task considerations, 296 Reciprocal Teaching (RT), 344–346 sentence structure, 293 Sheltered Instructions Observation Protocol (SIOP), 347–350 signal words, 294 spacing cues, 294 struggling students, 350–351 Student Reading Interest Survey (SRIS), 305–306 summary matrix of assessments of text comprehension assessments, 321f text complexity, 317–321, 337–338 text frames, 312–313 think-pair-share (TPS), 327–328 topic sentences, 294 typographic cues, 294 vocabulary, 292–293 word detective, 329–332 Initial Consonant Sounds Assessment (ICSA), 76t, 81–82 Innatist theory, 35 Innovations, 106 Insights: Reading Fluency, 195 Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 15, 16, 323 Instructional chart hierarchical blending, 170f
high frequency sight word strategy, 174f See also Graphic organizer Instructional strategies concepts about print, 109–117 informational texts, 323–351 letter name knowledge, 104–106 narrative texts, 266–288 phonics, decoding, and word recognition skills, 157–175 phonological and phonemic awareness, 101–104 reading fluency, 191–209 reading vocabulary, 227–239 Instrumental function of language, 73 Integrated picture mnemonics, 107f Intensive intervention, 17f See also Tier 3 literacy instruction Intentionality, 75 Interactional function of language, 73 Interactive highlighting of unknown vocabulary, 217 International Literacy Association (ILA), 119 Interpersonal language, 73 Interrater reliability, 261 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), 11 IRI. See Informal reading inventory (IRI) IRIS Center (Vanderbilt University), 17 Is It a Fish? (Cutting/Cutting), 310 ITBS. See Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS)
J
Jack Tales, The (Chase), 283 Joint productive activity (JPA), 266–268 Journal of Educational Psychology, 19 Journal of Educational Research, 19 JPA. See Joint productive activity (JPA)
K
K-W-L strategy, 284–285 Kid watching, 18 Knots on a Counting Rope (Martin/Archambault), 196
L
LAD. See Language acquisition device (LAD) Language acquisition device (LAD), 35 Language experience approach (LEA), 110–113 Language-rich classroom environment, 38 Latin and Greek root words, 212 LEA. See Language experience approach (LEA) Leapster Explorer game system, 175 Leapster GS game system, 175 Leapster learning system, 175 Learn to Read: Zac the Rat and other Tales, 175 Lesson examples. See Sample lesson Lesson study, 21–23 Let’s Measure It! (Rose), 343 Let’s Talk!, 58–59 Letter-a-week vs. letter-a-day pacing, 71 Letter classification subtest, 90–91 Letter dictation subtest, 91 Letter discrimination subtest, 91 Letter free write subtest, 89, 91 Letter identification, 76t, 100t Letter Identification, 76t, 86 Letter name and sound mnemonics, 106–109 Letter name identification, 109f
398 Subject Index Letter name knowledge Alphabet Knowledge Test (AKT), 76t, 89–92 assessing the children, 86–92 background briefing, 70–72 classroom profile form, 99t DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), 76t, 87–89 Highlighting Letters Strategy, 105 if-then teaching strategy guide, 100t instructional strategies, 104–106 Letter Identification, 76t, 86 Letter Production Task, 76t, 87 Reading Published Alphabet Books, 106 skills matched to assessment strategies, 76t Sounds Rhythm Band, 104–105 Letter names and sounds, 122 Letter names subtest, 90 Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), 76t, 87–89 Letter Production Task, 76t, 87 Letter recognition time, 71 Letter sound identification, 109f Letter-sound-picture association subtest, 89, 91 Letter-sound relationships, 118 Letter sounds subtest, 90 Letterland program, 106–107 Lexiles, 318, 318f, 337 Linguistic scaffolding, 36 Listening comprehension, 50 Listening perception, 39 Listening vocabulary, 4, 212 Literacy Center: Contexts for Reading and Writing , The (Morrow), 29 Literacy Central, 360 Literacy instruction blocks, 24–25, 24f Literacy learning centers, 29, 30f Literature web, 270f, 271f, 272f LNF. See Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) Location concepts, 74–75 Long vowel sounds, 137t “Louder” (Prelutsky), 62 Low-complexity texts, 320 Lowercase letter recognition, 137t
M
Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model (Echevarria et al.), 347 Making Summer Count: How Summer Programs Can Boost Children’s Learning (McCombs et al.), 360 Making Words, 232–233 Mapping speech onto print, 73–74 MarkBook, 262t Mathematics vocabulary, 212 Maze test, 225–226 Mean length of utterance (MLU), 39, 57 Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) assessment, 39–40, 52t Meaning cues, 142 Measuring Tools (Daronco/Presti), 316 Mentor/model opinion texts, 22f Message stick, 286 Metacognition, 241, 247 MFS. See Multidimensional fluency scale (MFS) Miscue analysis, 138 Miscue grid, 143–144, 145f
MITRSU. See Modified Informational Text Reading Strategy Use (MITRSU) scale MLU. See Mean length of utterance (MLU) MLU assessment. See Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) assessment MLU Chart, 40t MMSI. See Modified Meta-Comprehension Strategy Index (MMSI) Mnemonic picture cards, 106–108 Modified Informational Text Reading Strategy Use (MITRSU) scale, 297–299 Modified Meta-Comprehension Strategy Index (MMSI), 299–303 Morpheme, 130 Morphology, 212 Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ), Revised Version, 303–305 Mow Motorcycle Task, 95–96 MRQ. See Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ), Revised Version MSV analysis, 142–143, 143f Multidimensional fluency scale (MFS), 187, 188f Multiple comprehension strategy instructional approaches, 291 Multiple dimensions of word knowledge, 222–223 Multiple meanings, 228 Mumble reading, 24, 208 Music, playing, to babies in womb, 39 “My Monster” (Florian), 61 My Picture Book of the Planets (Krulik), 308, 309, 316, 317, 342 My Portfolio, 264 MyLab Education applications. See Application Exercise (MyLab Education) teacher resource. See Teacher Resource (MyLab Education) videos. See Video Example (MyLab Education)
N
“N Is for Nonsensical,” 72 Name That Shape! (Stafford), 332, 333f Name writing subtest, 91 Narrative Pyramid, 260–261 Narrative texts, 240–288 anecdotal records, 261–263 assessing comprehension, 243–263 background briefing, 241–243 Bloom’s Question Stems and Question Verbs, 243–247 Click or Clunk, 259–260 common core state standards (CCSS), 243, 244f direct explanation approach, 242 directed reading-thinking activity (DR-TA), 281–284 e-portfolios, 263 explicit instruction, 241–242 Flynt/Cooter Reading Attitude Survey, 249, 250f graphic organizer, 269–273 if-then teaching strategy guide, 264f informational texts, compared, 294 instructional strategies, 266–288 joint productive activity (JPA), 266–268 K-W-L strategy, 284–285 Narrative Pyramid, 260–261
Subject Index 399
oral story retelling, 254–256 predictability log (PL), 252–253 question-answer relationships (QARs), 275–277 Reading Retelling Record (R3), 257–259 Reading Strategy Use (RSU) scale, 247–249 reciprocal teaching (RT), 279–281 research studies, 241–242 schema stories, 274 Self-Regulation Questionnaire-Reading Motivation (SRQ), 249–252 Singing Routine, 286–288 Social Collaboration Performance Outcome Evaluation, 253–254 story grammar, 243 story grammar instruction, 268–269 story grammar map assessment, 256–257 summary matrix of assessment procedures matched to abilities, 264f summary writing, 277–279 text features and structure, 243 transactional strategy instruction, 243 using assessment data to guide instruction, 263, 264f yarning circles, 285–286 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 37, 285, 289, 338, 353, 357 National Assessment of Educational Progress Reading Report Cards, 289 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 1, 33, 37 National Center for Families Learning (NCFL), 359 National Early Literacy Panel (NELP), 4, 19, 69, 70, 117, 118 National Institute for Literacy, 118 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 4, 5, 118, 121, 131, 178, 268, 307, 308, 314 National Reading Panel (NRP), 5, 69, 241, 243, 269, 307, 314, 323, 329, 332, 338, 339 National reports, 289 National Research Council, 212 National/school district comparisons & failure rates (2017), 354t National Summer Learning Association (NSLA), 359 nationalreadingpanel.org, 19 NCFL. See National Center for Families Learning (NCFL) NCLB. See No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Needs-based differentiated instruction groups, 3 NELP. See National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) Neurological impress method (NIM), 203–204 News story “scripts,” 197 NIM. See Neurological impress method (NIM) No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 31 No Shoes (Clay), 94, 95 Nonfiction texts, 56 Nonsense words, 135f Norm-referenced reading assessment, 10–11 Norm-referenced test (NRT), 10 Normal (bell) curve, 10, 11f Normative group, 10 NRP. See National Reading Panel (NRP) NRT. See Norm-referenced test (NRT) NSLA. See National Summer Learning Association (NSLA)
O
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay), 95 “Ode to Family Photographs” (Soto), 61
“Old Sow and the Three Shoats, The,” 267 On Market Street (Lobel), 106 One Looks, One Doesn’t, 59–60 One-minute of reading test plus parsody, 183–185 120-minute Tier 1 literacy instruction block, 24–25, 24f Online reading assessment (ORA), 94 Onset and rime, 69, 76t, 82, 100t, 128–129 Open-ended questions, 38 Open School ePortfolio, 264 Open word sort, 230 Opinion writing checklist, 23f ORA. See Online reading assessment (ORA) Oral language and listening, 33–67 academic vocabulary, 36–37 Alphaboxes, 55–56 assessing listening ability, 49–52 assessing oral language development, 39–49 background briefing, 33–39 birth of oral language, 35–36 classroom profile form, 54t common core state standards (CCSS), 34 critical dialogues, 65–67 dialogic reading, 64–65 DIBELS Word Use Frequency (WUF) Test, 46–47, 52t if-then teaching strategy guide, 54t informal language inventory (ILI), 41, 42f, 52t language-rich classroom environment, 38 Let’s Talk!, 58–59 Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) assessment, 39–40, 52t One Looks, One Doesn’t, 59–60 Oral Language Checklist, 48–49, 53t Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III)/Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT), 49–50, 53t phases of oral language development, 36, 37f Picture Naming (PN) Test, 47–48, 52t Poetry Potpourri, 60–62 poverty and language development, 37 Rule of Five, 57–58 Story Retelling Evaluation Guide, 50–52, 53t storytelling, 62–63 struggling students, 67 Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM), 41–42, 43f, 52t summary of assessment strategies, 52–53t Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL), 43–46, 52t teaching strategies, 53–67 Text Talk, 56–57 theories of oral language development, 34–35 using assessment data to guide instruction, 53 Oral Language Checklist, 48–49, 53t Oral reading accuracy rate, 139–140 Oral reading assessment, 218–219 Oral reading fluency norms (ORFN), 185, 185t Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), 8, 182–183 Oral reading fluency practice, 24 Oral recitation lesson (ORL), 191–193 Oral retelling of informational texts, 310–312, 342–344 Oral story retelling, 254–256 Ordinal concepts, 74 ORF. See Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) ORFN. See Oral reading fluency norms (ORFN) ORL. See Oral recitation lesson (ORL)
400 Subject Index Out-of-the-classroom special services, 31 Outcome assessment, 9
P
Paired reading, 195, 208 Parents, strategies to use, 361–362 Partiality, 75 Partner reading, 195–196 passporttoknowledge.com, 211 Password, 230 PDF e-books, 116 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III)/Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT), 49–50, 53t PEER, 64 Peer reading, 195 Peer-reviewed research journals, 19 Performance outcome team evaluation form, 253, 253f Permanence, 75 Perpetuating function of language, 73 Personal function of language, 73 ph and the /f/ sound, 126 Phoneme, 69, 84 Phoneme addition, 70 Phoneme blending, 70, 76t, 100t Phoneme deletion, 70 Phoneme identity, 70, 76t, 100t Phoneme isolation, 70, 76t, 100t Phoneme segmentation, 70, 76t, 100t Phoneme substitution, 70 Phonemic awareness, 69 See also Phonological and phonemic awareness Phonemic awareness assessment system, 81, 82 Phonemic Segmentation Assessment (PSA), 76t, 84–86 Phonetic punctuation, 113 Phonics, decoding, and word recognition skills, 118–177 alphabetic principle, 131 approaches to phonics instruction, 121 assessing decoding and word recognition skills, 132–154 background briefing, 118–121 best predictors of decoding success, 120t blending sounds, 127, 154f, 156f body word chunks, 130 C rule, 123, 154f, 156f classroom profile form, 155t coda word chunks, 130 consonant blends, 125, 154f, 157f consonant digraphs, 125, 154f, 157f consonant trigraphs, 125 CORE Phonics Survey (CORE-PS), 137–138, 137t CV pattern, 124, 154f, 157f CVC generalization, 123–124, 154f, 156f decoding, defined, 118, 157 diphthongs, 127 double consonants, 125, 154f, 157f drastic strategy, 173–174 Early Names Test, 132–134 explicit and systematic phonics instruction, 121 framework for phonics instruction, 160–161 G rule, 123, 154f, 156f hierarchical blending, 167–169 hierarchical segmenting, 164, 165f, 166f high-frequency words, 130–131 if-then teaching strategy guide, 156–157f instructional strategies, 157–175
letter names and sounds, 122 onset and rime, 128–129 ph and the /f/ sound, 126 phonics quick test, 120f R-controlled vowels, 124, 154f, 157f recommended end-of-year benchmark skills: decoding, 158–159t research on phonics, 119–120 running records. See Running records San Diego Quick Reading Assessment, 152–153, 152f schwa sound, 126–127 segmenting sounds, 127, 154f, 156f sequential blending, 165–167 sequential segmenting strategy, 161–164 sight words, 130–131, 154f, 157f silent letter combinations, 125 single consonants, 124 Sound Swirl, 171 Spanish speakers and ELLs, 158, 158–159t, 160, 160t special consonant rules, 124–126 special vowel rules, 126–127 speech sounds, 122, 122–123f spelling in parts (SIP), 169–171 Starpoint Phonics Assessment (SPA), 135–137 state core standards (SCS), 118–119, 119t structural analysis, 130, 154f, 157f summary matrix of assessments, 153, 154f syllabication rules, 128, 128f, 129f teaching with technology, 174–175 Thorndike-Lorge magazine count frequency word list, 150–151, 150f using assessment data to guide instruction, 154–157 VCE pattern, 124, 154f, 156f vowel digraphs, 124, 126, 154f, 157f word boxes (Elkonin boxes), 171–172, 172f Y rules, 127 Zeno 107 high frequency word list, 151, 151f Phonics quick test, 120, 120f Phonics through spelling, 121 Phonological and phonemic awareness, 4 assessing phonemic awareness, 81–86 assessing phonological awareness, 77–81 Auditory Sound Blending Task, 76t, 78–79 background briefing, 69–70 Blending Sounds Assessment (BSA), 76t, 82–84 classroom profile form, 97t, 98t definitions, 69 Dictation, 76t, 80–81 Grab the Odd One Out, 101–102 if-then teaching strategy guide, 100t Initial Consonant Sounds Assessment (ICSA), 76t, 81–82 instructional strategies, 101–104 phonemic awareness general skills progression, 70 Phonemic Segmentation Assessment, 76t, 84–86 phonological awareness general skills progression, 69 Picture Box Sound Counting (Elkonin Boxes), 102–103 Same-Different Word Pair Task, 76t, 77 Segmenting Sounds, 76t, 79–80 Sing It Out, 104 skills matched to assessment strategies, 76t Syllable and Sound Counting Task, 76t, 77–78 Word Rubber Banding, 102 Phrasing/chunking, 179f, 188f, 191t
Subject Index 401
Pictographs, 106–108 Picture Box Sound Counting (Elkonin Boxes), 102–103 Picture identification, 76t, 100t Picture mnemonics, 106–108 Picture Naming (PN) Test, 47–48, 52t Picture sound counting task, 78, 78f Picture walk, 326–327 Pioneering Literacy in the Digital Wild West: Empowering Parents and Educators, 360 PL. See Predictability log (PL) Play school at home, 362 PLC. See Professional learning community (PLC) PN Test. See Picture Naming (PN) Test Poetry Potpourri, 60–62 Poetry response, 62 Poverty and language development, 37 PowerPoint, 175 PPVT III/EVT. See Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVTIII)/Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT) Predictability log (PL), 252–253 Prefixes, 130, 212 Preproduction, 37f Print concepts, 72 See also Concepts about print Print directionality, 110 Printed texts, 20 Printmaking supplies or materials, 20 Problem and solution organization, 295 Professional learning community (PLC), 261, 355–356 Progress-monitoring assessment, 8–9, 31 Prompting strategies, 64 Prosody, 179f, 186f, 188f, 191t PSA. See Phonemic Segmentation Assessment (PSA) Public Law 94-142, 31 Public library, 361 Punctuation, 114 PWRR. See Reutzel/Cooter Phonics and Word Recognition Record (PWRR)
Q
QARs. See Question-answer relationships (QARs) Qualitative Reading Inventory--4 (Leslie/Caldwell), 310 Question-answer relationships (QARs) Author and Me, On My Own, 308–309 informational texts, 308–309, 316–317, 339–340 narrative texts, 275–277 Right There, Think and Search, 316–317 teacher implementation continuum, 276–277f types of QARs, 275f Question answering, 242, 339–340 Question generation, 242, 340–342
R
(R3) See Reading Retelling Record (R3) R-controlled vowels, 124, 154f, 157f Radio reading, 197–198 RAND Education, 360 RAND Reading Study Group, 292, 297, 321, 323, 328, 329, 338 Random alphabet letter display, 86, 86f Random letter production task, 87 Random order literature web, 270f, 271f, 272f Rate and accuracy tracking graphs, 194
Read for Success, 360 Read Naturally, 195, 205–206 Readers’ theater, 196–197 Reading assessment assessment informs instruction, 7 basic principles, 7–8 criterion-referenced assessment, 10 diagnostic assessment, 8 documenting student learning over time, 8 formative assessment, 9 norm-referenced assessment, 10–11 outcome assessment, 9 preparedness, 7–8 progress-monitoring assessment, 8–9 purposes, 8–9 reliability, 11–12 screening assessment, 8 summative assessment, 9–10 Swiss cheese effect, 7 validity, 12 Reading behaviors accurate reading, 140f countable/not countable errors, 141 insertion, 140f, 141 omission, 140f, 141 repetition, 140f, 141 self-correction, 140f, 141 student appeal and assistance, 140f, 141 substitution, 141, 140f teacher assistance, 140f, 141 Reading comprehension, 5, 241, 297 See also Informational texts; Narrative texts Reading fluency, 5, 178–210 assessing fluency, 182–187 assisted and partner reading, 195–196 automaticity, 179f, 188f, 191t background briefing, 178–179 choral reading, 206–209 classroom profile form, 189t, 190t closed-caption television, 204 common core state standards (CCSS), 181, 181–182t components of fluency assessment (CFA), 185–187 defined, 178 DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF), 182–183 ELLs, 204–209 expert reader, defined, 193 explicit fluency instruction, 199–203 fluency fix-up strategies, 202f fluency flow chart, 179f fluency-oriented reading instruction (FORI), 193–194 if-then teaching strategy guide, 188, 191t instructional principles, 180 instructional strategies, 191–209 multidimensional fluency scale (MFS), 185–187 neurological impress method (NIM), 203–204 one-minute of reading test plus parsody, 183–185 oral reading fluency norms (ORFN), 185, 185t oral recitation lesson (ORL), 191–193 phrasing/chunking, 179f, 188f, 191t prosody, 179f, 186f, 188f, 191t radio reading, 197–198 Read Naturally, 205–206 readers’ theater, 196–197
402 Subject Index Reading fluency (continued) reading rate, 182, 188f, 191t repeated readings, 194–195 scaffolded silent reading (ScSR), 198–199 summary matrix of fluency assessment procedures, 188f teacher verbal feedback “think” questions, 180–181f three finger rule, 199 using assessment data to guide instruction, 188–191 what is fluency?, 179–180 words correct per minute (wcpm), 182 Reading fluency flow chart, 179f Reading foundational skills, 118, 181 Reading is Fundamental (RIF), 360 Reading Miscue Inventory (RMI), 139 Reading Published Alphabet Books, 106 Reading rate, 182, 188f, 191t Reading rate norms, 185 Reading Recovery, 16, 142 Reading Research Quarterly, 19 Reading Retelling Record (R3), 257–259 Reading Strategy Use (RSU) Scale, 247–249 Reading vocabulary, 5, 211–239 assessing student knowledge and needs, 214–226 classroom profile form, 227t cloze test, 223–225 DECENT stories, 238–239 defined, 212 five-step method, 231–232 Frayer model, 233–234 if-then teaching strategy guide, 227t instructional strategies, 227–239 interactive highlighting of unknown vocabulary, 217 Making Words, 232–233 maze test, 225–226 multiple dimensions of word knowledge, 222–223 multiple meanings, words with, 228 oral reading assessment, 218–219 state standards, 214, 215–216t think-pair-share (TPS), 236–237 using assessment data to guide instruction, 226–227 Vocabulary Bingo!, 235–236 vocabulary cluster, 234–235 vocabulary-comprehension connection, 214 vocabulary definition, 219 word map, 220–222 word sorts, 229–230 word walls, 228–231 readinglady.com, 196 reading.org, 19 readingrockets.org, 117 Receptive language, 34 See also Oral language and listening Reciprocal teaching (RT), 242, 279–281, 291, 344–346 Recitation, 191 Recommended end-of-year benchmark skills: decoding, 146–147t Regulatory function of language, 73 Relevance, 75 Reliability, 11–12, 261 Repeated lines and refrains, 62 Repeated readings, 194–195 Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth (August/Shanahan), 158
Representation, 75 Representational function of language, 73 Representative group, 10 Reproduction, 106 Research journals, 19 Response to Intervention (RTI), 14–32 Click or Clunk, 259–260 defined, 15 directed reading-thinking activity (DR-TA), 282 IES recommendations, 15 importance, 31–32 joint productive activity (JPA), 266–268 online tools, 17 schematic representation, 17f three-tiered instructional model, 16, 17f Tier 1 literacy instruction, 16, 18, 19–27 Tier 2 literacy instruction, 16, 27–30 Tier 3 literacy instruction, 16–17, 30–31 twelve-step implementation process, 18f Response to Intervention: Principles and Strategies for Effective Practice (Brown-Chidsey/Steege), 31 Restless Earth, The (Berger), 348–350 Retelling of informational texts, 310–312, 342–344 Reutzel/Cooter Phonics and Word Recognition Record (PWRR), 147–149f Reversals, 71 Rhyme recognition, 69, 100t RIF. See Reading is Fundamental (RIF) Rime, 129 See also Onset and rime RMI. See Reading Miscue Inventory (RMI) Root words, 130, 212 Round robin, 197 RSU. See Reading Strategy Use (RSU) scale RT. See Reciprocal teaching (RT) RTI. See Response to Intervention (RTI) RTI Network, 27 Rule of Five, 57–58 Rule of five for self-selecting books, 361 Rule of Five hand, 58f Running records, 138–149 countable/not countable errors, 140f, 141 example record, 141f materials, 139 miscue grid, 143–144, 145f MSV analysis, 142–143, 143f oral reading accuracy rate, 139–140 procedure, 139 purpose, 138–139 reading behaviors and appropriate notations, 140f recommended end-of-year benchmark skills: decoding, 146–147t Reutzel/Cooter Phonics and Word Recognition Record (PWRR), 146, 147–149f self-evaluation rubric, 149 Rye Rhinoceros Task, 95
S
Same-Different Word Pair Task, 76t, 77 Sample lesson explicit fluency lesson, 200 hierarchical blending, 169 high frequency sight word lesson, 173f
Subject Index 403
mentor/model opinion texts, 22f print concepts - verbal punctuation, 115 single syllable word segmenting, 162–164 SIOP lesson example display, 349f San Diego Quick Reading Assessment, 152–153, 152f Sand (Clay), 94, 95 Sand (Clyne/Griffiths), 314 SAS Data Network, 262t Scaffolded silent reading (ScSR), 198–199 Scaffolding, 19, 333 Schema, 241 Schema stories, 274 Schwa sound, 126–127 Scientific research evidence, 19 Scientific research reports, 19 Screening assessment, 8 SCS. See State core standards (SCS) ScSR. See Scaffolded silent reading (ScSR) Segmenting, 102, 127 Segmenting sounds, 127, 154f, 156f Segmenting Sounds, 76t, 79–80 Self-Regulation Questionnaire-Reading Motivation (SRQ), 249–252 Semantic cues, 142 Semantic map, 220 Sequential blending, 165–167 Sequential segmenting strategy, 161–164 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, The (Covey), 4 Shape books, 113f Shared Reading website, 117 Sheltered Instructions Observation Protocol (SIOP), 347–350 Short vowel sounds, 137t Sight words, 130–131, 154f, 157f Signal words, 294 Sigueme, Luna, 94, 95 Silent letter combinations, 125 Silent sustained reading (SSR), 198 Simple listing organization, 295 Sing It Out, 104 Singing poems, 62 Singing Routine, 286–288 Single consonants, 124 Single syllable word segmenting, 162–164 SIOP. See Sheltered Instructions Observation Protocol (SIOP) SIP. See Spelling in parts (SIP) 6-inch voice, 262 Skill-based drop-in learning activities, 358–359 Small-group Tier 2 reading instruction, 27–28 Smartboard, 175 Snowman, 230 Social Collaboration Performance Outcome Evaluation, 253–254 Social hot spots, 36 Social interactionist theory, 35 Soft c sound, 123 SOLOM. See Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) Sound - letter (symbol) matching, 100t Sound mnemonics, 106–109 Sound Swirl, 171 Sounding-out process, 128 Sounds Rhythm Band, 104–105
SPA. See Starpoint Phonics Assessment (SPA) Spacing cues, 294 Spatial orientation, 74 Speaking. See Oral language and listening Speaking vocabulary, 4, 212 Special consonant rules, 124–126 Special vowel rules, 126–127 Speech perception, 39 Speech sounds, 122, 122–123f Speech-to-text conversion programs, 39 Speed sort, 230 Spelling in parts (SIP), 169–171 SRIS. See Student Reading Interest Survey (SRIS) SRQ. See Self-Regulation Questionnaire-Reading Motivation (SRQ) SSR. See Silent sustained reading (SSR) Standardized oral reading paragraphs, 138 Standards, 21 See also Common core state standards (CCSS) Standards-based literacy instruction, 20–24 Starfall, 175 Starpoint Phonics Assessment (SPA), 135–137 State core standards (SCS), 20, 118–119, 119t See also Common core state standards (CCSS) Stones (Clay), 94, 95 Story frames, 312 Story grammar, 243 Story grammar instruction, 268–269 Story grammar map assessment, 256–257 Story Retelling Evaluation Guide, 50–52, 53t Story structure, 242 Story structure questions, 65 Storyteller’s Planning Guide, 62, 63f Storytelling, 62–63 Storytime Online, 360 Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction (Reutzel) assessment strategies, 1–2 background briefing for teachers, 1 classroom profile form, 2, 2t if-then teaching strategy guide, 2, 3t instructional strategies, 2 Structural analysis, 130, 154f, 157f Structure cues, 142 Struggling students informational texts, 350–351 oral language and listening, 67 Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM), 41–42, 43f, 52t Student Reading Interest Survey (SRIS), 305–306 Suffixes, 130 Summarization, 242 Summary writing, 277–279 Summative reading assessment, 9–10 Summer learning loss, 356–359 Summer programs, 358–360 Summer Reading PLUS, 358 Sundance Publishing Company, 197 Super Simple Learning, 175 Supplemental intervention, 17f See also Tier 2 literacy instruction Swiss cheese effect, 7 Syllabication rules, 128, 128f, 129f Syllable and Sound Counting Task, 76t, 77–78
404 Subject Index Syllable counting and identification, 69, 76t, 100t Syntax, 34, 39 Syntax cues, 142 Synthetic phonics instruction, 121 Systematic instruction, 25
T
Teacher managing a classroom, 23–24 Teacher modeling, 61 Teacher Notes, 262t Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL), 43–46, 52t Teacher Resource (MyLab Education) beginning syllable same-different task list, 77 blending sounds assessment, 82 Bloom’s question stems, 245 Bloom’s question verbs, 245 classroom-modified reading strategy use scale, 247 classroom profile form - comprehending informational text, 322 classroom profile form - letter naming and concepts about print, 96 classroom profile form - oral language and listening, 53 classroom profile form - phonics, decoding, and word recognition skills, 156 classroom profile form - phonological and phonemic awareness, 96 classroom profile form - reading fluency skills, 188 classroom profile form - reading vocabulary learning skills, 226 Early Names Test, 133 expository text structure graphic organizers, 333 fluency fix-up strategies, 202 Flynt/Cooter reading attitude survey, 249 graphic organizers, 315 informal language inventory worksheet, 41 informational text complexity analysis form, 319 modified information text reading strategy use (MITRSU) scale, 297 modified meta-comprehension strategy index (MMSI), 299 motivation for reading questionnaire (MRQ), 303 multidimensional fluency scale, 186 one-minute reading test with prosody, 185 oral language checklist for teachers, 48 oral reading fluency, 202 oral story retelling coding form, 255 performance outcome team evaluation form, 253 phonemic segmentation assessment, 85 phonics quick test, 120 picture sound counting task, 78 predictability log, 252 question answer graphic organizer, 314 random alphabet letter display, 86 rate and accuracy tracking graphs, 194 reading passage (Bugs for Kids), 176, 209 reading passage (Casey and the Tidepool), 175, 209 reading passage (New Clothes), 176, 209 reading passage (The Big Bad Wolf), 175, 209 reading retelling record (R3) form, 258 Reutzel/Cooter Phonics and Word Recognition Record, 146
rubric for evaluating early literacy apps, 93 San Diego quick assessment flash cards, 152 San Diego quick assessment word list, 152 self-assessment of interactions with informational text, 307 self-regulation questionnaire, 252 SRIS class survey response profile, 306 Starpoint phonic assessment, 135, 136 storyteller’s planning guide, 62 student oral language observation matrix, 41 student reading interest survey (SRIS), 305 teacher rating of oral language and literacy, 43 Thorndike-Lorge flash cards, 150 Thorndike-Lorge test sheet, 150 verbal feedback “think” questions, 181 word detective map, 330 word list for segmenting sounds, 80 word map, 221 Zeno high frequency flash cards, 151 Zeno high frequency word list, 151 Teacher verbal feedback “think” questions, 180–181f Teachers, helping parents help their children, 361 Teaching and learning cycle, 2-3, 3f Teaching strategies. See Instructional strategies Television as learning tool, 361–362 Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody, 49 Text complexity (informational texts), 317–321, 337–338 Text frames (informational texts), 312–313 Text Talk, 56–57 Textbook. See Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction (Reutzel) Textual language, 73 Think-aloud, 24, 242 Think-pair-share (TPS) defined, 236 informational texts, 327–328 reading vocabulary, 236–237 Thirty-minute literacy instruction blocks, 24–25, 24f Thorndike-Lorge magazine count frequency word list, 150–151, 150f Three finger rule, 199 Three levels of word knowledge, 214 Three part model of text complexity, 318f “Three Wishes” (Kuskin), 61 Tier 1 literacy instruction, 16, 18, 19–27 Tier 1 words, 213 Tier 2 literacy instruction, 16, 27–30 Tier 2 small-group literacy instruction, 27–28 Tier 2 words, 213 Tier 3 literacy instruction, 16–17, 30–31 Tier 3 words, 213 Tight feedback loops, 36 Time order organization, 295 Topic sentence, 294 TPS. See Think-pair-share (TPS) Transactional strategy instruction (TSI), 243, 291 Triage, 27 TROLL. See Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL) True Story of the Three Pigs! By A. Wolf (Sciezka), 267 TSI. See Transactional strategy instruction (TSI) Typographic cues, 294
Subject Index 405
U
UDL. See Universal design for learning (UDL) Unison reading, 24, 61, 206, 208 Universal design for learning (UDL), 350 Unknown words, 213f, 214 Unsupervised literacy learning centers, 29, 30f Uppercase letter recognition, 137t U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), 15
V
Validity, 12, 261 Value added, 92 VCE pattern, 124, 154f, 156f Verbal feedback “think” questions, 180–181f Verbal Punctuation, 114–115 Very Hungry Caterpillar, The (Carle), 194 Video Example (MyLab Education) administering the concepts about print test, 95 auditory sound blending task, 79 blending sounds to say words, 167 building word knowledge, 55 choral reading, 206, 207 dialogic reading with Lillie, 65 DIBELS oral reading fluency (DORF), 183 English learner parents helping children at home, 362 explicit instruction of vocabulary, 214 Frayer model, 233 graphic organizers, 332 one-minute reading test with prosody, 185 oral language development, 37 phonetic punctuation, 113 question-answer relationship (QAR), 308 reading and vocabulary development, 5 reading comprehension, 292. See Universal design for learning (UDL) responding to questions, 276, 339 running record, 139, 144 segmenting sounds task, 80 student reading (Bugs for Kids), 176, 209 student reading (Casey and the Tidepool), 175, 176, 209 student reading (New Clothes), 176, 209 student reading (The Big Bad Wolf), 175, 209 teaching words having multiple meanings, 228 think-aloud, 243 why fluency?, 179 word sort activity, 230 word wall activity, 229 Visual clues embedded in books and print, 74 Visual cues, 142–143 Vocabulary defined, 212 evidence-based vocabulary instruction, 329 how students learn, 213 informational texts, 292–293 Latin and Greek root words, 212
levels of vocabulary learning, 213 levels of word knowledge, 213f, 214 reading. See Reading vocabulary types, 212 Vocabulary Bingo!, 235–236 Vocabulary cluster, 234–235 Vocabulary-comprehension connection, 214 Vocabulary definition, 219 Vocabulary knowledge, 34, 39 Voice Pointing, 113–114 Volcano (Hunt), 336 Vowel digraphs, 124, 126, 154f, 157f Vowel team rule, 126
W
Wallace Foundation (WF), 359–361 Way With Words, 39 wcpm. See Words correct per minute (wcpm) WF. See Wallace Foundation (WF) “Wh” questions, 64 What Works Clearinghouse, 18, 64, 323, 355, 358 Whole-class choral reading, 207, 208f Widow’s Broom, The (Van Allsburg), 272 Wonderopolis, 359 Word awareness, 69, 76t, 100t Word boxes (Elkonin boxes), 171–172, 172f Word detective, 329–332 Word detective map, 330f Word identification, 76t, 100t Word map, 220–222 Word recognition skills, 5 See also Phonics, decoding, and word recognition skills Word rubber banding, 79, 80, 127 Word Rubber Banding, 102 Word sorts, 229–230 Word Use Fluency (WUF) Test, 46–47 Word walls, 228–231 Word web, 220 Word work instructional block, 24, 24f Words correct per minute (wcpm), 182, 185, 186t Writing instructional block, 24f, 25 Writing vocabulary, 212 WUF Test. See Word Use Fluency (WUF) Test
Y
Y rules, 127 Yarning circles, 285–286 YouTube Captions, 39
Z
Z Was Zapped, The (Van Allsburg), 106 Zeno 107 high frequency word list, 151, 151f Zone of proximal development (ZPD), 35