# data[].attributes.headline
Executive Function and Figurative Language

# data[].attributes.subject
Executive Function and Figurative Language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Graduate students often have hectic and stressful schedules. You may need to balance classes and homework with a demanding day job. Add childcare, chores and other responsibilities, and you can quickly have an overwhelming to-do list.

Set yourself up for academic and professional success by improving your time management. Effective time management techniques can help you complete tasks faster and reduce stress as you work on your graduate degree and throughout your career. This guide reviews effective time management tips, including goal setting and task prioritization.

Assess personal time management habits

Time management is "the decision-making process that structures, protects, and adjusts a person's time to changing environmental conditions." People who excel at time management have three related strengths: 1

Awareness of the limited nature of their time and how they spend it

Arrangement of goals and tasks into a productive schedule

Adaptation to disruptions and evolving priorities

You can improve your time awareness by reflecting on your current time management strengths and weaknesses. Spend a couple days tracking your time in a planner or calendar and see where you go astray or what your productivity patterns are. For example, you might complete tasks quickly once you start working but spend too much time procrastinating beforehand. Or maybe you get distracted by scrolling on social media or watching television. Identifying areas where you need to improve can help you set goals for determining the best time management strategies for you.

Embrace goal setting and task prioritization

Goal setting can help you decide how to invest your limited time. There are two categories of goals: ²

Short-Term Goals: Specific objectives you can achieve in a short time, such as completing a class project or networking with three people in your industry

Long-Term Goals: Objectives that you work to accomplish over an extended period, such as earning a graduate degree and becoming a senior manager

The SMART model can help you set short- and long-term goals. SMART objectives are: ³

By setting goals with SMART characteristics, you can improve task prioritization and set realistic deadlines for progress.

Task prioritization

Task prioritization is key to project management and accomplishing goals. Prioritizing tasks can be done by terms of:

Importance: Tackle the most critical tasks to a project's success first, or get things out of the way that require other's buy-in first and leaving things you can do on your own for later

Urgency: Set deadlines and try ordering your tasks by due dates to stay ahead of what's next and to stay focused despite a busy schedule

Complexity: Enhance productivity by working according to your energy levels for example working on more complicated tasks when you're at your most awake and energized

However, you decide to work on prioritizing tasks, plan ahead on large projects and remember to avoid multitasking and focus on one particular task at a time.

Create a time management plan

A time management plan maps out your daily, weekly, and monthly schedule. You can create this plan using a calendar, whiteboard or mobile app.

Start by adding upcoming deadlines. Next, work backward by estimating how much time you'll need to complete each task and block off sections of your schedule appropriately. Say, for example, you have a final exam in three weeks. You can block off an hour each day to study to ensure you adequately prepare. ⁴

It's also crucial to incorporate regular breaks into your time management plan. Numerous studies have found that frequent micro-breaks of ten minutes or less increase well-being and reduce fatigue. ⁵

Implement productivity techniques for academic success

Graduate students must often juggle classes, study time and extracurricular activities. Learners without strong time management skills can quickly feel overwhelmed and fall behind.

These productivity techniques can help you manage your academic work effectively: ⁶

Update your to-do list daily

Prioritize tasks by deadlines

Tackle urgent responsibilities first

Start projects ahead of time

Reward productivity with fun activities

Master time management as a working professional

Many graduate students continue working part- or full-time while earning their degrees. Some organizations have fast-paced environments, so you might work long hours on top of your classes.

Here are several strategies to help you more successfully juggle work responsibilities: ⁷

Change your work environment frequently to reenergize

Use the Pomodoro technique, which alternates 25 minutes of work with 5-minute breaks

Ask for help when necessary

End each workday by planning tomorrow's to-do list

Improve task planning and decision-making

It can be difficult to prioritize responsibilities, especially if you have a lengthy to-do list. The Eisenhower Matrix supports task planning by sorting responsibilities into four categories: ⁸

This approach prioritizes tasks by both importance and urgency so you can allocate your time appropriately. ⁸

Use time tracking tools and other technology

Countless mobile apps and software solutions assist with time tracking and task planning. Popular tools include:

Todoist: Create to-do lists with prioritized tasks⁹

Forest: Grow virtual trees by staying focused on your work⁹

Clockify: Track the time you spend on various projects¹⁰

Toggl Track: Use a digital stopwatch to track your time¹⁰

Don't be afraid of delegation

You don't need to accomplish everything by yourself. Delegating tasks is almost always necessary to get big projects done and can help in academic and professional settings to save time and decrease stress. ¹¹

Start by defining the task you want to delegate. For example, you could hand off the research portion of a group project or ask a colleague to lead a client meeting. Pick a team member with the required skills and provide advice as needed. ¹¹

Practice procrastination management

Studies suggest that around 75% of students identify as chronic procrastinators. Habitually delaying tasks can lead to poor academic performance and increased anxiety. ¹² Just as important as time management is procrastination management so that you don't give into your worst habits.

Stay motivated and overcome distractions with procrastination management techniques, such as: ¹³

Breaking complex goals down into small steps

Setting deadlines for yourself

Embracing the risk of failure

Achieve work-life balance and practice self-care

Work-life balance refers to simultaneously meeting work goals and maintaining well-being. You can improve your work-life balance by setting strict boundaries between school, work and personal time. You should also reserve time for self-care activities, such as exercising, eating healthy meals, getting adequate sleep and socializing with peers. Giving yourself time for these simple tasks can increase your quality of life and enhance your focus at work. ¹⁴

Prioritize stress management

How you manage your time can pay off for your mental health. Recent studies indicate that approximately 75% of graduate students feel stressed or very stressed. ¹⁵ Using your time efficiently can aid stress management and prevent academic or professional burnout. Students who improve their time management also experience less test anxiety. ¹⁶

Enhance your management skills

Time management strategies aren't just for college students. Managing time takes self-discipline that can help you increase productivity and help you stay organized in all aspects of your life. Master the latest people and time management techniques with Marquette University's online Master in Management. You'll learn crucial leadership skills from industry experts with extensive experience managing businesses across industries. Marquette offers convenient asynchronous and synchronous courses to help you manage your academic tasks with your social life and professional responsibilities. Marquette University also provides many resources to support your success, including the Business Career Center and networking services. Schedule a call with an admissions outreach advisor today to learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effective time management for students and professionals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how Marquette University's online Master in Management can help you improve time management, task prioritization and other essential skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Start for free, then find the plan that's right for you. Try Pro or Business to unlock features to do your best work.

# data[].attributes.body
Cummings & Fisher (1993)

# data[].attributes.body
Adapted from: https://www.cte.iup.edu/preinduction/HO_Video%20Note%20Taking%20Worksheet.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Analyze where your time goes and categorize every second of your workday with Clockify — the best timesheet app.

# data[].attributes.body
"Breaking assignments, projects, or text into smaller, more manageable parts, which makes the information easier to process."

# data[].attributes.body
This can be altered to fit your class needs. Simply make a copy to your Google Drive or download it. (created by Karmyn Tyler, 4/2024)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High School Class Note Taking (printable)

# data[].attributes.body
via Victor J. Andrew High School

Another resource with an example via the Wake Research Center

# data[].attributes.body
Cummings & Fisher (1993)

# data[].attributes.body
Burke, J. (2000). Reading reminders: Tools, Tips, and Techniques. Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Burke, J. (2009). The Teacher’s Essential Guide Series: Content Area Reading. Scholastic.

Burke, J. (2003). Writing reminders: Tools, Tips, and Techniques. Heinemann.

Cummings, R. W., & Fisher, G. L. (1993). The survival guide for teenagers with LD (learning differences). Free Spirit Publishing, Inc.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2015). Writing Better: Effective Strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. P.H. Brookes Pub. Co.

Gunning, T. G. (2014). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties (5th ed.). Pearson.

Nippold, M. A. (2024). Unlocking logical fallacies: A key to building critical thinking skills in adolescents. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_persp-23-00108

Paul, R., Norbury, C., & Gosse, C. (2018a). Assessing Advanced Language. In Language Disorders from Infancy Through Adolescence - E-Book: Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Communicating (5th ed., pp. 565–629). essay, Elsevier.

Paul, R., Norbury, C., & Gosse, C. (2018b). Intervention for Advanced Language. In Language Disorders from Infancy Through Adolescence - E-Book: Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Communicating (5th ed., pp. 630–681). essay, Elsevier.

Paul, R., Norbury, C., & Gosse, C. (2018c). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence - E-book: Listening, speaking, reading, writing, and Communicating (5th ed.). Elsevier.

-APA Style 2023

# data[].attributes.body
Building a world where everyone has
access to the tools and community they need to live an authentic and fulfilling life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Achieve your goals with the 2024 planner that does it all. Available in Daily, Undated, Digital, and Academic planners, find inspiration with an hourly appointment calendar, reflection questions, and more. Perfect for both bullet journal enthusiasts and first time planners alike.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Impact of Speech and Language Impairments on Learning and Social Development

Approximately 1 in 12 children between the ages of 3-17 have a speech and/or language need in some capacity. This can include an articulation delay, a mixed receptive and expressive language disorder, or executive function difficulties. Given that a classroom usually has 20 or more students, teachers are likely to have at least 1-2 students with communication difficulties in their classroom at any given time. Therefore, it is important that they can work with SLPs to best support their students!

Students with speech and language impairments (a commonly-seen disability on IEPs) may have more difficulty understanding academic information, expressing information they know, and interacting with educators and students in the school environment. SLPs work with students with speech and language impairments (SLIs) to improve these skills but intervention often occurs in a therapy room. The carryover, or generalization, of communication skills across multiple contexts and settings, is often more difficult to attain (versus the sole use in the speech therapy room). When SLPs collaborate well with teachers, this generalization of skills may be achieved more quickly and easily.

Speech Versus Language Disorders

Speech disorders may include articulation/phonological errors, stuttering and cluttering, and vocal volume, pitch, or quality difficulties. Articulation and phonological disorders are the most common speech disorders in school-aged individuals; however, all of the above conditions may impact students' ability to be understood.

Language disorders can include receptive difficulties (e.g., understanding information), expressive difficulties (e.g., expressing information), and pragmatic difficulties (e.g., interacting with others). Students with language disorders may have trouble understanding and executing directions, learning new vocabulary, and completing schoolwork.

Both speech and language disorders can significantly impact a child's academic performance if gone untreated. SLPs can collaborate with teachers to provide specific information about students' strengths and needs (note: their strengths and needs may differ even if they have the same disorder) and gather feedback about how it impacts them in the classroom.

How SLPs and Teachers Can Collaborate

Below are some things SLPs can do to support teachers best, things teachers can do to support SLPs best, and things both can do to support each other and their students!

How SLPs Can Support Teachers

1. Provide information about students' speech or language impairments. This may include information such as, "Tony's understanding of sequential information is impacted so he may require additional support with multi-step tasks."

2. Provide strategies to support student instruction. For example, an SLP may say, "Ava is hard to understand sometimes because of her speech sound disorder. If you don't understand what she is saying, encourage her to use gestures or pictures to communicate what she needs."

3. Provide insight into what the student is working on in therapy. For example, an SLP may say, "I am going to help Ali say the /k/ sounds but it may take him a while to get it. Let me know if you hear him use it correctly!"

How Teachers Can Support SLPs

1. Provide an overview of lesson units. SLPs can work with students on related information to reinforce concepts learned in the classroom. For example, if the class is going to study plants, SLPs may also cover plant vocabulary in their sessions.

2. Provide feedback about students' interests and progress. This can help SLPs know what to focus on in their sessions. For example, if the student is really interested in puzzles during their free choice time, the SLP may be able to also use puzzles as a way to increase engagement in their sessions.

3. Provide information about any new concerns. Teachers may be the first to notice that a student is having more difficulty as compared to other students with aspects of communication. By collaborating with SLPs, they can more efficiently determine if a student does need speech and/or language support and steps from there.

How SLPs and Teachers Can Support Each Other

1. Find the best way to communicate. Some professionals prefer email communication whereas others have so many unread emails that a new one may get lost in the noise. Some prefer to communicate in person after students are dismissed whereas others prefer a quick chat during lunch. Figuring out when, where, and how to communicate can make a huge difference in effectively working together!

2. Be open to new ideas. Teachers and SLPs may have had different experiences and have different strategies for teaching and learning. Being automatically dismissive of someone's idea or method because it's different from what they've experienced can end up hindering a student's progress more than anything.

3. Embrace flexibility. Both teachers and SLPs have a lot of demands and expectations placed upon them. Teachers have certain standards to cover each day and SLPs have legal documents and plans (aka IEPs) they must follow. Throw in an assembly or a weather delay and all of a sudden it seems like a student should be in 3 places at once! Having flexibility around scheduling and plans is important for both parties.

For students who have learning, speech, and/or language concerns, the collaboration between SLPs and teachers is essential for the creation of a quality IEP.

IEP Terms to Know

SLPs are often well-versed in IEPs because they help write a lot of them but IEPs are a team project. This means each team member's input is required and valuable! Teachers should also be provided with (easily accessible) IEPs as needed for their students so they are continually aware of their students' accommodations, goals, etc. Below are brief explanations of some parts of IEPs.

Present Levels*

*Note: the verbiage of each of these sections may differ from school to school, district to district, etc

In the Present Levels section (note: often referred to as the present level of performance/PLOP the verbiage may differ from school to school), service providers (e.g., SLPs) often provide updates on the goals the student worked on over the past year and the progress that they have made. They may also touch on areas of continued need.

Educational Impact

In this section, information about how a student's disability may impact them in the classroom will be discussed. For example, a student with a speech sound disorder may not be fully understood by others when speaking in class.

Annual Goals

This part of the IEP covers goals for the student over the next year. It outlines what the student will be working on and often refers to corresponding academic standards. For example, a goal about using past, present, and future tense verbs correctly may correspond with an academic standard related to using correct grammar when writing.

Accommodations

This part is key for teachers to understand and know about! This talks about how teachers can accommodate their students in the classroom to best support them. For example, it may include modeling correct speech sound production or providing praise if a student produces a target sound correctly. It may also touch on using visual aids when giving multi-step directions if a student has difficulty understanding verbal information.

Testing accommodations may also be included here. This may indicate that a student does best taking tests in a small group setting or needs extra time to complete tests.

Service Delivery

The Service Delivery part of the IEP indicates how often SLPs will be working with students and in what setting. For example, it may say they will see the student inside or outside the general education classroom. It may also include time for consultation with the IEP team.

When Collaboration Worked Best
Success stories of SLP and teacher collaboration!
I had a student once who had a speech sound disorder and made a lot of errors when speaking. She did not get frustrated easily when she could not be understood but her teacher was often asking her to repeat herself over and over. As the SLP, I provided information about her speech sound disorder, stating that she often used the /s/ sound instead of /sh/, so if the teacher heard /s/ and it didn't make sense, try to see if the word would make more sense with the /sh/ sound. I also provided strategies for alternative communication methods if needed. The teacher let me know that while the student also had IEP goals related to grammar, her grammar had improved a lot over the school year and was on par with most of the other students in her class. Though I had data from sessions to support this, hearing it from the teacher was helpful in my session planning!

I had another student one time who was working on figurative language and had difficulty understanding metaphors and idioms. His Language Arts teacher would let me know what book they were reading, and specifically, what chapter they were reading that week. I would get a copy of that book and find examples of metaphors and idioms in that chapter and incorporate that into our sessions.

Collaboration between SLPs and teachers can truly make a difference for students. We hope that you can find ways to be successful throughout your school year!

Looking for more school year success resources?

1. Back to School BINGO: BINGO is great for targeting different goals and engaging alllll learners

2. Speech Therapy Ideas for Back to School (worksheet included): find activities perfect for 1:1 sessions, small groups, and large groups!

3. Back to School Resources with Smarty Symbols: make communication boards, visual schedules, and games quickly and easily using Smarty Symbols

4. School Age Speech Therapy Goal Creator BUNDLE (also on TPT): save $18 when you get FOUR of our goal banks all at once! Also find individual goal creators for language, articulation, fluency, and AAC.

References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Quick Facts. Retrieved from https://www.asha.org/about/press-room/quick-facts/#:~:text=Nearly%201%20in%2012%20U.S.,language%2C%20or%20swallowing%20(source)

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). National Teacher and Principal Survey, 2017-18: First Look (Preliminary Data) - Table 6. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/tables/ntps1718_fltable06_t1s.asp

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How SLPs and Teachers Can Collaborate Effectively

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Both school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) AND teachers play an integral role in educating students with speech and language needs. Effective collaboration between these two professions can help support students in order to maximize their skills.

# data[].attributes.body
Here are some great websites to help with writing paragraphs:

1.) 100 Sentence Starters to Engage Students in Every Subject

2) Other Sentence Starters/Stems

# data[].attributes.headline
School-Based Service Delivery in Speech-Language Pathology

# data[].attributes.subject
School-Based Service Delivery in Speech-Language Pathology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School-Based Service Delivery in Speech-Language Pathology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This resource is designed to provide information about the range of service delivery models in schools, considerations for providing these services, and relevant resources. Information included will assist speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in meeting the tenets of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004) by delivering a free and appropriate public education program (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with communication disabilities in schools.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Survey of Speech-Language Pathologists’ and Teachers' Perception and Collaborative Service Delivery

# data[].attributes.subject
A Survey of Speech-Language Pathologists’ and Teachers' Perception and Collaborative Service Delivery

# data[].attributes.body
Brimo & Huffman, 2023

Teachers’ Perceptions of Collaborative

Service Delivery

# data[].attributes.body
Brea, 2020

# data[].attributes.headline
Instructional Language Modification Techniques to Support Adolescents With Language Impairment

# data[].attributes.subject
Instructional Language Modification Techniques to Support Adolescents With Language Impairment

# data[].attributes.body
Starling et al., 2018

# data[].attributes.body
Sun & Wallach, 2014

# data[].attributes.headline
Engaging multiple stakeholders to improve speech and language therapy services in schools: an appreciative inquiry-based study

# data[].attributes.subject
Engaging multiple stakeholders to improve speech and language therapy services in schools: an appreciative inquiry-based study

# data[].attributes.body
Gallagher et al., 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Home

2. Resources

3. Online Tools

4. Clusive: An Accessible, Digital Reading Platform

Clusive® is an adaptive and accessible web-based reader designed to engage students in independent reading. Based on the inclusive principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Clusive scaffolds the development of reading skills for students in grades 5 through 12. Think of Clusive as a digital backpack of technology-supported reading materials that students can take with them wherever they go.

Clusive empowers student reading by transforming digital reading environments with features such as:

Choice of reading materials. Students can choose to read assigned books and articles, choose their own material and build personalized libraries, and take advantage of Clusive's growing public library.

Flexible display options. Students can discover settings that work best for their reading needs, such as adjustable text size, line and letter spacing, font choice, and color and contrast. Students build agency by finding their just-right-fit by testing and setting their own preferences.

Read-aloud capabilities. All of Clusive's content can be read aloud by text-to-speech software. Students can select the reading speed and voice.

Just-in-time prompts. Clusive has built in highlighting, note-taking, word knowledge and comprehension checks, an embedded glossary, language translation, and a personal word bank to support planning and meaning-making.

Social-emotional reflection opportunities. Unique to Clusive are social-emotional supports that encourage student's self-awareness of their growing literacy skills. There is adaptive content based on students' prior actions and responses, and the flexibility to opt out of support when students feel they are ready.

Progress-monitoring tools. In addition to a dashboard where students can view their own progress, there is also a robust dashboard for parents and teachers to see what their students have accomplished.

Easy access and sharing capabilities. Clusive can be accessed and shared from any device - no matter their location. It integrates with Google Classroom, and offers students and parents a simple sign-on option using their Google accounts.

A growing public library. Standards-aligned content is available on Clusive through public-domain books and Open Educational Resources (OERs). Teachers can also upload and share additional materials with students in this accessible, supportive environment.

Students can use Clusive to read assigned or free-choice books and articles, build their own personal library, and take advantage of Clusive's growing public library. Clusive's goal is to help learners build self-awareness through discovering, choosing, and using preferences that help build learning skills.

Sign up for your free account today!

Are you an educator, parent, or student interested in helping us make Clusive better? Let us know! We are looking for teachers and students to co-design and beta test with us. Contact us to volunteer.

Learn more about Clusive

Clusive & Bookshare: A Powerful Partnership for Inclusive Literacy

The partnership of Clusive and Bookshare opens the full library of Bookshare to the power and flexibility of Clusive, CAST's free, flexible, and adaptive learning environment.

Access the webinar archive

Making Learning Inclusive with Clusive

In this episode, members of the Clusive team explain the many accessibility features and UDL supports built into Clusive, creating a more personalized learning environment that adapts to the individual needs and preferences of each learner.

Access the podcast

Top of Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Clusive: An Accessible, Digital Reading Platform - CAST

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Home Resources Online Tools Clusive: An Accessible, Digital Reading Platform Clusive ® is an adaptive and accessible web-based reader designed to engage students in independent reading. Based on the inclusive principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Clusive scaffolds the development of reading skills for students in grades 5 through 12.

# data[].attributes.headline
Preparing High Schoolers With Communication Disorders for the Workplace

# data[].attributes.subject
Preparing High Schoolers With Communication Disorders for the Workplace

# data[].attributes.body
Integrating employment and social-emotional learning into treatment can help prepare students for life beyond graduation.

# data[].attributes.body
Quizlet for Regents Literary Devices:

1) https://quizlet.com/251460496/ela-regents-writing-strategies-literary-devices-flash-cards/

2) https://quizlet.com/44106328/english-11-regents-review-flash-cards/

# data[].attributes.headline
How AI can adapt Reading Levels to accommodate all language learners.

# data[].attributes.subject
How AI can adapt Reading Levels to accommodate all language learners.

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers get a free account.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brisk is free for teachers because we don’t believe price should get in the way of making a difference in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
This site rewords texts to make it more understandable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rewordify.com | Understand what you read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rewordify.com helps you read more, understand better, learn new words, and teach more effectively.

# data[].attributes.body
Beck et al., 2005

# data[].attributes.body
SLPs assess reading comprehension and written language at grade level to see what is delayed or absent and use tools and strategies to target what is delayed or absent (i.e., phonemic awareness, decoding vocabulary, syntactic awareness, grammar, punctuation, etc.).

We collaborate with educators, counselors, family members, etc. to holistically help the student succeed to the best of their abilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Confusing Sentences That Actually Make Sense

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let’s face it: Sometimes the English language can be downright bizarre. The plural of ox is oxen while the plural of box is boxes, ‘rough’…

# data[].attributes.body
This works with Google Classroom! Just sign-in with your School email.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Home

2. Resources

3. Online Tools

4. Corgi: Co-Organize Your Learning

Corgi is a free, Google-based application to engage all students in rich and meaningful learning. Corgi is an easy-to-use suite of digital graphic organizers that supports students in developing content-specific practices and habits of mind. By engaging with Corgi, students develop patterns of thinking and reasoning in a format that is accessible for all. We leverage what's already great about graphic organizers and infuse the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to make them even more flexible and accessible.

All the guides were simple to use and they really helped me grasp the information.

Middle School Student

Corgi's key features include:

Graphic organizers that support comparison, cause and effect, reasoning, and question exploration

User-friendly Google App environment

In-app language translations, read-aloud options, a built-in dictionary, speech-to-text, and multimedia content and supports

Real-time collaboration among students and teachers

Integration with Google Drive

Review page for students to monitor their progress

Capability to convert information into Google Slides presentation or PDF

Lessons designed to improve skills such as recalling information, reasoning, and problem-solving, and collaborating with other students

And much more!

Corgi offers in-app support for learners and teachers to use wherever they are-in the classroom, in virtual settings, or at home. It provides options for students to visualize concepts in new ways and promotes engagement.

Corgi Research

We took what's already great about graphic organizers and made them more flexible and accessible.

Corgi graphic organizers are great on their own, but we're making them even better with a suite of professional learning resources to support their use in the classroom.

Want to help us make Corgi even better?

We need your expertise to help us make these tools work best for you and your students. Fill out our Corgi interest form to get involved. We're excited to work with you!

Let us know you're interested!

Top of Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Corgi takes what's already great about graphic organizers and makes them even more flexible and accessible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why everything you know about autism is wrong | Jac den Houting | TEDxMacquarieUniversity

# data[].attributes.headline
Workflowy - 1 free year with .edu email.

# data[].attributes.subject
Workflowy - 1 free year with .edu email.

# data[].attributes.body
Notes,Tasks,Projects
- All in a Single Place.

Workflowy offers a simpler way to stay organized. If you have a crazy job or an ambitious project, we will be your trusty sidekick.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We offer a free 1 year Workflowy pro subscription to university level students and faculty.

To apply, please email help@workflowy.com from your @edu email address with the request.

Note that we can only apply this to Workflowy accounts that have signed up with their @edu email, the discount doesn't apply to personal non @edu emails.

We offer a 50% discount on all Workflowy subscriptions that are used as part of a non-profit organization.

To apply, please email help@workflowy.com with the request for the discount and instructions on how to manage the organization's accounts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For students We offer a free 1 year Workflowy pro subscription to university level students and faculty. To apply, please email help@workflowy.com from your @edu email address with the request. No...

# data[].attributes.body
via knockknockstuff.com and purchased at a TJ Maxx.

# data[].attributes.body
via Read with Ms. Klein

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Decoding is the ability to apply your knowledge of letter-sound relationships, including knowledge of letter patterns, to correctly pronounce written words. Understanding these relationships gives children the ability to recognize familiar words quickly and to figure out words they haven't seen before. Although children may sometimes figure out some of these relationships on their own, most children benefit from explicit instruction in this area. Phonics is one approach to reading instruction that teaches students the principles of letter-sound relationships, how to sound out words, and exceptions to the principles.

What the problem looks like

A kid's perspective: What this feels like to me

Children will usually express their frustration and difficulties in a general way, with statements like "I hate reading!" or "This is stupid!". But if they could, this is how kids might describe how word decoding and phonics difficulties affect their reading:

I just seem to get stuck when I try to read a lot of the words in this chapter.

Figuring out the words takes so much of my energy, I can't even think about what it means.

I don't know how to sound out these words.

I know my letters and sounds, but I just can't read words on a page.

A parent's perspective: What I see at home

Here are some clues for parents that a child may have problems with word decoding and phonics:

She often gets stuck on words when reading. I end up telling her many of the words.

His reading is very slow because he spends so much time figuring out words.

She's not able to understand much about what she's read because she's so busy trying to sound out the words.

It's as if he doesn't know how to put the information together to read words.

Saying "sound it out" to her just seems to make her more frustrated.

He guesses at words based on the first letter or two; it's as if he doesn't pay close attention to the print.

A teacher's perspective: What I see in the classroom

Here are some clues for teachers that a student may have problems with word decoding and phonics:

She has difficulty matching sounds and letters, which can affect reading and spelling.

She decodes in a very labored manner.

He has trouble reading and spelling phonetically.

She has a high degree of difficulty with phonics patterns and activities.

He guesses at words based on the first letter or two.

Even though I taught several short vowel sounds (or other letter sounds or patterns), the corresponding letters are not showing up in his writing samples.

Even though I taught certain letter patterns, she isn't able to recognize them when reading words.

How to help

With the help of parents and teachers, kids can learn strategies to overcome word decoding and phonics problems that affect their reading. Below are some tips and specific things to do.

What kids can do to help themselves

Play with magnetic letters. See how quickly you can put them in alphabetical order while singing the alphabet song.

Look at written materials around your house and at road signs to see if you can spot familiar words and letter patterns.

Write notes, e-mails, and letters to your friends and family. Represent each sound you hear as you write.

When you're trying to sound out a word, pay close attention to the print. Try to look at all the letters in the word, not just the first one or two.

What parents can do to help at home

For a younger reader, help your child learn the letters and sounds of the alphabet. Occasionally point to letters and ask your child to name them.

Help your child make connections between what he or she might see on a sign or in the newspaper and the letter and sound work he or she is doing in school.

Encourage your child to write and spell notes, e-mails, and letters using what he knows about sounds and letters.

Talk with your child about the "irregular" words that she'll often see in what she's reading. These are the words that don't follow the usual letter-sound rules. These words include said, are, and was. Students must learn to recognize them "at sight."

Consider using computer software that focuses on developing phonics and emergent literacy skills. Some software programs are designed to support children in their writing efforts. For example, some programs encourage kids to construct sentences and then cartoon characters will act out the completed sentence. Other software programs provide practice with long and short vowel sounds and creating compound words.

What teachers can do to help at school

Have students sort pictures and objects by the sound you're teaching. At each stage, have children say the letter sound over and over again.

Teach phonics in a systematic and explicit way. If your curriculum materials are not systematic and explicit, talk with your principal or reading specialist.

Be sure to begin the systematic and explicit phonics instruction early; first grade would be best.

Help students understand the purpose of phonics by engaging them in reading and writing activities that requires them to apply the phonics information you've taught them.

Use manipulatives to help teach letter-sound relationships. These can include counters, sound boxes, and magnetic letters.

Provide more of your instruction to students who you've divided into need-based groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Target the Problem: Word Decoding and Phonics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Decoding is the ability to apply your knowledge of letter-sound relationships, including knowledge of letter patterns, to correctly pronounce written words. Understanding these relationships gives children the ability to recognize familiar words quickly and to figure out words they haven't seen before.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Coggle is online software for creating and sharing mindmaps and flowcharts. It works online in your browser: there's nothing to download or install. Log in to start diagramming!

Whether you're taking notes, brainstorming, planning, or doing something awesomely creative, it is super simple to visualise your ideas with Coggle. Share with as many friends or colleagues as you like. Changes you make will show up instantly in their browser, wherever they are in the world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The clear way to share complex information. Coggle is a collaborative mind-mapping tool that helps you make sense of complex things. Create unlimited mind maps and easily share them with friends and colleagues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Smithsonian

Learning Lab

Discover the digital education platform that connects people to Smithsonian objects, resources, and stories.

Collections by Grade

Explore some of our most popular Learning Lab Collections. Use them as a springboard to continue your exploration of the many collections available on the site.

Talk with Me!
Learn about your community and neighborhood. In this Toolkit, leaners explore different homes, shops, and people in your neighborhood and have fun with related activities.

Talk with Me Toolkits provide you with chances to talk with your children to improve thinking, vocabulary, and language development. Talking with your child is great-and research shows that the quality of words children hear matters more than how much you talk.

Talk with Me Toolkits give you ideas to begin conversations that are organized around a theme. The Toolkits feature videos, photographs, paintings, and artworks along with questions to talk about with your child. At the end of each toolkit there are more activities to do and books to read together. Go through this toolkit with your child and see how many topics there are to talk about!
This toolkit was adapted with a grant from the Institute for Museum and Library Services.

Links to third-party websites and videos are included in this Toolkit for informational purposes only. They do not indicate the Smithsonian's endorsement, sponsorship of, or affiliation with the third party or content of the linked site, including any advertisements that might be posted.

Learn More

Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden

What inspires you? Get to know Alma Thomas, (b. Columbus, Georgia; lived and worked in Washington, DC, 1891-1978), an American artist and educator known for her signature painting style using bright colors and patterns inspired by nature. She became a full-time artist late in her life. Born in a time of horses and buggies, she lived through big advancements in technology, such as the space race and moon landing. Her art was inspired by the nature she saw outside her home studio, and awe for the exploration of our vast universe.
Get To Know Alma Thomas Use it in the classroom to teach:
is part of the Hirshhorn KIDS About the Artist series. About the Artist biographies are designed for kids under age 12. Modern and contemporary artists' lives reflect recent human history and events. Sharing these life stories and artworks can help kids see their own potential and better understand the world and their place in it. It is our goal to inspire future generations of artists, makers, and creative problem solvers-sharing artists stories is one way Hirshhorn KIDS realize this goal.
Art classroom: Color Theory, Pattern

Language Arts classroom: Biography

Social Studies classroom: 20th century

Learn More

National Museum of American History

In this playlist you will learn about how three of the first presidents shaped the executive branch of the United States government.

Start by clicking on the first tile in the upper left hand corner. Then move through the playlist by clicking on the ">" symbol at the bottom of the page. Look for the information and paperclip icons to provide more information about selected resources. There are 34 tiles in this collection.

Learn More

Educator Programs

Cultivating Learning is a professional development series where Smithsonian educators model teaching techniques for using digital museum resources to support student learning. This year's series celebrates America at 250. Programs are free and accessible to anyone.

Wednesday, April 15, 4:00 PM EST

Join Phoebe Sherman of the National Postal Museum to explore how postage stamps can be used in the classroom to encourage civic awareness and engagement. We'll examine how stamps can spark curiosity and deepen understanding of civics, American history, national identity, and commemoration by using thinking routines that focus on both subject matter and artistic design. You'll see how these approaches come to life with students and leave with classroom-ready resources and fresh ideas for incorporating postage stamps into your teaching practice.

Watch

Wednesday, May 20, 4:00 PM EST

Join Nyssa Buning of the National Museum of American History's Spark!Lab and Carol O'Donnell of the Smithsonian Science Education Center to explore strategies for cultivating an inventive mindset in your students. We'll discuss the history of STEAM innovation in America and try an open-ended invention challenge that uses object-based learning techniques to encourage creative problem solving and support curiosity and perseverance, skills essential to inventors throughout history. You'll leave with a set of facilitation tools to support students as they develop their own inventive identity and become future problem-solvers. You'll also receive access to a newly released e-book from the Smithsonian Science Education Center, STEAM Innovation: Celebrating Our Nation's 250 Years.

Register

Wednesday, June 17, 4:00 PM EST

As America turns 250 in 2026, young people are writing its next chapter. Join a group of educators who apply interdisciplinary approaches to learning to engage young people in civic dialogue tied to their communities.

Register

What will you find in the Smithsonian Learning Lab?

Resources

Millions of Smithsonian digital images, recordings, texts, and videos in history, art and culture, and the sciences

Collections

Thousands of examples of resources organized and structured for teaching and learning by educators and subject experts

Resources

Millions of Smithsonian digital images, recordings, texts, and videos in history, art and culture, and the sciences

Collections

Thousands of examples of resources organized and structured for teaching and learning by educators and subject experts

Browse individual resources by type

Browse model collections on different topics

Tips

Tips

Create collections of resources to engage learners, or freely adapt ones already made by Learning Lab users like you.

Use Learning Lab tools to customize and enhance your collections.

Browse ready-to-use model collections by educational use

Browse ready-to-use model collections by learning strategy or theme

Tips

Tips

Subscribe to our Bright Ideas newsletter

To learn more about the Smithsonian Learning Lab and to read about strategies, approaches, new features, and more, subscribe to the Bright Ideas newsletter. We'll be sending out a new issue every few weeks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smithsonian Learning Lab: Discover, Create, Share

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Smithsonian Learning Lab Discover the digital education platform that connects people to Smithsonian objects, resources, and stories. Explore some of our most popular Learning Lab Collections. Use them as a springboard to continue your exploration of the many collections available on the site. Talk with Me! Learn about your community and neighborhood.

# data[].attributes.body
A free and safe online learning platform created by AT&T to provide K-12 students with engaging and entertaining videos paired with educational activities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

A free and safe online learning platform created by AT&T to provide K-12 students with engaging and entertaining videos paired with educational activities.

Support learning in every subject!

See more resources from AT&T!

AT&T ScreenReady®
Parents play an important role in helping today's connected students safely engage in online learning. Visit AT&T ScreenReady ® to build confidence using technology and access tips and tools to help your family make safe and positive connections on all screens.

More info

An AT&T Connected Learning Solution
Created by AT&T in collaboration with Warner Bros. Discovery, The Achievery helps connect students to a new world of digital learning through stories that spark curiosity and content that entertains as well as teaches.

More info

Making Affordable Connections
By combining low-cost broadband plans with federal benefits from the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), eligible households can take advantage of free internet.

More info

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Achievery is a free digital learning platform designed to make distance learning more engaging, entertaining, and inspiring for K-12 students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reading and Writing SOS: Expert Answers to Family Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this special Reading Rockets video series, experts answer real questions from families about reading and writing, and how to support their children's literacy at home.

# data[].attributes.body
High School SLPs do not tutor students. We help students remember, understand, apply, analyze, and evaluate the material teachers assign and then guide them — through cueing and scaffolding — on how to formulate their ideas about the material to complete the assignments. We do not give a student “the answers,” we help them express their understanding of the material for oral discussion and written assignments. (Sherman, 2022)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Instructional strategies support phonological awareness, word recognition/decoding, reading comprehension, writing process, writing product, and spelling at different levels. In addition, instruction that supports vocabulary is often part of intervention programs, as vocabulary knowledge is foundational for reading and academic success (e.g., Adlof & Patten, 2017; McGregor et al., 2013; Nagy & Townsend, 2012; Nagy, 1988; Perfetti & Stafura, 2014).

Dual language learners (DLLs) or emergent bilinguals also benefit from interventions that dynamically allow comparisons across languages and activate transfer at the phonological, lexical, syntactic, and discourse levels. DLLs with reading disorders benefit from early reading and writing experiences in more transparent orthographies than English, such as Spanish (Butvilofsky et al., 2017).

Older individuals may function at earlier developmental levels. Intervention for these individuals is based on developmental level, with chronological age taken into consideration when selecting instructional materials.

Below are ideas for relevant areas of intervention, grouped by age level. However, treatment goals and targets are left to the discretion of individual clinicians to meet specific standards or goals.

Emergent Level (Preschool Age)

The period of emergent literacy is when the child typically develops an awareness of print and an understanding of the functions of literacy. The child acquires skills, knowledge, and attitudes that are the precursors to reading and writing (Kamhi & Catts, 2012; Sulzby, 1985; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Through the process of "literacy socialization," or the cultural and social aspects of learning to read, children gain oral and written language experience through literacy events (i.e., shared book reading, recognition of common signs, logos, and symbols) and interaction with literacy artifacts (i.e., books, magazines, mail, toys with print; Van Kleeck & Schuele, 1987).

Phonological Awareness

Building awareness of patterns of sounds, including

Improving the ability to generate rhyming words and identify syllables in words

Building awareness of beginning sounds in words

Improving the ability to generate words that begin with a certain sound

Emergent Reading

Engaging in joint book reading, including pointing to pictures in books to support understanding of structure and content of books

Teaching awareness of conventions of print orientation (top to bottom of page, left to right orientations of English print)

Understanding that words represent objects, actions, or ideas

Understanding that text represents spoken language

Pointing out spaces between words

Matching speech to print

Building awareness of environmental print, including

product logos,

street signs, and

printed words in environmental context (e.g., "milk" on a carton of milk)

Building alphabet/letter knowledge, including

recognizing letters and

naming letters

Teaching sense of story and understanding simple story structure, including

answering questions about a story and

retelling a story in sequence

Emergent Spelling/Writing

Providing opportunities to engage in "paper-and-pencil activities," including

drawing,

copying lines and shapes,

copying numbers and letters, and

pretend writing

Teaching the distinction between drawing and writing

Early Elementary Level

Formal instruction in reading and writing begins during the early elementary school years. Children learn to decode words, read fluently, and comprehend what they have read. They begin to develop spelling skills and learn to write letters, sentences, and short narratives (Ukrainetz, 2015).

Phonological Awareness

Continuing to develop phonological awareness skills, including

Developing awareness of sounds and syllables in words

Word Recognition/Decoding

Increasing repertoire of sight words

Teaching sound-symbol correspondences

Teaching awareness of spelling patterns in words

Improving reading decoding (recognizing individual sounds in a printed word and blending sounds to form the word)

Increasing reading fluency

Reading Comprehension

Encouraging interest in and understanding of story narratives and other text genres, including

exposition and

persuasion

Building awareness of story components, including

Working on story retelling

Teaching strategies to determine meaning of words from context cues

Writing Process

Teaching how to plan before writing and how to edit the final product

Improving ability to understand and use digital texts

Improving prewriting, planning, and revising

Writing Product

Practicing writing uppercase and lowercase letters as well as first and last name

Improving the ability to write brief stories and journal entries

Developing the ability to write a variety of grammatically correct sentence types and to use writing conventions correctly, including

capitalization and

punctuation

Improving vocabulary, lexical diversity, and sentence complexity

Spelling

Developing skill in using letter-sound knowledge to spell words as they sound, beginning with rudimentary spelling using one to three letters

Improving the ability to spell common words correctly

Developing the ability to correct some spelling errors

Later Elementary Level and Above

Some older students might continue to need direct instruction for decoding and fluency. Much of the intervention for this age group uses an "instructional strategies approach." This approach focuses on teaching rules, techniques, and principles to help gain and use information across a broad range of situations and settings and is based on enhancing metalinguistic and metacognitive skills. The emphasis is on how to learn, rather than what to learn (Westby et al., 2015). Classroom assignments are often used to teach strategies for learning academic content. Some instructional strategies are discipline specific, and others are generalizable across disciplines (Faggella-Luby & Deshler, 2008). Strategy instruction may address recognizing, understanding and using root words, and using context to deduce meanings of complex vocabulary.

Word Recognition/Decoding

Developing the ability to use root words to understand word meaning

Enhancing morphological awareness, including an understanding of how inflectional endings and derivational prefixes and suffixes change meaning

Developing the ability to decipher complex words related to different academic disciplines

Reading Comprehension

Disciplinary literacy-improving understanding of content-specific vocabulary, concepts, and content

Improving the ability to use context to

deduce meaning and

infer and identify main ideas

Developing skill in paraphrasing information that was read

Improving understanding of figurative language and recognition of ambiguities in written text, including

multiple-meaning words and

ambiguous sentence structures

Teaching strategies to improve reading comprehension, including

reviewing headings and end-of-chapter questions prior to reading,

rereading portions of text, and

taking notes

Teaching strategies to improve self-monitoring of comprehension while reading

Teaching strategies to manage different styles of text

skimming

analytic reading for in-depth meaning

critical reading for interpretation

Improving understanding of different text genres and purposes by using

story grammar checklists and other text schemata and

strategies such as the following:

Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review (Gunning, 2002; Robinson, 1946)

Preview, Question, Read, Summarize, Test (Staton, 1982)

Introducing and practicing use of available technologies to facilitate reading, including

text-to-speech software,

narrated textbooks, and

scaffolding reading/writing systems

Writing Process

Improving the ability to use strategies, techniques, and technologies to plan, organize, and complete written assignments, including

"talking through" the content aloud prior to writing,

visual/graphic organizers,

word prediction software, and

voice-to-text speech recognition software

Developing skills in the use of digital technologies to research a topic and gather information relevant to writing assignments

Teaching the use of strategies, techniques, and technologies to facilitate editing of written work. Examples include the following:

self-questioning and self-cuing

doing a spellcheck and grammar check for work composed in electronic format

Writing Product

Building skill in writing more complex and grammatically correct sentences

Improving the ability to judge correctness of grammar and morphological word forms in own writing and to correct errors in own writing

Increasing understanding and use of figurative language in writing

Improving the ability to write cohesively by

including sufficient detail,

linking ideas, and

elaborating

Spelling

Improving understanding of phonological and morphological aspects of regular and irregular spellings in consideration of sounds and syllables

Improving knowledge of orthographic patterns of irregularly spelled words

References

Adlof, S. M., & Patten, H. (2017). Nonword repetition and vocabulary knowledge as predictors of children's phonological and semantic word learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(3), 682-693. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0441

Butvilofsky, S., Hopewell, S., Escamilla, K., & Sparrow, W. (2017). Shifting deficit paradigms of Latino emerging bilingual students' literacy achievement: Documenting biliterate trajectories. Journal of Latinos and Education, 16(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2016.1205987

Faggella-Luby, M., & Deshler, D. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know; what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 70-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00265.x

Gunning, T. G. (2002). Creating literacy instruction for all children. Allyn & Bacon.

Kamhi, A. G., & Catts, H. W. (2012). Language and reading disabilities (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Nagy, W. E., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011

Nagy, W. E. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. International Reading Association.

Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687

Robinson, F. P. (1946). Effective study. Harper & Row.

Staton, T. F. (1982). How to study. Illinois University Press.

Sulzby, E. (1985). Children's emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 458-481.

Ukrainetz, T. A. (2015). Awareness, memory, and retrieval: Intervention for the phonological foundations of reading. In T. A. Ukrainetz (Ed.), School-age language intervention: Evidence-based practices (pp. 445-490). Pro-Ed.

Van Kleeck, A., & Schuele, C. M. (1987). Precursors to literacy: Normal development. Topics in Language Disorders, 7(2), 13-31. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-198703000-00004

Westby, C., Culatta, B., & Hall-Kenyon, K. M. (2015). Informational discourse: Teaching the main course of schooling. In T. A. Ukrainetz (Ed.), School-age language intervention: Evidence-based practices (pp. 379-410). Pro-Ed.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69(3), 848-872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06247.x

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Written Language Disorders: Intervention Target Areas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instructional strategies support phonological awareness, word recognition/decoding, reading comprehension, writing process, writing product, and spelling at different levels.

# data[].attributes.headline
We assess what students can do through informal assessment.

# data[].attributes.subject
We assess what students can do through informal assessment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Literacy assessment

This includes basic and higher-level reading, writing, and spelling skills, listed roughly in developmental order.
Reading

Print awareness-recognizing that books have a front and a back and that the direction of words is from left to right; recognizing where words on the page start and stop; recognizing word boundaries; recognizing environmental signs/logos

Phonological awareness-including phonemic awareness; rhyming, blending, and segmenting; manipulating syllables and sounds

Alphabet knowledge-including naming alphabetic letters from A to Z

Sound-symbol correspondence-knowing that letters have sounds; knowing the sounds for corresponding letters and letter combinations

Reading decoding-using sound-symbol knowledge to segment and blend sounds in grade-level words; reading decoding may be assessed with tasks that involve nonword or pseudoword reading

Word recognition -the ability to identify words when reading, either through word decoding or sight word identification; word recognition must be assessed with tasks that involve real words

Reading automaticity -reading isolated words rapidly and accurately

Reading fluency-reading connected text smoothly and accurately with appropriate intonation and without frequent or significant pausing

Knowledge of derivational morphology (prefixes and suffixes that change the part of speech or meaning of a word)

Knowledge of inflectional morphology (changes in word form that mark tense, number, possession, or comparison)

Knowledge of orthographic patterns of irregularly spelled words

Knowledge of variations in text structures and genres (e.g., narratives vs. expository text) and different purposes of text (to persuade, inform, or entertain)

Reading comprehension

Retelling or summarizing a passage while maintaining the essential meaning

Answering questions about a passage to demonstrate the following:

Knowledge of multiple-meaning words

Knowledge of age-appropriate vocabulary

Knowledge of synonyms and antonyms

Knowledge of figurative language (e.g., idioms, metaphors, proverbs)

Ability to understand complex sentences

Ability to make inferences and integrate meaning within text

Using strategies to facilitate comprehension (e.g., skimming, using end-of-chapter questions to guide reading, rereading, and taking notes)

Using strategies to demonstrate comprehension of a reading passage

Using strategies for managing different styles of reading (e.g., reading for overview, critical reading for complete meaning and interpretation, activating background knowledge to facilitate comprehension)

Writing

Making marks on paper

Demonstrating intent to communicate meaning in writing

Printing all letters of the alphabet

Printing first and last name

Labeling pictures

Producing conventional text via copying dictation

Demonstrating fluency with text production via handwriting and/or keyboarding

Writing process

Planning (e.g., brainstorming, story maps, webbing) and organizing, composing, reflection

Drafting (e.g., refer to planning notes and revise during drafting process)

Revising and editing content, spelling, and conventions

Publishing and presenting to meet the needs of specific audiences

Writing product

Fluency (number of words produced in a specified time period)

Vocabulary and lexical diversity

Word choice

Word inflection in sentence contexts

Use of multisyllabic words

Evidence of morphemic awareness in word choice and spelling

Sentence formulation (e.g., diversity of sentence types; using end punctuation as evidence of concepts of sentence)

Grammaticality of sentences (coding for correct versus incorrect sentences)

Sentence complexity

Code for simple versus complex sentences

Calculate clause density ratios

Calculate mean length of T-unit

Ability to stay true to assigned genre

Ability to ensure completeness, organization, and cohesiveness

Writing conventions (capitalization, punctuation, and paragraph formations)

Spelling

Using one to three letters to spell words (e.g., P for purple, TN for train, or PTE for pretty)

Spelling words as they sound (e.g., LETL for little or EGL for eagle)

Knowing different conventions for encoding the same sound

Recognizing and correcting spelling errors

Not avoiding particular words due to uncertainty in how to spell them

Demonstrating understanding of the phonemic, morphological, and orthographic components of spelling in context (see linguistic analysis of spelling errors)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comprehensive Assessment for Disorders of Reading and Writing: Typical Components

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Literacy assessment This includes basic and higher-level reading, writing, and spelling skills, listed roughly in developmental order.

# data[].attributes.body
via Casel Website

# data[].attributes.body
Receptive language is the “input” of language, the ability to understand and comprehend spoken language that you hear or read. For example, a child’s ability to listen and follow directions (e.g. “put on your coat”) relies on the child’s receptive language skills.
- via Therapy Works

(Emphasis added via highlighted text)

# data[].attributes.body
Expressive language is the “output” of language, the ability to express your wants and needs through verbal or nonverbal communication. It is the ability to put thoughts into words and sentences in a way that makes sense and is grammatically correct. Children that have difficulty communicating their wants and needs may have expressive language difficulties or an expressive language disorder.

- via Therapy Works

(Emphasis added via highlighted text)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Readability function within Quality Assurance assesses the level of your written content based on how difficult a page is to read. Although we generally recommend an overall readability score in the low/mid-range of your desired test, the ideal range should be based on your target users' demography. This article is intended to inform you about the seven readability tests offered within the Readability function of Quality Assurance:

Note: To edit/disable readability tests, see "How do I edit Readability settings settings for my site?"

Automated Readability Index (ARI)

Automated Readability Index (ARI) is a readability test that works well with English and Western European languages. The test uses long words and long sentences to calculate a readability score. The score gives an indication of how difficult the page is to read. Each score can be matched to an equivalent reading ability level. ARI uses a scale based on age in full-time education. The formula for calculating the Automated Readability Index (ARI) is the following:

Characters: Number of letters and numbers

Words: Number of spaces

Sentences: Number of sentences

Best practice using ARI

A good standard to aim for is around 7th-8th grade in the US grade level system (12-14 years), which equates to a score of 9 or less. If you do not have a specific policy for reading age on your site, try and focus on the pages that return a score of 11 and higher (10th grade +).

(Scores can be returned outside of the range presented on the scorecard) Note: The length of text on a web page is typically short, and the way the text is formatted can affect what is identified as content greatly. Some elements make it particularly difficult- such as lists and tables.
ARI readability scorecard

Coleman-Liau

Coleman-Liau is a readability test designed primarily for English text. The test focuses on long words and long sentences. A score can only be calculated using this test if the content exceeds 100 words. The test produces an approximate representation of the US grade level needed to comprehend the text. To calculate the Coleman-Liau index, the following formula is used:

L is the average number of letters per 100 words

S is the average number of sentences per 100 words

Best practice using Coleman-Liau

A good standard to aim for is around 7th-8th grade in the US grade level system (12-14 years), which equates to a score of 8 or less. If you do not have a specific policy for reading age on your site try and focus on the pages that return a score of 10 or higher (High school sophomore +).

Note: Evaluating the readability of text written on a web page is tricky utilizing Coleman-Liau as sections of text need to be 100 words or over. This will result in only a select number of pages returning results. The way text is formatted on web pages also limits the reliability of any readability test.

Coleman-Liau readability scorecard
(Scores can be returned outside of the range presented on the scorecard)

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level

Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level is a readability test designed for English text. The test focuses on polysyllabic words and

long sentences. It was developed after the Reading Ease score (see below) to make it easier for parents and teachers to place reading content into appropriate reading age brackets for children. A score is returned which gives an indication of reading difficulty. This score can be related to the approximate US grade level needed to comprehend the text. When calculating Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, the following formula is used:

Best practice using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level

A good standard to aim for is around 7th-8th grade in the US grade level system (12-14 years). If you do not have a specific policy for reading age on your site try and focus on the pages that return a score of 10 or higher (High school sophomore +).

Note: The length of text on a web page is typically short, and the way the text is formatted can affect what is identified as content greatly. Some elements make it particularly difficult- such as lists and tables.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level readability scorecard

(Scores can be returned outside of the range presented on the scorecard)

Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease

Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease is a readability test designed for English text. The test focuses on polysyllabic words and long sentences. It is widely used in US government as a way of ensuring that documents and forms are understandable for the "average" American. Results are measured on a scale of 0-100, where 0 is very complicated to read and 100 is very easy to read. This score can be related to the approximate US grade level needed to comprehend the text. When calculating Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease, the following formula is used:

Best practice using Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease

A good standard to aim for is around 7th-8th grade in the US grade level system (12-14 years), which equates to the 60-70 range or higher. If you do not have a specific policy for reading age on your site try and focus on the pages that return a score of 60 or lower (10th grade +).

Note: The length of text on a web page is typically short, and the way the text is formatted can affect what is identified as content greatly. Some elements make it particularly difficult - such as lists and tables.

Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease readability scorecard
(Scores can be returned outside of the range presented on the scorecard)

Gunning Fog

Gunning Fog is a readability test just for English texts. The test focuses on complex words (polysyllabic words) and long sentences. A score can only be calculated using this test if the content of the page is over 100 words, making it a hard test to apply to web pages. The test produces an approximate representation of the US grade level needed to comprehend the text. When calculating Gunning Fog, the following formula is used:

1. Select a passage (such as one or more full paragraphs) of around 100 words. Do not omit any sentences.

2. Determine the average sentence length. (Divide the number of words by the number of sentences.).

3. Count the "complex" words: those with three or more syllables. Do not include proper nouns, familiar jargon, or compound words. Do not include common suffixes (such as -es, -ed, or -ing) as a syllable.

4. Add the average sentence length and the percentage of complex words.

5. Multiply the result by 0.4.

Best practice using Gunning Fog

A good standard to aim for is around 7th-8th grade in the US grade level system (12-14 years), which equates to a score of 8 or less. If you do not have a specific policy for reading age on your site try and focus on the pages that return a score of 10 or higher (High school sophomore +).

Note: Evaluating the readability of text written on a web page is tricky utilizing Gunning Fog as sections of text need to be around 100 words. This will result in only a select number of pages returning results. The way text is formatted on web pages also limits the reliability of any readability test.

Gunning Fog readability scorecard (Scores can be returned outside of the range presented on the scorecard)

LIX is a readability test that performs well on most of the Western European languages. The test focuses on total words, the number of sentences and number of long words (more than 6 characters). A score is returned which gives an indication of reading ease. When calculating LIX, the following formula is used:

, where:

B is the number of periods (defined by period, colon or capital first letter), and

C is the number of long words (more than 6 letters)

Best practice using LIX

A good standard to aim for is a score that relates to the text being understandable for practiced readers, which equates to the range 34 or less. If you do not have a specific policy for reading age on your site try and focus on the pages that return a score of 45 or higher.

Note: The length of text on a web page is typically short, and the way the text is formatted can affect what is identified as content greatly. Some elements make it particularly difficult - such as lists and tables.

LIX readability scorecard
(Scores can be returned outside of the range presented on the scorecard)

SMOG is a readability test just for English texts. The test focuses primarily on polysyllabic words. A score can only be calculated using this test if the content of the page has at least 30 sentences, making it a hard test to apply to all web pages. The test produces an approximate representation of the US grade level needed to comprehend the text. When calculating SMOG, the following formula is used:

1. Count the number of sentences (at least 30).

2. In those sentences, count the polysyllables (words of 3 or more syllables).

3. Calculate using the above formula.

Best practice using SMOG

A good standard to aim for is around 7th-8th grade in the US grade level system (12-14 years), which equates to a score of 8 or less. If you do not have a specific policy for reading age on your site try and focus on the pages that return a score of 10 or higher (High school sophomore +).

Note: Evaluating the readability of text written on a web page is tricky utilizing SMOG as it requires 30 sentences to be present in the content of a page. This will result in only a select number of pages returning results. The way text is formatted on web pages also limits the reliability of any readability test.

SMOG readability scorecard(Scores can be returned outside of the range presented on the scorecard)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Seven Readability Tests That Siteimprove Offers in Readability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Readability function within Quality Assurance assesses the level of your written content based on how difficult a page is to read. Although we generally recommend an overall readability score in the low/mid-range of your desired test, the ide...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Airasian, P. W. (1996). Assessment in the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Charney, D. (1984). The validity of using holistic scoring to evaluate writing: A critical overview. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 65-81.

Christenson, S. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Thurlow, M. L. (1989). Critical instructional factors for students with mild handicaps: An integrative review. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 21-31.

Clay, M. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties: A diagnostic survey with recovery procedures (2nd ed.). Auckland New Zealand: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (1982). Learning and teaching writing: A developmental perspective. Language Arts, 59, 65-70.

Clay, M. M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Auckland New Zealand: Heinemann.

Deno, S., Mirkin, P. K., & Wesson, C. (1984). How to write effective data-based IEPs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16, 99-104.

Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. New York: Oxford University Press.

Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 337-372.

Frank, M. (1979). If you're trying to teach kids how to write, you've gotta have this book! Nashville, TN: Incentive Publications.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. (April, 1986). Improving learning disabled students' compositions via story grammar training: A component analysis of self-control strategy training. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Helping young writers master the craft: Strategy instruction & self-regulation in the writing process. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Hennings, D. G. (1982). A writing approach to reading comprehension - schema theory in action. Language Arts, 59, 8-17.

Isaacson, S. (1984). Evaluating written expression: Issues of reliability, validity, and instructional utility. Diagnostique, 9, 96-116.

Isaacson, S. (February, 1995). A comparison of alternative procedures for evaluating written expression. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, Laguna Beach, California.

Moffett, J. (1983). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Moran, M. R. (1982). Analytical evaluation of formal written language skills as a diagnostic procedure. Diagnostique, 8 17-31.

Morris, N. T., & Crump, D. T. (1982). Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning-disabled and non-learning-disabled students at four age levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 163-172.

Parker, R., & Tindal. G. (1989). Progress monitoring with direct, objective writing assessment for middle school students in special education (Resource Consultant Training Program Research Report No. 1). Eugene, OR. University of Oregon, Special Education Area.

Powers, A. R., & Wilgus, S. (1983). Linguistic complexity in the written language of hearing-impaired children. Volta Review, 85, 201-210.

Resnick, L. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: An overview. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (1989 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Sinatra, R. (1991). Integrating whole language with the learning of text structure. Journal of Reading, 34, 424-433.

Spandel, V., & Culham, R. (1993). Analytical trait scoring guide. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Stotsky, S. (1984). Commentary: A proposal for improving high school students' ability to read and write expository prose. Journal of Reading, 28, 4-7.

Videen, J., Deno, S., & Marston, D. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Research Report No. 84). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.

Welch, M., & Link, D. P. (1992). Informal assessment of paragraph composition. Intervention in School and Clinic, 27(3), 145-149.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Simple Ways to Assess the Writing Skills of Students with Learning Disabilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Student writing can be evaluated on five product factors: fluency, content, conventions, syntax, and vocabulary. Writing samples also should be assessed across a variety of purposes for writing to give a complete picture of a student's writing performance across different text structures and genres.

# data[].attributes.headline
Preparing High Schoolers With Communication Disorders for the Workplace

# data[].attributes.subject
Preparing High Schoolers With Communication Disorders for the Workplace

# data[].attributes.body
We focus on each student's needs and how to transition into adulthood.

We collaborate with teachers, counselors, social workers, and parents to help students achieve their academic goals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 THINGS I'VE LEARNED ABOUT BEING A HIGH SCHOOL SLP! | KLASSICKACY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
You can do it!  Working as an SLP in a high school setting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A day in the life of a New York City speech pathologist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn ninth grade English language arts skills for free! Choose from hundreds of topics including text analysis, writing, editing, research, grammar, and more. Start now!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn tenth grade English language arts skills for free! Choose from hundreds of topics including text analysis, writing, editing, research, grammar, and more. Start now!

# data[].attributes.body
Learn 11th grade language arts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Practice Eleventh grade language arts online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to IXL's 11th grade language arts page. Practice language arts online with unlimited questions in 132 eleventh-grade language arts skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IXL brings 12th grade language arts to life! Set students up for success with thousands of skills that challenge learners at just the right level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cite this guide: Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom's Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved [todaysdate] from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/.

Background Information | The Original Taxonomy | The Revised Taxonomy | Why Use Bloom's Taxonomy? | Further Information

The above graphic is released under a Creative Commons Attribution license. You're free to share, reproduce, or otherwise use it, as long as you attribute it to the Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. For a higher resolution version, visit our Flickr account and look for the "Download this photo" icon.

Background Information

In 1956, Benjamin Bloom with collaborators Max Englehart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill, and David Krathwohl published a framework for categorizing educational goals: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Familiarly known as Bloom's Taxonomy, this framework has been applied by generations of K-12 teachers and college instructors in their teaching.

The framework elaborated by Bloom and his collaborators consisted of six major categories: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. The categories after Knowledge were presented as "skills and abilities," with the understanding that knowledge was the necessary precondition for putting these skills and abilities into practice.

While each category contained subcategories, all lying along a continuum from simple to complex and concrete to abstract, the taxonomy is popularly remembered according to the six main categories.

The Original Taxonomy (1956)

Here are the authors' brief explanations of these main categories in from the appendix of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives ( Handbook One, pp. 201-207):

Knowledge "involves the recall of specifics and universals, the recall of methods and processes, or the recall of a pattern, structure, or setting."

Comprehension "refers to a type of understanding or apprehension such that the individual knows what is being communicated and can make use of the material or idea being communicated without necessarily relating it to other material or seeing its fullest implications."

Application refers to the "use of abstractions in particular and concrete situations."

Analysis represents the "breakdown of a communication into its constituent elements or parts such that the relative hierarchy of ideas is made clear and/or the relations between ideas expressed are made explicit."

Synthesis involves the "putting together of elements and parts so as to form a whole."

Evaluation engenders "judgments about the value of material and methods for given purposes."

The 1984 edition of Handbook One is available in the CFT Library in Calhoun 116. See its ACORN record for call number and availability.

Barbara Gross Davis, in the "Asking Questions" chapter of Tools for Teaching, also provides examples of questions corresponding to the six categories. This chapter is not available in the online version of the book, but Tools for Teaching is available in the CFT Library. See its ACORN record for call number and availability.

The Revised Taxonomy (2001)

A group of cognitive psychologists, curriculum theorists and instructional researchers, and testing and assessment specialists published in 2001 a revision of Bloom's Taxonomy with the title A Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. This title draws attention away from the somewhat static notion of "educational objectives" (in Bloom's original title) and points to a more dynamic conception of classification.

The authors of the revised taxonomy underscore this dynamism, using verbs and gerunds to label their categories and subcategories (rather than the nouns of the original taxonomy). These "action words" describe the cognitive processes by which thinkers encounter and work with knowledge:

Remember

Understand

Interpreting

Exemplifying

Classifying

Summarizing

Inferring

Comparing

Explaining

Apply

Analyze

Differentiating

Organizing

Attributing

Evaluate

Create

In the revised taxonomy, knowledge is at the basis of these six cognitive processes, but its authors created a separate taxonomy of the types of knowledge used in cognition:

Factual Knowledge

Knowledge of terminology

Knowledge of specific details and elements

Conceptual Knowledge

Knowledge of classifications and categories

Knowledge of principles and generalizations

Knowledge of theories, models, and structures

Procedural Knowledge

Knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms

Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods

Knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures

Metacognitive Knowledge

Strategic Knowledge

Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge

Self-knowledge

Mary Forehand from the University of Georgia provides a guide to the revised version giving a brief summary of the revised taxonomy and a helpful table of the six cognitive processes and four types of knowledge.

Why Use Bloom's Taxonomy?

The authors of the revised taxonomy suggest a multi-layered answer to this question, to which the author of this teaching guide has added some clarifying points:

1. Objectives (learning goals) are important to establish in a pedagogical interchange so that teachers and students alike understand the purpose of that interchange.

2. Organizing objectives helps to clarify objectives for themselves and for students.

3. Having an organized set of objectives helps teachers to:

"plan and deliver appropriate instruction";

"design valid assessment tasks and strategies";and

"ensure that instruction and assessment are aligned with the objectives."

Citations are from A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.

Further Information

Section III of A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, entitled "The Taxonomy in Use," provides over 150 pages of examples of applications of the taxonomy. Although these examples are from the K-12 setting, they are easily adaptable to the university setting.

Section IV, "The Taxonomy in Perspective," provides information about 19 alternative frameworks to Bloom's Taxonomy, and discusses the relationship of these alternative frameworks to the revised Bloom's Taxonomy.

This teaching guide is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Patricia Armstrong Print Version Cite this guide: Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom's Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved [todaysdate] from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/. Background Information | The Original Taxonomy | The Revised Taxonomy | Why Use Bloom's Taxonomy? | Further Information The above graphic is released under a Creative Commons Attribution license.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Educational research states that all good writing includes six key ingredients:

These are the Six Traits of Writing.

But, as you've likely experienced, building stronger writers can seem overwhelming, regardless of the grade you teach. Every classroom includes a broad range of students at varying writing levels. As such, a canned writing curriculum will never meet the unique needs of every student.

That's why our team believes so strongly in the 6 Writing Traits. It's not a program. Instead, it is a framework that uses the six qualities of "good" writing to guide every lesson, assignment, and assessment.

If you want to learn what are the Six Traits of Writing, you've come to the right place! For nearly 20 years, we've been helping educators build stronger writers with the Six Traits. In this guide, you'll find a comprehensive overview of the Six Traits of Writing. This includes suggestions for implementation in your own classroom.

Let's get started!

Don't have time to read this now?

Enter your email address below and we'll send you a printable version that you can reference later.

"We are not editors, but teachers. The goal of a conference is to help students become better writers." - Carl Anderson

Process Conferences

Students need feedback during all stages of the writing process-not just during the final revision and editing stages. Unlike the longer product conference, a process conference lasts only a few minutes, and it can happen at any stage in the writing process. Teachers may sit down with students and talk about choosing a topic or discuss their pre-writing plan or give feedback as they draft a new piece or when they're fine-tuning it.

Students would rather have a few minutes of teacher feedback regularly versus 20 minutes once a month. They need to be in touch with the teacher more often, but they do not necessarily need to be one-on-one. Leading a process conference with small groups of students allows more students to receive feedback more often.

Group process conferences allow teachers to touch base with more students each day and provide a critical, formative assessment of where students are and what they need next.

Where did the traits come from?

In the 1960s, a researcher named Paul Diederich asked a group of professionals to identify what makes writing effective. He received hundreds of responses, ranging from strong metaphors to correct semicolons. But no one can remember hundreds of things simultaneously, so Diederich grouped the responses and found they fell within six categories.

In 1984, literacy expert Vicki Spandel led a team who replicated Diederich's study. In the end, Spandel, curriculum experts at the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory, and willing teachers from Missoula, Montana and Beaverton, Oregon all settled on the same six ingredients.

Since that time, the research has been formally conducted a third time. Using an even wider variety of writing genres, including digital and online writings, Education Northwest has proven that the same six ingredients are still the core of "good" writing.

The Six Traits of Writing model is now used in all 50 of the United States as well as multiple countries around the world.

Written by Lois Bridges, Ph.D.

EXCERPT: For more than two decades, the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (now known as Education Northwest) and other researchers have studied the effectiveness of the Trait Model and the professional development tools used to train the teachers who use it. In a nutshell, the traits represent the essential elements of writing inherent in all extended written communication: ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, conventions, and presentation. Educators who use the Trait Model center both their instruction and their assessment on helping students understand how these elements work together and interact to create a well-written, cohesive piece that accomplishes the writer's goal.

Conducted by: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

EXCERPT: The study was designed to estimate the impact of 6+1 Trait Writing on student achievement in writing during the first year of a typical implementation. This question was addressed among grade 5 students in Oregon using a single "holistic" writing score on student essays. Exploratory analyses using six scores on specific traits of writing were also conducted. Professional development was provided by the model developers in the same year that student assessments were administered. The particulars of school and classroom implementation of the approach were allowed to vary in the schools, without any special oversight or intervention by the developers beyond the technical assistance normally offered to those who receive the materials and professional development.

For the confirmatory research question (What is the impact of 6+1 Trait Writing on grade 5 student achievement in writing), use of the 6+1 Trait Writing model caused a statistically significant difference in student writing scores.

Students grow when their teachers use targeted language to teach and assess their writing. Furthermore, when an entire grade level, department, or school use the Six-Traits framework with fidelity, the impact is enormous.

When a K-5 school, for example, commits to Six-Traits implementation, students at every level are exposed to age-appropriate mini-lessons, mentor text, anchor papers, and writing rubrics-all of which are intentionally tied to the Six Traits. That consistent exposure to the same elements over a period of years strengthens students' depth of knowledge but also their capacity to apply the traits in writing. This includes persuasive, argumentative, informative, and narrative pieces.

Such repeated exposure requires more than a poster and six words. It's about the daily and explicit teaching of dozens of granular writing skills across the grade levels and tied to the Six-Traits language.

Six-Traits Professional Development

Most English/language arts textbook publishers are intentional about labeling their resources with the Six-Traits language. But too often, boxed curriculums lack the depth and intentionality that is required in order to fully implement the Six Traits.

In order to know how to launch and execute a fluid Six-Traits model that is responsive to student needs, teachers need the support of ongoing professional development. After all, most teachers didn't learn how to teach writing in college, making vague guidance from the language arts textbook a recipe for shallow writing instruction. Using professional development as a catalyst to building-wide implementation of the Six Traits involves a continued cycle of professional learning, practice, and collaboration.

3. Provide time during the school day (or in the summer) for every teacher to participate in Six-Traits workshops. With cost-effective online options like those available from Smekens Education's webAcademy, learning becomes easier. The entire staff can use on-demand videos to learn innovative ways to launch and begin to implement the Six Traits.

4. After teachers have embedded the Six Traits into their writing lessons, assignments, and assessments, engage teams in instructional rounds. This activity allows educators to observe their colleagues deliver trait-based instruction and then collaborate afterward to offer feedback and encouragement.

5. Use PLC time to examine how the Six Traits are being implemented and how learning is ultimately being impacted. As learning gaps are identified throughout the school year, use professional learning tools such as Smekens Education's webPD. This will provide teachers with innovative strategies to address specific writing weaknesses.

6. Offer teachers ongoing implementation support with an instructional coach. Whether turning to a highly-trained in-house staff member or leaning on an outside expert like Smekens Education's Remote Coach, this type of sustained guidance will help teachers maximize success with the Six Traits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ultimate Guide to the 6 Traits of Writing | Smekens

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All good writing has six key ingredients: ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions - these are the Six Traits of Writing.

# data[].attributes.body
via Northwest Regional Education Lab

# data[].attributes.body
COMPLEX SENTENCES

1. Sentence flipping - without adding, deleting, or changing any words, rearranging the order of the word in the sentence.

I went to the mall on Saturday.

On Saturday, I went to the mall.

2. Using appositives - combine two shorter sentences by placing keywords or phrases in one sentence inside of another.

My dog Scruffy is a black and tan Shepard. He likes to chase rabbits.

My dog Scruffy, a black and tan Shepard, likes to chase rabbits.

3. Sentence combining - linking two shorter sentences together by using connecting words such as AND, BUT, OR, BECAUSE while eliminating words repeated in both sentences. Commas are needed.

Skippy likes the taste of banana. Skippy is allergic to bananas.

Skippy likes the taste of bananas, but he is allergic to them.

4. Sentence padding - Add a phrase to (the beginning of) the sentence that adds details about WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW. Commas are needed after that phrase.

I went to the store. I bought a cake.

Before my mother awoke, I sneaked to the store. To surprise her for birthday, I bought a cake.

*transition words depends on the task

via Perry Meridian Academy Instructional Coach Christy Gliva (2009) handout

# data[].attributes.body
via Super Duper FREE handouts

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Tier 2 & Tier3 Common Core Vocabulary Terms

# data[].attributes.body
via Susan E. Wagner High School

# data[].attributes.body
via Fairfax County Public Schools

# data[].attributes.body
via Reading Rockets: https://www.readingrockets.org/resources/resource-library/evidence-based-practices-writing-instruction

# data[].attributes.body
via U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Syntactic Awareness: Teaching Sentence Structure (Part 1) - Keys to Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Syntactic Awareness: Teaching Sentence Structure (Part 1) - Keys to Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ability to understand at the sentence level is in many ways the foundation for being able to comprehend text. The ways in which authors express their ideas through sentences greatly affects a reader's ability to access and identify those ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I posted part 1 of Syntactic Awareness on June 2. As noted in that post, the ability to understand at the sentence level is in many ways the foundation for being able to comprehend text. The ways in which authors express their ideas through sentences greatly affects a reader's ability to access and identify those ideas. Sentences that are complex, contain a large number of ideas (also called propositions), or have unusual word order will make it difficulty for students to comprehend what they are reading, especially students who enter school with limited oral language exposure or for whom English is a second language. Developing sentence skills is also essential to becoming a good writer.

In part 1, I shared two instructional suggestions for building syntactic awareness of students across multiple grades: Sentence Scrambles and Sentence Elaboration using who, what, why, when and how questions. Part 2 includes suggestions for Sentence Elaboration using "kernel" sentences, and Sentence Combining. All of these instructional practices are part of the Keys to Early Writing professional development course.
Sentence Elaboration: Expanding Kernel Sentences
This activity helps students use more words and use more complex sentence structure. For this activity, the teacher gives a kernel sentence (i.e., the start of a simple sentence that has a noun and a verb). Students are asked to gradually add to the sentence following the sequence presented below with examples.

Start with a noun and a verb: turtle dives

Elaborate the subject - add articles, adjectives: The small, green turtle dives.

Elaborate the predicate - add adverbs: The small, green turtle dives quickly.

Add a phrase - The small, green turtle dives quickly into the seaweed.

Compound the subject - The small, green turtle and his brother dive quickly into the seaweed.

Compound the predicate - The small, green turtle and his brother dive and swim quickly into the seaweed.

Add a dependent clause to make a complex sentence - Because they are frightened, the small, green turtle and his brother dive quickly into the seaweed.

Combine two sentences into a compound sentence - Because they are frightened, the small, green turtle and his brother dive quickly into the seaweed, and they hide from predators.

Teachers from any subject can provide practice with this type of sentence elaboration. Start with a kernel sentence about a topic your students are learning in your content area. Ask them to elaborate by adding content-related facts and information. You can also give them specific vocabulary terms to include in their sentences.
Sentence Combining
Sentence combining activities were introduced in the 1960's (Strong, 1986). Research consistently finds that sentence combining is an effective method for helping students of all ages, from elementary grades through college, produce more syntactically mature sentences, and it is one of the eleven instructional practices recommended in the Writing Next research meta-analysis (Graham & Perrin, 2007; Saddler, 2012). Sentence combining provides practice with manipulating and rearranging words in sentences, expanding sentences, and clarifying sentence meaning.

Because a sentence combining activity only takes a few minutes, it is an activity that can be used as an "admit ticket" at the start of class or when ever there are a few minutes between classroom activities. It is best to start by giving students two simple sentences to combine, as in the basic examples below.

The book was good. The movie was good. (The book and movie were good.)

The boy drank lemonade. The boy was thirsty. (The thirsty boy drank lemonade.)

The girls thought the weather was perfect. The girls were playing soccer. (The girls were playing soccer because they thought the weather was perfect.)

Eventually, as students become more adept at their sentence combining, you can give them more than two sentences to combine. The more the sentences, the more options students will have for the word order they use. Teachers of any subject can provide sentence combining practice. Start by selecting a sentence from classroom text and break it into a series of short sentences. The first example below is a sentence from John Steinbeck's book "The Pearl". The second example is a sentence from a social studies text. The teacher shows the original sentence after students have done their own combining.
The ants were busy on the ground, big black ones with shiny bodies, and little dusty quick ants.

The ants were busy.

They were on the ground.

There were big ones.

The big ones were black.

The big ones had shiny bodies.

There were little ants.

The little ants were dusty.

The little ones were quick.

The fancy exterior decorations on just about every building were carved from wood, then painted to look like stone or marble.

The decorations were carved.

The decorations were fancy.

The decorations were on the exterior.

They were carved from wood.

They were on just about every building.

Then the decorations were painted.

They were painted to look like stone.

Or they were painted to look like marble.

For more suggestions about developing syntactic awareness and sentence writing, check out Bruce Saddler's book "Teacher's Guide to Effective Sentence Writing" (2012). Keys to Literacy's two writing PD programs also include sentence instruction suggestions: Keys to Early Writing and Keys to Content Writing.

References

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve the writing of adolescents in middle and high schools - A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Saddler, B. (2012). Teacher's guide to effective sentence writing. New York: Guilford Press.

Strong, W. (1986). Creative approaches to sentence combining. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. National Council of Teachers of English.

Joan Sedita

Joan Sedita is the founder of Keys to Literacy and author of the Keys to Literacy professional development programs. She is an experienced educator, nationally recognized speaker and teacher trainer. She has worked for over 35 years in the literacy education field and has presented to thousands of teachers and related professionals at schools, colleges, clinics, and professional conferences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Syntactic Awareness: Teaching Sentence Structure Part 2 - Keys to Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I posted part 1 of Syntactic Awareness on June 2. As noted in that post, the ability to understand at the sentence level is in many ways the foundation for being able to comprehend text. The ways in which authors express their ideas through sentences greatly affects a reader's ability to access and identify those ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
Jaylin Cole, M.S., CCC-SLP, TSSLD (The Beacon School, Manhattan, NY)

Maria Rosa Brea-Spahn, Ph.D (New York University)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These extracts say the same thing but using a different sentence structure. Which one do you find easier to read?

Version 1
The use of polymers to produce prosthetic heart valves that have the positive attributes of current commercial and mechanical valves without any of their drawbacks, has been a focus of research since the 1950s. (34 words)
Version 2
Since the 1950s, scientists have been trying to use polymers to produce prosthetic heart valves that have the positive attributes of current commercial and mechanical valves, but without any of their drawbacks. (32 words)

The subject matter is the same. The language is equally technical. The sentences are of similar lengths (in fact, both are longer than the maximum length I would recommend for business writing).

Yet most people would say version 2 is far easier to get through. But why? To find out, we need to look closely at the sentence structure of each.

Let's start by looking at who or what is doing the main action of each sentence. In the grammatical parlance, this is the subject of the sentence - I call it the sentence's main 'do-er'.

The subject/doer of the sentence
Version 1: The use of polymers

Version 2: Scientists

In Version 2, the subject or doer of the sentence is a person - or rather persons. Scientists. Real-life human beings you can see. In fact, I bet you're picturing someone in a lab coat right now.

In Version 1, the subject or doer of the sentence is much harder to visualise. That's because it's not a person or even a thing, but an abstract concept -'the use'.

If I asked you to draw a scientist, I'm guessing you could have a pretty good crack at it - even if it's just a stick man holding a test-tube. But if I asked you to draw a 'use', where would you start?

And that's where the difficulties with Version 1 start. It opens with an abstract concept that's hard to imagine, something that's hard to hold in your head while you read the rest of the sentence.

Next, let's look at the main verb or doing word of the sentence - highlighted below.

Verb/doing word of the sentence Version 1
The use of polymers to produce prosthetic heart valves that have the positive attributes of current commercial and mechanical valves without any of their drawbacks, has been a focus of research since the 1950s. (34 words)
Version 2
Since the 1950s, scientists have been trying to use polymers to produce prosthetic heart valves that have the positive attributes of current commercial and mechanical valves, but without any of their drawbacks. (32 words)

Notice the striking difference in position?

In Version 2, the main doing word is right next to the main do-er or subject of the sentence (those scientists). In Version 1, the main doing word has 21 words between it and the subject ('the use of polymers').

That's 21 words the reader has to hold in their head before they get to the main action of the sentence. No wonder that sentence is hard to digest!

Notice, too, the difference in character of those doing words. The phrase 'trying to use' is dynamic. It conveys effort, striving, a search for answers. You can picture those scientists working away at their benches.

In Version 1, the verb 'has been' is static and dull by comparison.

Finally, let's look at the main thing that is on the other side of the doing word (can you tell I'm trying to avoid technical grammar-speak here?)

Version 1

The use of polymers ... has been a focus of research

Version 2

scientists have been trying to use polymers

In Version 1, we have the same problem we had with the subject or 'do-er' of that sentence: just like a 'use', a 'focus' is not something you could see or touch or picture or draw very easily. Like 'use', 'focus' is an abstract concept.

The sentence basically amounts to a statement that 'the use of something has been the focus of something'. What a lot of fluff!

In contrast, in Version 2, we have real-life scientists working with something real and concrete.

You may not have knowingly held a polymer in your hand, but it is, quite literally, a material thing.

Sentence structure: four tips for readable prose

1. Try to make the subjects ('do-ers') of your sentences people rather than concepts - for example, 'scientists' rather than 'the use of' something.

2. Keep your main verb ('doing word') as close as possible to the subject ('do-er') of the sentence. Don't separate them with intervening verbiage.

3. For your sentence's main verb, choose something dynamic - a word that shows your sentence's main character or characters taking action. Avoid using the verb 'to be' in its various forms (e.g., 'is', 'are', 'has/have been', 'will be').

4. Finally, always ask: does this sentence paint a picture? Does it allow the reader to visualise real people taking real action? Or, on the contrary, does it talk about abstract concepts? If the latter, rework your sentence to make it more concrete.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sentence structure: How to make your sentences much easier to read - Doris and Bertie Ltd

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These extracts say the same thing but using a different sentence structure. Which one do you find easier to read?

# data[].attributes.body
via Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center

# data[].attributes.body
via Bankexamstoday.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amy Laurent: Compliance is Not the Goal: Letting Go of Control and Rethinking Support for Autistic Individuals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instead of trying to control the behaviors of individuals with autism to make them indistinguishable from the general public, Amy Laurent, PhD, OTR/L suggests a positive shift in focus that supports the development of their emotional skills. She is joined virtually by her colleagues Michael John Carley, Patti Menzel, Neal Katz, Stephen Shore, Dena Gassner, Patrick Quinn, and Jacquelyn Fede.

# data[].attributes.headline
Professional Language use when referring to autistic students. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Professional Language use when referring to autistic students. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reframing Professional Language Around Autism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reflecting on our use of language in professional contexts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the preceding article, we explored our own experiences of being on the receiving end of medicalized language, and discussed some of the reasons that professionals might be inclined to write in a pathologizing tone, rather than from a place of acceptance, despite societal shifts towards conceptualizing autism as a natural human variation, rather than a condition to be corrected or cured. This article is provided as a companion piece, with a focus on practical suggestions for professionals when writing in a professional context.
Moving beyond the medicalized model: Practical examples of ways we can reframe language
For many professionals, it may seem impossible to step outside of the medical model and write from a place of understanding, empathy, and shared humanity while also communicating relevant information.

Below is an illustrative example of how this might be achieved. The first paragraph uses a highly pathologized framework, while the second is written in a way that honors and validates an individual's lived experience.

Karen demonstrates severe deficits in her ability to regulate her emotions. She frequently has meltdowns which have resulted in severe marital discord; her husband has demonstrated great patience and loyalty by remaining in the relationship with her. She has a history of failed romantic relationships and is also unable to maintain friendships. Her severe sensory processing disorder contributes to the marital discord, as she demonstrates unreasonable and controlling behaviors around noise level, household smells, and artificial lighting. She demonstrates frequent maladaptive behavior, including odd body posturing and inappropriate grunting noises. Intervention will focus on teaching Karen to better control her emotions, develop her social skills so she can reduce controlling behaviors and improve her marriage, help her to develop a better tolerance for sensory stimuli, and reduce the frequency of her maladaptive behaviors.

The above paragraph can be rephrased in order to promote positive self-concept and acceptance:

Karen demonstrates a depth and intensity in the way that she experiences her internal and external worlds. She feels her emotions very deeply, which can be misconstrued as overreacting by people who don't experience their feelings with the same depth or intensity. Karen has found that stimming (i.e., self-stimulatory behavior) can help her to calm and soothe herself; she will often move her hands and fingers in specific and rhythmic ways, or make noises that result in pleasing vibrations in her throat and mouth. She has a long history of being misunderstood, and is yet to find friendships that have felt fulfilling or supportive. She hopes that her newfound understanding of herself as Autistic will help her to develop genuine and fulfilling connections. She has been married for just over 12 months, which has been a tense and tumultuous experience for both Karen and her husband. It is recommended that Karen and her husband receive support to better understand each other's particular ways of experiencing the world, to develop spaces at home where both parties can find sanctuary (together and separately), and guidance to support each other in ways that feel genuinely supportive.

Balancing regulatory language with respectful practice
Historically, the evolution of language can move at glacial speed, but we have also seen rapid uptake of new terms entering the common lexicon in line with changes in the world around us. While language used in research or governance spaces can appear steadfast and unmoving, when we each start to make small changes in the language we use, over time, we see these changes gather momentum and manifest across clinical, educational, and research contexts.

Of course, there are times when we need to write in a certain way in order to achieve a desired result. For example, in Australia, autistic individuals comprise the largest group of participants who access support via the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). In order to assist people to secure the supports they need, professionals must align their language with that of the NDIS to ensure that reports are interpreted correctly. This means focusing on "deficits," "risk," "problematic/maladaptive behavior," "severely delayed" areas of development, and examples of tasks the person is unable to complete.

In this context, softened, respectful language can easily be misinterpreted by the powers that be as a reduced support need. In such instances, it is important to ensure the autistic person and/or their loved ones understand that the report is written in the language required by the NDIS to maximize the likelihood that the person will receive adequate support. Giving examples of how the same information could be communicated more gently, and how such gentle communication might have an adverse impact on funding, can be very helpful to help people understand that the harsh language is not a reflection of them, but rather the rigid way in which a larger system operates.

This challenge also presents in the formal diagnostic context whereby clinicians are bound to the terminology set out by current diagnostic criteria and must make judgments within specific diagnostic frameworks. While it might be ideal to disengage from the medical model and describe autism purely in terms of the individual's experience without reference to diagnostic criteria, this has implications within societies that have support structures built upon the medical model.

Stepping entirely outside of these diagnostic frameworks would potentially undermine the very reason for conducting the assessment and writing the report, as a diagnostic report that does not mention a diagnosis nor any diagnostic criteria is unlikely to assist with accessing post-diagnostic supports. In such instances, the choice of language in unpacking and discussing the person's experience becomes increasingly important. While a clinician's hand may be forced to produce words to describe "deficits" and "disorders" to comply with diagnostic requirements, this style of language need not set the tone for the entire diagnostic assessment and subsequent report. Instead, we can reflect on the "essential" medicalized language required within the context of a formal diagnostic assessment, and ensure that all other language comes from a place of acceptance, understanding, and respect.

Language and communication are a defining aspect of humanity and, whether we realize it or not, the language we use is highly reflective of our own beliefs and perspectives. It is vital that we reflect critically on our own use of language and whether it aligns with our beliefs and values, rather than simply following professional conventions without question. When working within systems that are much bigger than us and neither flex nor bend, we can exercise our agency as individuals to make small differences in the lives of autistic people around us. This is where small actions can have large impacts.

Simple acts of acknowledging an individual's positive attributes, using language that affirms a person's worth rather than diminishing it, and openly explaining the reasons for (and hesitations about) using medicalized or deficit-based language, can assist in reducing self- stigma, developing positive self-concept, and promoting positive mental health and well-being.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reframing Professional Language Around Autism in Practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A practical guide to using respectful language in the professional context.

# data[].attributes.body
DeThorne & Searsmith, 2020

# data[].attributes.headline
Prefixes, Roots, Forms and Suffixes with printable worksheets. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Prefixes, Roots, Forms and Suffixes with printable worksheets. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
What Makes a Book Hard to Read? (Quick Facts) | Iris Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Makes a Book Hard to Read? (Quick Facts) | Iris Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you’re like most people, you probably enjoy reading. Books can be a great way to spend your time, whether it’s for pleasure or learning. However, some books are more challenging to read t

# data[].attributes.body
Example: It is not true that Kieran plays the piano.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Negation - English Grammar Today - a reference to written and spoken English grammar and usage - Cambridge Dictionary

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
S1-24. The silent crisis: Shawn Joseph - Science of Reading: The Podcast

# data[].attributes.headline
The silent crisis: Shawn Joseph - Science of Reading: The Podcast

# data[].attributes.subject
The silent crisis: Shawn Joseph - Science of Reading: The Podcast

# data[].attributes.body
This is a 2020 interview that discussed the problems and solutions to tackling the literacy discrepancies in schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
S1-24. The silent crisis: Shawn Joseph - Science of Reading: The Podcast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Educator, author, and leader Shawn Joseph, shares his passion for social justice and discusses his work advocating for equity in education, shedding light on what he calls the "silent crisis" in literacy instruction. In this episode, you'll hear about his experience as a former superintendent of ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Literacy Acquisition Trajectories in Bilingual Language Minority Children and Monolingual Peers with Similar or Different SES: A Three-Year Longitudinal Study

# data[].attributes.body
Via this article, “To sum up, results from the present study depict a complex picture of literacy development in relation to SES and bilingualism. None of these factors impacted decoding skills in word, nonword and text, nor do they impact listening comprehension. However, SES rather than bilingualism was the discriminating factor in reading comprehension skills at the end of primary school. On the counterpart, bilingualism, but not SES, was the key factor of spelling disadvantage over the primary school years.”
SES = socio-economic status

*Please note language disordered/disabled children were not included in the participant sample.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Yang Zhang, Academic Editor

Abstract

Bilingualism and socio-economic status (SES) differentially affect linguistic and cognitive development. However, less evidence has been collected regarding their impact on literacy trajectories. The present longitudinal study evaluated the literacy development of language minority bilingual children (LMBC) and monolingual peers with different SES. A group of LMBC with low-SES ( n = 18) and monolingual peers with low ( n = 18) or high ( n = 14) SES were followed from 2nd to 5th grade through a set of tasks assessing decoding (words, nonwords, passage), reading, and listening comprehension, and spelling skills. The results showed that all groups achieved better performances over time in all measures, except listening comprehension. However, low-SES LMBC underperformed in spelling tasks compared to the monolingual groups. In reading comprehension, there was a time*group interaction that showed how low-SES LMBC reached similar performances of low-SES monolinguals in fifth grade, but both groups underperformed compared to the high SES monolingual group. The discussion is focused on the need for research and educational settings to consider the differential impact of bilingualism and SES. Bilingualism seems to be associated with a longer time in developing adequate spelling skills, whereas SES was the primary underpinning of the reading comprehension gap over time.

Keywords: bilingualism, reading, spelling, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, language minority bilingual children

1. Introduction

The socio-political conditions of the most recent years have increased migrations: millions of migrants live outside their country of birth. All these people are faced with the task of acquiring a language that is different from the one spoken at home, and all children attending school also develop literacy skills in a second language. These children might be defined as bilingual children within a functional conception of bilingualism that refers to the use and need of two or more languages in everyday life [ 1]. However, most children of migrant families are exposed to the second language at school after being exposed to the first language at home, and often, families have a low socio-economic status (SES).

In Italy, it is estimated that students from migrant backgrounds represent 10.3% of the school population [ 2]. The median income for migrant families is about 56% of that of families with both Italian parents, and the composite index of being at-risk for poverty and social exclusion is 56.8% for families with both non-Italian parents, compared to 23.4% of families with Italian parents [ 3]. The Italian welfare system allows free access to healthcare and education and, for Italian students, SES has been reported to have a minor predictive role in academic achievements compared to other European countries [ 4]. However, parents' level of instruction and profession may mediate access to different living conditions, as well as different exposures to verbal exchanges and involvement in dialogues and reading experiences. Previous evidence found that, in the Italian context, SES was related to early literacy skills in monolingual populations, and it was mediated by home literacy and numeracy activities [ 5]. Therefore, the differential influence of sequential bilingualism and SES on literacy development needs to be better investigated.

Bilingualism and socio-economic status (SES) differentially affect linguistic and cognitive development [ 6, 7]. A study conducted in the Italian context [ 8] found that, after controlling for quantity of bilingual exposure, variation in SES was predictive of vocabulary, grammar, and working memory skills. On the other hand, the variation in bilingual exposure predicted vocabulary and narrative comprehension more effectively than the variation in SES. However, this study did not include literacy skills. The majority of studies that compared language minority bilingual children (LMBC) reading development to the monolingual peers control group, were cross-sectional. Even though they have shed light on literacy skills at a single point in time, they have failed to provide insight into the process of literacy development over time and how it compares to that of monolingual peers. Furthermore, the role of SES in the comparison of bilingual and monolingual literacy performances was rarely considered in longitudinal studies. Finally, language orthographic transparency might impact literacy acquisition, both in monolingual and bilingual populations. In transparent orthographies, such as Italian, reading accuracy at the end of first grade was around 95%, but it was less than 75% in the deeper orthographies [ 9]; a similar trend was found for spelling accuracy at the end of second grade [ 10]. Acquiring a transparent orthography might also be a facilitating factor for bilingual children. However, the bilingual's gap in literacy skills might be more consistent for transparent vs. opaque languages, since LMBC children might take longer to reach full reading and spelling accuracy, also in light of their reduced vocabulary size.

The present study evaluated the developmental trajectories of language minority bilingual children and monolingual peers with different SES in word and nonword reading, passage reading, and oral comprehension, spelling (orthographic) skills in fifth grade, following a previous study in which they were tested in second grade [ 11].

1.1. Literacy Skills in Bilinguals

Since the seminal contribution of [ 12], the main evidence suggests that, after two years of schooling in English as a second language, language minority bilingual children reach monolingual-like performance in word and nonword reading. Similar results have been found in bilingual children exposed to transparent languages, although on some occasions, differences in word reading have been found for words of increasing orthographic complexity [ 13], where bilingual children underperformed compared to their monolingual peers. In studies on the Italian language, a similar trend was found for low frequency, or irregular words [ 14]; late bilinguals, characterized by a smaller L2 vocabulary size, were less accurate than early bilinguals and monolinguals in assigning non-dominant stress. Studies conducted on either transparent [ 15] or opaque [ 16, 17] orthographies found that bilinguals may fall behind their monolingual peers in word and text reading fluency, potentially because they tend to adopt the sublexical/phonological route instead of the lexical one, given the well-documented slower lexical access [ 18, 19, 20], and/or smaller receptive vocabularies [ 21]. A study that compared low-SES bilinguals and low- and high-SES monolingual children in the Italian context did not report differences across groups in word, nonword, and passage reading [ 11].

Several studies have reported that bilinguals appear to lag behind monolingual peers in reading comprehension tasks (for a meta-analysis: [ 22]). However, some studies showed that bilinguals could reach reading comprehension skills comparable to those observed in monolingual groups in opaque orthographies [ 23, 24, 25] and in transparent languages [ 15, 26]. Age of first exposure might be a relevant factor; for example, [ 15] found that early bilinguals did not differ in reading comprehension scores compared to monolingual peers, but there was a significant difference between late bilinguals and monolinguals. With reference to the Simple View of Reading [ 27, 28], which states that reading comprehension can be considered the product of decoding and oral language comprehension skills, most evidence suggests that bilinguals' weaknesses in reading comprehension rest mainly on verbal language skills, including vocabulary size, rather than on decoding [ 22, 29, 30].

Considering spelling, a meta-analysis [ 31] pointed out that bilinguals outperformed monolinguals in real-word spelling tasks, while monolinguals seem to have better performances in nonword spelling tasks. Authors explained these results suggesting that bilinguals may be learning to spell from print, therefore learning accurate spelling for real words, not pseudo-words. However, studies on children exposed to L2 transparent languages depict a different pattern. A study [ 13] on bilingual children exposed to Dutch in the first two grades of primary school reported that they underperformed compared to monolinguals in word spelling. Another study [ 32] found discrepancies in spelling tasks between bilinguals and monolinguals until the end of primary school, while the differences were no longer significant from 6th grade. Polish and Turkish students exposed to German [ 33] were more likely to be classified as poor spellers in 3rd-4th grade than in higher grades. Studies involving LMBC learning Italian as a second language [ 34] found that fourth-fifth graders underperformed in words, nonwords and passage dictation writing tasks compared to their monolingual peers and [ 11], reported that second graders language-minority bilinguals underperformed compared to monolinguals in a dictation task, even when controlling for socio-economic status.

In summary, results from cross-sectional studies, mainly conducted on children in primary school, suggest that LMBC might reach adequate word and nonword decoding skills within the first two years of schooling. However, they might underperform compared to monolinguals in complex/low-frequency word decoding, reading text fluency, reading comprehension, and spelling, at least for words and texts.

1.2. Longitudinal Research on Literacy Development in Bilinguals

A study [ 35] examined longitudinally the differences between MLBC and monolingual peers on component measures of reading from kindergarten to fourth grade exposed to English as L2. They showed that although some differences in reading measures may be found in pre-schoolers, in fourth-grade differences are negligible, and the two groups appear to show very comparable skills even for reading comprehension. In another study [ 36] conducted with 261 Latino kindergarten children, decoding scores remained in the average range compared to the normative English-speaking sample throughout the data collection period. However, as regards reading comprehension, it began to fall behind the normative sample starting in the third grade. In a longitudinal study [ 37] from preschool to 11th grade, focused on Spanish-English bilingual children, it was found that word reading skills were on par with English monolinguals, but reading comprehension was lower across all time points. Following longitudinally bilingual and monolingual children from grade 4th to grade 6th [ 38] found that L2 children outperformed L1 readers in word and pseudoword decoding but had significantly lower reading comprehension scores than L1 readers across grades. In a study [ 39] called the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten (ECLS-K) project involving bilingual and monolingual children over the elementary years, bilinguals underperformed at first, third, and fifth grades in reading comprehension measures but not in decoding measures, compared to monolinguals. Reading comprehension was also investigated by a cohort-sequential design study focused on a sample of Spanish-speaking minority language bilingual students within two academic years [ 40]. Measures of vocabulary breadth, vocabulary depth, morphological awareness, syntactic skill, and reading comprehension were obtained twice a year for two consecutive academic years. In a synthesis of a complex pattern, results showed that minority language bilingual children fall below their monolingual peers in all the literacy indices. However, once all language predictors were controlled within the model, the differences in literacy skills between groups disappeared. This specific result was difficult to be explained, and its generalization may shed light on the relationship investigated. Authors indicated that "...Future studies should include bilingual students from multiple language groups (e.g., [ 17]) and disentangle how language skills may be related to reading comprehension for students from a variety of different language backgrounds." In another longitudinal study, Reference [ 41] studied a large sample of Spanish-speaking minority language bilinguals to examine their literacy development from third to fifth grade. Bilinguals' performances were compared to the entire population of California students using State standardized test data, which included word reading fluency and vocabulary, literary response, writing, and grammar. Results demonstrated that bilingual minority language children scored below average in many literacy indices compared to the overall State population. As grade increases bilinguals made slight gains to narrow the gap with monolinguals. The bilinguals' highest performance was obtained between fourth and fifth grade but plateaued after that. These results suggest that literacy learning is a more difficult task for bilingual minority language children than for monolinguals; bilinguals obtained performance level at the fourth/fifth grade about 15% lower than monolinguals. However, according to California cut-off, the authors indicated that Spanish bilinguals examined in this study were for 92% of the sample below the poverty level. Therefore, the comparison was likely to be largely biased by SES level.

Regarding spelling, Reference [ 42] found that bilingual children underperformed monolingual peers in simple spelling in kindergarten but outperformed monolinguals in word and nonword spelling when they reached 2nd grade.

In summary, most longitudinal evidence suggests that language minority bilingual children reach adequate decoding skills over the first years of schooling. However, contrasting results emerge regarding the development of reading comprehension, possibly because more intervening factors, such as SES, might influence the developmental trajectory. It is to note that relatively little longitudinal evidence has been collected on spelling and listening comprehension. Furthermore, only a few studies included SES in group matching.

1.3. The Present Study

The study's main aim was to trace the developmental trajectories of three groups of children, LMBC, and monolinguals with low and high SES, from second to fifth grade in literacy acquisitions: reading, spelling, reading, and listening comprehension. The longitudinal study may clarify whether the learning gaps observed in second grade between groups (bilingual compared to monolingual with low SES, but also bilinguals and monolinguals with low SES compared to monolinguals with high SES) may be at least partially overcome in three more years of school, third, fourth and fifth grade. Furthermore, comparable performances also deserve attention to check whether the overlapping is maintained or if any change is observable with school attendance and learning increases. According to literature, and in agreement with previous results [ 11], different predictions can be sketched on the domains of literacy development tested in the present study:

For decoding skills, we expected groups to exhibit comparable performances in reading fluency. However, literature found that reading speed and accuracy for words and nonwords can reach monolingual-like levels after two years of immersive scholastic exposure [ 12]. Therefore, the development of decoding skills through primary school years is not expected to be affected by bilingualism and SES; however, differences might emerge in passage reading [ 15, 16, 17], which involves vocabulary knowledge and lexical access.

For reading comprehension skills, we expected that bilingualism and SES might negatively impact the developmental trajectory. Previous studies indicated that BMLC perform below monolinguals in reading comprehension, and contrasting results have been found for listening comprehension [ 11, 15]. Therefore, SES's role may also be relevant in affecting literacy acquisition.

Regarding spelling skills, previous studies conducted on LMBC exposed to a transparent language found significant differences compared to monolingual peers [ 11, 26, 32, 33, 34], but no effect of SES was found. We, therefore, expect that LMBC might underperform compared to monolingual children in spelling tasks, independently of SES.

The comparison between groups of low SES bilinguals and low and high SES monolinguals may disentangle the effect of bilingualism and the role of SES. If LMBC will perform below monolinguals with low SES, it is possible to refer the learning delay to bilingualism. However, if LMBC perform comparably to monolinguals with low SES but lower than monolinguals with high SES, SES mainly be responsible of the gap.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample included 50 children (54% female; M age T2 = 10.31 years, DS = 0.30) who were enrolled in the study in the second half of 2nd grade and who were then followed longitudinally with a second assessment in the second half of 5th grade of primary school. The whole sample, according to the criteria defined below, was divided into three groups: (1) bilingual language minority children with low SES ( n = 18); (2) monolingual children matched for gender, age, and SES level ( n = 18); (3) a group of monolingual children matched for gender and age but with higher SES ( n = 14).

Results from the first measurement time point are also reported in [ 11]. Sample attrition was 13.7% in fifth grade, the main reason is moving to a different school. Children were selected from three classes in a suburb area of a northern Italian region, which has the highest absolute number of foreign students in Italy, according to [ 2]. Italian was the unique language of instruction for all children, except for 2 h of an English course in the school setting. None of the participants had received a clinical diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders.

Monolingual children were exposed both at home and at school to Italian. Bilinguals had been exposed to an L1 other than Italian (L2) within the family context from birth and to the Italian language through at least two years of immersive scholastic exposure; none of them had been schooled in their L1. The L1 languages included Arabic (38.9%), Albanian (16.6%), Chinese (5.6%), Russian (11.1%), Pidgin-French (11.1%), Spanish (5.6%), Pidgin-English (11.1%). and. Most of them were born in Italy (94.4%), and one child arrived in Italy within the first two years of age. All the bilingual children attended infant school in Italy, and 50% also attended nursery school.

Children's language proficiency in L1 was assessed through parents' rating through the QUBil questionnaire (see method section for a detailed description). Parents responded on a 5-points scale (0 = absence of skill; 5 = fully developed skill), and all children resulted in having good L1 language proficiency, with a mean value of 3.9 (SD = 0.83) for language comprehension and 4.18 (SD = 0.75) for expressive oral language skills. For Italian language proficiency, a similar rating scale has been proposed to teachers, and also in this case, scores were in the high range: 4.27 (SD = 1.27) for comprehension; 4.45 (SD = 0.82) for oral expression. The profile of bilingual competence that emerged from parents' and teachers' reports confirms that the bilingual sample had effective knowledge of the L1 and adequate skills in L2 oral language, which allowed them to perform the tasks proposed in the present study.

All bilingual children showed a low to medium SES, as measured by the Hollingshead Four Factor Index of Social Status [ 43]. Monolingual children were divided into two groups based on SES level: a group ( n = 18) with low to medium SES and a group ( n = 14) with high SES. In Table 1 mean values and statistics about group differences in SES score and age are reported.

Table 1

Variables

Bilinguals Low-SES

Monolinguals Low-SES

Monolinguals High-SES

Statistics

Post-hoc

n² p
Effect Size

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Gender (% females)

55.55%

61.11%

42.85%

X2(2) = 1.08; p = 0.58

2.2. Materials

Linguistic history: The Questionnaire on the bilingual pupils' linguistic history (QUBil) is included in the "BaBIL" battery [ 44]. It's an interview for parents to collect information on children's linguistic history. There are questions about the following subjects: each language learning starting time in the child's personal history, languages known by the child, the amount of each language use in and out of the family context, level of proficiency perceived by parents and teachers in L1 and L2. The interview served to ascertain children's linguistic history and respect inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data from the interview were selected, and the following were considered in the dataset: age of exposure, year of arrival in Italy, parents and teachers perceived proficiency in L1 and L2.

Socio-economic level (SES): The Hollingshead Four Factor Index of Social Status [ 43] has been adopted in the current study. The indexes of educational level (EL) and occupation (O) were used. Educational level is scored between 1 and 7, and occupation with scores from 1 to 9. The formula EL x 3 + O x 5 was adopted to obtain SES scores for fathers and mothers; the compound SES score for children resulted from the mean of the two values. Final scores between 0 and 39 were classified as low-medium and those above 40 as medium-high.

Decoding and reading comprehension tasks: The ALCE battery (Assessment Lettura e Comprensione in età Evolutiva [Assessment of Reading and Comprehension skills in Developmental Age] [ 45] is a standardized battery for the assessment of reading and comprehension skills in children from first to fifth grade of primary school. Words ( n = 60), nonwords ( n = 30), and a passage reading task are included, along with listening comprehension and a reading comprehension task. Reading speed was measured in syllables per second (s/s), whereas a percentage of errors was calculated for the total number of words the children read. For reading comprehension, children are asked to read a passage and respond to 10 open questions presented orally and scored on a 0-2 points scale (maximum score: 20). For listening comprehension, the experimenter read a text followed by 10 questions assessing comprehension; these were scored as for the reading comprehension task. Raw scores were converted into T-scores according to the test manual. A full description of the task and reliability indexes can be found in [ 46].

Spelling test: Spelling has been tested through the dictation of a short passage entitled "La ricetta delle pere allo sciroppo" [The recipe for pears in syrup], which is part of a standardized battery "Prove ZERO" [Zero Battery] [ 47] for the early identification of learning disabilities. The text is composed of 54 words (including articles and prepositions), which represented spelling rules typical of Italian orthography, such as double letter within words (e.g., zucchero [sugar]), complex bi-and trigrams (eg., sciroppo [syrup]), apostrophes and accents. The test allows verifying the acquisition of the spelling and the stabilization of grapheme-phoneme correspondences. The test score is obtained by counting the total number of words written correctly. Raw scores were converted into z-scores according to test manual.

Some extreme values in z-scores were lowered to a value of-5sd for all groups. This allows keeping track of the severity level in performance without affecting scores distribution.

2.3. Procedure

Parents signed informed consent for participating in the study. Trained psychologists administered the decoding and comprehension tasks individually; the writing task was administered collectively to the class. The individual testing session lasted approximately 25 min. The collective testing session lasted about 15 min. Breaks were allowed if the child showed signs of fatigue. The same procedure was adopted for both waves of assessment. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Psychology, University of Pavia.

3. Results

A set of Repeated Measures ANOVAs with Group as between factor variable were run to evaluate developmental trajectories on each separate index of literacy skills considered. Table 2 reports mean values for each task in the two waves and related statistics from the analyses. All variables showed skewness values < ±2 [ 48]. The analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac, Version 26.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). All analyses were conducted on T-scores or z-scores (for spelling), computed with reference to normative values appropriate for age, taken from tests' manuals. This allows considering developmental trajectory about what is expected for each age range considered and not absolute values. Gender differences in the whole sample were evaluated through t-tests on each variable included in the study, and no significant difference emerged (all p s > 0.05).

Table 2

Literacy Measures

Second Grade (T1)

Fifth Grade (T2)

Bilinguals Low-SES

Monolinguals Low-SES

Monolinguals High-SES

Bilinguals Low-SES

Monolinguals Low-SES

Monolinguals High-SES

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

3.1. Decoding Skills

Trajectories in decoding skills are reported in Figure 1 a-f. Considering word reading there was a main effect of Time [F(2,47) = 83,53, p <.001, n ² p = 0.64], but no effect of group [F(2,47) = 0.49, p = 0.62, n ² p = 0.02], nor for the interaction Time*Group [F(2,47) = 2,64, p = 0.8, n ² p = 0.10]. The same trend was observed for word reading accuracy, with a main effect of Time [F(2,47) = 11.77, p = 0.001, n ² p = 0.20], but no effect of Group [F(2,47) = 0.38, p = 0.68, n ² p = 0.02] nor for the interaction Time*Group [F(2,47) = 0.71, p = 0.19, n ² p = 0.03].

As regards nonword reading speed there was an effect of Time [F(2,47) = 26.27, p < 0.001, n ² p = 0.36], no effect of group [F(2,47) = 0.6, p = 0.55, n ² p = 0.03], but a significant interaction Time*Group emerged [F(2,47) = 6.43, p < 0.01, n ² p = 0.21]. Low-SES monolinguals underperformed compared to the other two groups at T1 but the differences were not still significant at T2. There was no effect of Group [F(2,47) = 0.32, p = 0.73, n ² p = 0.01] or interaction Time*group [F(2,47) = 0.43, p = 0.66, n ² p = 0.02] in nonword reading accuracy, although it remained a significant effect of Time [F(2,47) = 10.36, p < 0.01, n ² p = 0.18]. Finally, with reference to text reading speed there was an effect of Time [F(2,47) = 63.3, p < 0.001, n ² p = 0.18], but no effect of Group [F(2,47) = 2.27, p = 0.11, n ² p = 0.08] nor interaction Time*Group [F(2,47) = 1.81, p = 0.17, n ² p = 0.07]. The same pattern was observed for text reading accuracy: Group [F(2,47) = 2.23, p = 0.12, n ² p = 0.09]; Time [F(2,47) = 34.14, p < 0.001, n ² p = 0.42], Time*Group interaction [F(2,47) = 1.29, p = 0.28, n ² p = 0.05].

3.2. Listening and Reading Comprehension

Trajectories in listening and reading comprehension skills are reported in Figure 2 a,b. In listening comprehension ( Figure 2 a), there was no effect of Time [F(2,47) = 0.11, p = 0.75, n ² p = 0.002], no significant interaction time x Group [F(2,47) = 0.93, p = 0.40, n ² p = 0.04] and no effect of group [F(2,47) = 0.6, p = 0.55, n ² p = 0.03]. Conversely, in the reading comprehension task ( Figure 2 b), main effects of Time [F(2,47) = 30.17, p < 0.001, n ² p = 0.39], Group [F(2,47) = 7.3, p < 0.01, n ² p = 0.24] and of the interaction Time*Group [F(2,47) = 5.31, p < 0.01, n ² p = 0.18] were found. The group effect showed that low-SES bilinguals and monolinguals did not differ, but both underperformed compared to high-SES monolingual children. However, the time* group interaction showed that low-SES bilinguals had poorer reading comprehension scores at T1 with respect to both low- and high-SES monolinguals groups, who did not differ from each other. At T2, the two low-SES groups did not differ, but both underperformed compared to high-SES children.

3.3. Spelling

Trajectories in spelling skills are reported in Figure 3 . Regarding spelling there was a main effect of time [F(2,47) = 8.35, p < 0.01, n ² p = 0.15] and a significant effect of group [F(2,47) = 4.92, p < 0.01, n ² p = 0.17] but no interaction time x group [F(2,47) = 1.03, p = 0.37, n ² p = 0.04]. Post-hoc tests (Bonferroni) showed that low-SES bilinguals underperformed compared to low-SES monolinguals ( p < 0.05) and high-SES monolinguals ( p < 0.05), which did not differ from one another.

4. Discussion

The present longitudinal study investigated literacy development trajectories from second to fifth grade of language minority bilingual children compared to two groups of monolingual peers, one with similar low-SES and one with high-SES. The study aimed to examine and compare the three groups' learning trajectories to better understand the role of home language (bilingualism) and SES level on literacy acquisition in primary school. Results showed that language minority bilingual children learning progress in reading speed and accuracy in words, nonwords, and passage reading were comparable to that of their monolingual peers, independently from SES. They were able to learn decoding skills as their peers from second grade and consistently gained in speed and accuracy scores to fifth grade as their peers. It has to be noted that all groups had relatively low scores in second grade, with mean T-scores between 38 and 42, and for all groups, there was a main effect of Time, with final scores fully in the norms from 46 to 50. Therefore, the study demonstrated that reading fluency acquisition in a transparent language during primary school overlaps for language minority bilingual children and their monolingual peers. Results on word and nonword reading align with previous studies that documented the absence of a main gap in decoding skills for bilinguals with at least two years of regular school exposure [ 11, 12, 14, 15, 26]. However, these results partially differ from some studies that documented significant differences between monolinguals and bilinguals in passage reading [ 15, 16, 17]. Since the present sample was relatively homogenous in the first years of primary school, with High-SES monolinguals performing slightly below the national average, all children might have developed more complex decoding skills at the same pace, reducing the likelihood of developing group differences in decoding skill.

Similarly, SES did not result in differentiating monolingual children in decoding skills during primary school, according to previous studies [ 11, 49]. However, it has to be underlined that there was a significant interaction time*group in nonword reading speed, where low-SES monolinguals started from a lower level of performance and showed a considerable increase compared to the other group. For this group, we might speculate that the Low-SES condition might have impacted a poorer home literacy environment, which is connected to early linguistic and literacy skills [ 5].

Differently from what was reported in the first wave of assessment [ 11], in the present sample, which was subject to attrition in sample recruitment, there were no differences amongst the three groups in listening comprehension, neither at Time 1 nor at Time 2. Listening comprehension was expected to be mainly influenced by SES, given the well-known association between SES and linguistic development [ 50]. However, from a qualitative point of view, there was a difference in fifth grade of around 10 points in terms of T-scores between the two low-SES groups and the high-SES group.

In more complex literacy skills such as reading comprehension, bilingualism and SES seem relevant, although with different patterns. Both low-SES groups underperformed in reading comprehension compared to the high-SES group, both in second and fifth grades. However, low-SES bilinguals had worse performance in second grade than monolingual low-SES peers but showed a better improvement over time in reading comprehension than low-SES monolinguals. If bilingualism appeared the most impacting factor on reading comprehension in second grade, three years later, in fifth grade, bilingualism appeared no longer significant. SES seemed to be the condition that may primarily impact reading comprehension performance at this school level. As previously discussed, most studies in the literature report a disadvantage in reading comprehension in bilinguals, even considering longitudinal trajectories [ 38, 39, 41]. Although the results from the present study might confirm this pattern, they add an important insight into the need to consider SES in group matching since the "bilingual gap" in reading comprehension might be better explained as an "SES gap". Recent studies in the Italian context highlighted the relevance of SES in the literacy skills of primary school children, and for bilingual children, it was found that SES impacts precursors of reading comprehension skills such as vocabulary, grammar, and working memory skills [ 8]. Since SES affects cognitive and control skills, such as working memory and executive functions, fundamental in supporting literacy acquisition [ 51, 52], these skills might also be crucially involved in developing second language literacy skills [ 53, 54, 55].

Finally, considering spelling skills, a main effect of bilingualism emerged, since bilinguals underperformed from second to third grade compared to low- and high-SES children. These results confirm previous evidence from studies on bilingual children exposed to a transparent language [ 11, 26, 32, 33, 34]. This result indicates that spelling seems to be affected by home language rather than by SES level. However, it has to be considered that these results partially differ from others conducted on opaque languages [ 31]. Indeed, children exposed to transparent languages develop their writing skills faster than those exposed to opaque languages [ 56], and writing in the Italian language has been reported to be strongly influenced by lexical skills [ 57]. Therefore, monolingual children may achieve good performances, mainly through lexical strategies, in relatively short times. This might heighten the bilingual gap in spelling skills, particularly for a highly transparent orthography such as Italian since bilinguals might rely more on phonological skills than on lexical processing, due to their limited vocabulary in L2 [ 21].

The relatively small sample size is a limitation of the study, and future longitudinal studies should involve larger samples. Further, and connected to, bilingual populations are highly heterogeneous, and a more fine-grained evaluation of the precise relationship between literacy trajectories and time of exposure, linguistic distance between L1 and L2, and home literacy activities would allow for setting more accurate predictions. In addition, it would be important to include groups of bilingual language minority children with High-SES in further studies. In the present study, SES was measured considering parents' educational and occupational levels. Further indices might be included in future studies that consider other more sensitive parameters of SES level in populations with migrant backgrounds, with particular reference to the access to resources of the national welfare.

Finally, further studies on wider samples should include different statistical analyses such as regressions and structural equation models to better understand which factors are the main contributors to reading and spelling performance.

5. Conclusions

To sum up, results from the present study depict a complex picture of literacy development in relation to SES and bilingualism. None of these factors impacted decoding skills in word, nonword and text, nor do they impact listening comprehension. However, SES rather than bilingualism was the discriminating factor in reading comprehension skills at the end of primary school. On the counterpart, bilingualism, but not SES, was the key factor of spelling disadvantage over the primary school years.

The present results represented an original effort to disentangle the role of SES and bilingualism in affecting literacy skills acquisition during primary school, particularly for considering different subdomains of literacy skills such as decoding, listening and reading comprehension, and spelling. It also allows enriching data on literacy development in bilingual and monolingual populations exposed to a highly transparent language such as Italian.

From a research perspective, the present study results reinforce the need to include SES in bilingual studies accurately and further understand the complex interaction between SES and bilingualism in learning processes. Moreover, these results might have clinical implications, suggesting that poor spelling in bilingualism might not necessarily correspond to a disorder but might be the expression of an extended need for exposure and support. From an educational perspective, this study emphasizes the need to inform teachers about the complex profile of strengths and weaknesses and overcome the "all or nothing" approach that might depict bilingualism as an advantage or a disadvantage. Teachers and educators might benefit from developing clear expectations on the time needed to develop specific literacy skills and the related influence of SES. The present study might suggest offering didactic intervention to support the development of spelling skills in bilinguals and reading comprehension for socially disadvantaged populations.

Acknowledgments

We thank teachers, parents and students of the School I.C. of Sant'angelo Lodigiano, Italy.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.P. and P.B.; methodology, P.P.; formal analysis, P.B.; investigation, I.C.F., J.P. and F.T.; resources, F.T.; data curation, I.C.F. and J.P.; writing-original draft preparation, P.B.; writing-review and editing, P.P. and P.B.; supervision, P.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of University of Pavia (year 2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all parents involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available from authors upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

1. Grosjean F. Another view of bilingualism. Adv. Psychol. 1992;83:51-62. [ Google Scholar]

4. OCSE-PISA (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development-Programme for International Student Assessment) Rapporto Nazionale OCSE-PISA 2003. Il Livello di Competenza dei Quindicenni in Matematica, Lettura, Scienze e Problem Solving. Armando Editore; Roma, Italy: 2006. [ Google Scholar]

12. August D., Shanahan T., editors. Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; Mahwah, NJ, USA: 2006. [ Google Scholar]

33. Zhang S., Breuer E.O., Grünke M., Joshi R.M. Using Spelling Error Analyses to Examine Individual Differences in German Students from Diverse Linguistic Backgrounds: A Latent Class Approach. J. Learn Disabil. 2021 doi: 10.1177/00222194211059820. in press. [[ PubMed] [ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

34. Affranti A., Tobia V., Bonifacci P. L'acquisizione delle competenze ortografiche in bambini bilingui con italiano L2. Psicol. Clin. Dello. Svilupp. 2020;24:473-495. [ Google Scholar]

43. Hollingshead A.B. Four Factor Index of Social Status. Working paper; Yale University Press; New Haven, CT, USA: 1975. [ Google Scholar]

44. Contento S., Bellocchi S., Bonifacci P. BaBIL. Prove per la Valutazione Delle Competenze Verbali e Non Verbali in Bambini Bilingui. BaBIL. Battery for the Evaluation of Verbal and Non Verbal Skills Skills in Bilingual Children. Giunti OS; Firenze, Italy: 2013. [ Google Scholar]

45. Bonifacci P., Tobia V., Lami L., Snowling M.J. ALCE. Assessment di Lettura e Comprensione in Età Evolutiva Assessment of Reading and Comprehension in Developmental Age. Hogrefe Editore; Firenze, Italy: 2014. [ Google Scholar]

47. Bonifacci P., Bellocchi S., Manfredini B., Lami L. Giunti Scuola-Giunti-OS Ed.; Firenze, Italy: 2014. Prove Zero. Individuazione precoce delle difficoltà[   di lettura e scrittura [Early identification of reading and writing disorders] Google Scholar]

56. Treiman R., Kessler B. Writing systems and spelling development. Sci. Read. A Handb. 2005:120-134. [ Google Scholar]

Articles from Brain Sciences are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Literacy Acquisition Trajectories in Bilingual Language Minority Children and Monolingual Peers with Similar or Different SES: A Three-Year Longitudinal Study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bilingualism and socio-economic status (SES) differentially affect linguistic and cognitive development. However, less evidence has been collected regarding their impact on literacy trajectories. The present longitudinal study evaluated the literacy development ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning Disability: Life after High School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Study what the research says about options after high school for students with learning disabilities. This article covers outcomes of students who go to college, career and technical education, and to work. The issues of disclosure and obtaining accommodation are covered.

# data[].attributes.body
via Reading reminders: Tools, Tips, and Techniques by Burke

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Developmental language disorder (DLD) is a neurodevelopmental condition that emerges in early childhood and frequently persists into adulthood. People with DLD have significant difficulty learning, understanding, and using spoken language. Under U.S. Public Law 101-476 ( Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004; first issued in 1990 and reissued in 2004), children may be eligible for school-based services, typically under the category "speech-language impairment," if their DLD affects educational performance and requires specially designed support. DLD is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders. With an estimated prevalence of 7.58% ( Norbury et al., 2016; see also Tomblin et al., 1997), it is nearly 7 times more common than autism spectrum disorder (ASD; prevalence = 1.1%; Brugha et al., 2012) and 46 times more common than permanent childhood hearing impairment (prevalence = 0.165%; Fortnum et al., 2001).

As a population, people with DLD face significant risks. Compared to other students, those with DLD are 6 times more likely to have reading disabilities, 6 times more likely to have significant spelling problems, 4 times more likely to struggle with math, and 12 times more likely to face all three of these difficulties combined ( Young et al., 2002). People who have DLD are 6 times more likely than others to experience clinical levels of anxiety and 3 times more likely to have clinical depression ( Conti-Ramsden & Botting, 2008). Girls with DLD are 3 times more likely to experience sexual abuse ( Brownlie et al., 2007). Boys with DLD are 4 times more likely to engage in delinquent behavior ( Brownlie et al., 2004). Adults with DLD are twice more likely to go over a year without employment than other adults ( Law et al., 2009).

Without a doubt, DLD is a common condition that limits the health, happiness, and success of many who live with it. Nevertheless, people with DLD are underserved, and the condition itself is under-researched. The reasons are complicated, but the consequences of continued failure are dire. This clinical focus article is a call to action. I will provide evidence to demonstrate the ways that we, as a profession, are failing children with DLD; explore the reasons for these failures; and encourage change. The institutions and policies that dictate, support, or constrain clinical services and research efforts vary widely from country to country. This review is admittedly United States-centric, with some attention paid to the United Kingdom as well, but it is my hope that some of the points raised here are universally relevant.

Children With DLD Are Underserved

In 1997, Tomblin et al. identified 216 kindergarten children within a community sample who scored more than 1.25 SD s below the mean on two or more of five composite scores that captured receptive and expressive language abilities in the lexical, grammatical, and narrative domains. Only a minority of those children had ever been flagged with language concerns.

Of course, cutoffs on norm-referenced tests vary across settings, and functional impact as ascertained from a variety of sources such as language samples, achievement tests, response to intervention (RTI) or dynamic assessments, parent reports, and teacher observations must, by law, also be considered part of eligibility determination in U.S. schools ( Ireland et al., 2013). Therefore, it is likely that not each of these low-scoring children should have raised concerns. In fact, some of them did not continue to present with low scores in subsequent years. Let us be conservative. If we take only the poorest performers-those who scored below the 3rd percentile, a low level of performance indeed-only 39% of them had ever been identified as having language deficits ( Tomblin et al., 1997). Given the high risks of academic and social failure associated with DLD, it is astounding that a majority of likely affected children were not identified and, therefore, were not receiving services.

Unfortunately, the situation was no better 19 years later when Norbury et al. (2016) collected a community sample of first graders in England. Of the children they identified as meeting the criteria for DLD, only 3.5% had a Statement of Special Educational Needs (the U.K. equivalent of an Individualized Education Program in the United States), and only 39% were receiving language intervention outside of school ( Norbury et al., 2016). Although we were alerted to the situation more than 20 years ago, we continue to underserve children with DLD.

Worse still, some are more likely to go without service than others. Morgan et al. (2017) analyzed data from two nationally representative cohorts of U.S. kindergartners, one collected in 1998-1999 ( N = 16,800) and another collected in 2010-2011 ( N = 12,080), to determine whether receipt of special education services for children deemed eligible under the category of speech-language impairment varied with family and child characteristics, academic achievement, and behavioral health. Numerous, long-standing inequities were evident.

Inequities Related to Gender

Morgan et al. (2017) found that boys were significantly more likely to receive services than girls in 1999 and 2011. This disproportionality also characterizes language services in U.K. schools ( Lindsay & Strand, 2016). To some extent, the larger representation of boys could be fair given that community samples do reveal a higher prevalence of DLD among boys than girls; however, the difference is small and not always significant ( Norbury et al., 2016). The estimated male-to-female prevalence ratio within the DLD population is 1.3:1 ( Tomblin et al., 1997), whereas the male-to-female receipt-of-services ratio is 1.71:1 in the United States ( Morgan et al., 2017) and 2.55:1 in the United Kingdom ( Lindsay & Strand, 2016). Girls and boys may present with different profiles of strengths and weaknesses in language itself ( McGregor et al., 2020) or differences in social behavior that serve to magnify (in the case of boys) or hide (in the case of girls) their language weaknesses ( Hart et al., 2004; Toseeb et al., 2017).

Inequities Related to Behavioral Profile

Inequities Related to Geographic Location

At both time points, geographic inequities were evident in that children from the Western United States were less likely to receive services than children from the Northeastern United States ( Morgan et al., 2017). From 2004 to 2016, 60%-90% of school speech-language pathologists (SLPs) from the Mountain and Pacific states reported that job openings exceeded job seekers, indicating widespread, long-standing shortages of speech-language services in the Western United States ( American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], 2016a, 2016b). In a 2006 survey of school SLPs ( N = 1,644), 79% reported that shortages resulted in increased caseload size, 56% reported decreased quality of service, and 55% reported decreased opportunities for individual (one-on-one) service delivery ( ASHA, 2006).

Inequities Related to Minority Status

Other disparities reported in Morgan et al. (2017) involved majority-minority linguistic, racial, and ethnic divisions. At both time points, children who spoke English as an additional language were about 50% less likely to be identified as service eligible than monolingual English speakers. In the United States, most SLPs are monolingual, and, as a profession, we lack tools that are appropriately normed for people who speak English as an additional language. Both are likely barriers to identification. Although Hispanic children were not significantly underserved in 1999, this had changed by 2011 when their odds of receiving services were 46% lower than the odds for non-Hispanic children ( Morgan et al., 2017). In 1999, the odds that a Black child would receive services were 61% lower than the odds for a White child. This disparity remained in 2011 ( Morgan et al., 2017). An examination of data collected from 2009 to 2014 revealed continued disproportionality, with 62% of states underrepresenting Black students and 14% of states overrepresenting them ( Robinson & Norton, 2019). Note that these linguistic, racial, and ethnic disparities are not a matter of the socioeconomic disadvantage that, unfortunately, is more common among minority populations in the United States (although this plays a role as well; see the Inequities Related to Socioeconomic Status section). Morgan et al. took pains to adjust each estimator variable-in this case, using a minority language, being Hispanic, and being Black-for confounding factors that could muddy the interpretation of the data, that is, factors that included household income, parents' education levels, and even the child's own academic and behavioral performance.

Inequities Related to Socioeconomic Status

Inequities related to SES extend beyond the school-house doors. Some families can, and do, supplement school-based services with treatments in outpatient, private practice, or university training clinics. However, these families are exceptions because health insurance rarely pays for these labor-intensive; long-term; and, thus, costly services. Goodwin (2016) surveyed parents whose children were receiving speech-language services in private clinics. All of the families had health insurance. Nevertheless, parents reported that they faced numerous barriers when securing services for their children, including cost, lack of knowledge of available resources, and lack of time. Parents with lower SES faced more barriers than parents with higher SES, and, not surprisingly given this situation, the children from lower SES families accessed private services later than the children from higher SES families ( Goodwin, 2016).

DLD Is Under-Researched

In 2010, Bishop authored a paper titled "Which neurodevelopmental disorders get researched and why?" She searched Web of Science, an extensive repository of published research, for titles that included the names of 35 neurodevelopmental disorders. A primary question concerned the attention given to DLD (at that time, usually called specific language impairment) relative to the other disorders. To make a fair comparison, she considered two variables: prevalence, given the logic that more prevalent disorders should be studied more often than those less prevalent, and severity, given the logic that more severely disabling disorders should be studied more often than those less severe. Fortunately, the two are inversely related; severely disabling conditions are rare.

As predicted, severity was a positive predictor of publication rate (see Figure 1), and the consideration of prevalence estimates further strengthened that prediction. DLD, as well as dyslexia, dyscalculia, developmental coordination disorder, and speech sound disorder, received less research attention than merited given their prevalence and severity of impact. ASD and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) receive "appropriate" attention, and single-gene-based disorders tended to receive more attention than expected. To make these discrepancies meaningful, Bishop (2010) derived a publication index for each condition by considering the number of publications per the estimated number of cases in the United Kingdom. For example, from 1985 to 2009, for every 100 individuals in the United Kingdom affected, there were 254.41 papers published on phenylketonuria; 234.42, on Marfan syndrome; 21.39, on ASD; and 2.19, on ADHD. During that same period, there were 0.13 papers per 100 individuals affected by DLD.

To determine whether we have made progress in the years since the work of Bishop (2010), I repeated her procedures using the same publication repository, search terms, prevalence and severity estimates, and weighting procedure. The search terms and database specifications appear in Supplemental Material S1. To compare equal time units, I ran the analysis for the years 2000-2009, that is, the last 10 years covered by Bishop (2010), and for the 10 years since then, that is, 2010-2019. Note that, because the population of the United States is larger than that of the United Kingdom, the publication index results for the United States cannot be directly compared with those in the work of Bishop (2010). Instead, the critical question of interest is whether there were improvements in the research attention paid to DLD between the decades 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 when both have a common denominator, that is, the estimated number of cases in the U.S. population. The literature itself reflects work worldwide, so although the exact numbers are specific to the United States, the relative change over time is universally relevant.

As in the work of Bishop (2010), the publication index for 2010-2019 was predicted by severity, R = .65, p < .0003 (see Figure 2). Adding prevalence to the regression model accounted for further variance in the publication index, R = .85, p < .0001.

The number of publications in the two decades under consideration, the percentage of change in the number of publications from one decade to the next, the estimated number of cases in the United States, and the publication index appear in Table 1. With the single exception of Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, all neurodevelopmental conditions have received more research attention in the most recent decade than in the decade that preceded it. The number of publications about Duchenne muscular dystrophy, fragile X syndrome, cerebral palsy, and developmental coordination disorder more than doubled. The number of publications about ASD tripled. The percentage increase in publications averaged over all neurodevelopmental disorders was 68% ( SD = 48). There was a 61% increase in the number of papers devoted to DLD. Thus, the standing of DLD relative to all other neurodevelopmental conditions has changed little since Bishop's (2010) analysis. From 2010 to 2019, there were 0.03 papers on DLD published for every 100 affected children in the United States (see Table 1, "publication index" column). To enable a comparison to the data in the work of Bishop (2010), note that, in terms of the U.K. population, there were 0.16 publications for every 100 affected children (number of children in the United Kingdom = 11,970,367; GOV.UK, 2018) during the years 2010-2019.

How is it that we are failing to serve the majority of children who have DLD? Why does DLD receive relatively little attention from the research community? The reasons are complex, systemic, and intertwined. I will explore four and offer some solutions.

Reasons

Reason 1: DLD Is an Unknown Disorder

Despite its high prevalence and significant impact, DLD is a relatively unknown problem. Consider an educated layperson-your neighbor or cousin or your dentist or accountant. Have all of them heard of autism, ADHD, or dyslexia? Have any of them heard of DLD?

In the research literature, children with clinically significant language concerns are often referred to as having a language delay if they are preschoolers, a developmental period when a diagnosis of DLD may well be premature. School children are most often described as having DLD or specific language impairment in the literature. That said, Bishop (2014) found 32 different terms used for DLD in the research literature. Within the research community, debates continue about the most accurate term to use for the condition ( Bishop, 2017).

Terms vary among clinicians as well. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) labels the problem "expressive-receptive language disorder" or "expressive language disorder," depending on presentation. In U.S. billing codes, these categories also apply. In U.S. schools, younger children with language concerns likely qualify for services under the category of "developmental delay," whereas older children will qualify under the category of "speech-language impairment" or, in some cases, "specific learning disability." In U.K. schools, the educational category is termed "speech, language and communication needs." To further complicate matters, neurodevelopmental disorders do not fall into mutually exclusive categories. Comorbidities are common; for example, a child might have DLD and ADHD ( Tomblin & Mueller, 2012). Moreover, the primary diagnosis might shift over development; the problem best labeled as a language delay at 3 years might be better termed as DLD at 6 years and as specific learning disability at 15 years. The cacophony of terms and the extent to which they change with setting and time impose barriers on our awareness of DLD.

A Solution

It is essential to help parents understand the diversity of labels that may apply to their child in various settings and at various times. Without this understanding, parents will find it challenging to communicate with the different professionals who serve their children, and they will be unable to find other families who share their experience.

Moreover, we must guide parents to evidence-based information about language development and disorder so that they can understand their child's needs. Informational resources for parents are growing in availability. These include DLDandMe ( https://www.dldandme.org/); Afasic ( https://www.afasic.org.uk/); RADLD ( https://radld.org/resources/); and, for a broader focus, Understood ( https://www.understood.org/en). DLDandMe is aimed at a North American audience; Afasic, at a U.K. audience; and RADLD, at an international audience. RADLD offers a subset of materials in numerous languages. Understood deals mostly with policies pertaining to children with learning disabilities, ADHD, and related conditions in the United States. They offer materials in English and Spanish.

An additional recommendation is to emphasize that DLD, no matter what term is used to refer to it, is a problem of language, spoken or written. Persons who are not trained in language science-which typically include parents, teachers, pediatricians, and policy makers-often confuse language with speech or erroneously conclude that language problems are synonymous with intellectual disability. Explaining what language is, which language behaviors are cause for concern, and why language matters will reduce confusion and increase understanding. The term language is also broad enough to capture the various ways that DLD manifests over developmental time and from individual to individual, thus helping laypeople understand the connection between seemingly disparate phenomena such as being late to talk and having difficulty learning to spell.

Reason 2: DLD Is a Hidden Impairment

Zhang and Tomblin (2000) compared the receipt of services for children who had speech sound disorder, DLD, or DLD + speech sound disorder. The children with speech sound disorder, alone or in combination with DLD, were more likely to receive services than children with DLD alone. Specifically, the odds of a child with a speech sound disorder being identified and served were 2.4 times greater than the odds of a child with DLD. The same disparity characterized an Australian sample of children with speech or language disorders ( Skeat et al., 2010).

We are doing a better job at identifying children with speech sound disorder because the problem is apparent to our ears, as well as the ears of their parents and teachers ( Burroughs & Tomblin, 1990), and not because these children are at higher academic or social risk than children with DLD. For the most part, children with DLD do not sound unusual; they may seem younger than they are, but not unusual. By the time they reach school, most can carry on a basic conversation, follow a simple command, and answer a routine question.

Consequently, DLD often remains hidden from the two groups of adults who are a child's primary advocates when it comes to securing services: parents and teachers. Although parents are experts about their children, they are not reliable at judging whether their elementary-aged child's language development is on track relative to that of other children ( Hendricks et al., 2019), and in many cases, neither are teachers. Antoniazzi et al. (2010) asked 15 primary school teachers to rate the language and communication abilities of their first-grade students ( N = 149) via a checklist. When compared to the results of a language screening test, the teachers' ratings were low in both sensitivity and specificity. Teachers themselves report that they are ill-prepared to identify spoken language problems ( Dockrell & Lindsay, 2001; Sadler, 2005).

A Solution

The obvious solution for finding hidden disabilities is to look for them. What is not as obvious is how best to do that. One possibility is to help teachers flag potential language problems more consistently and accurately. Teachers are experts at identifying students who struggle to learn and students who frequently misbehave. Helping them to appreciate that language problems may contribute to both is a crucial step. We might advance this message by offering joint SLP and teacher training opportunities at the university level and subsequent joint SLP and teacher professional development opportunities postgraduation. Also, having SLPs work in collaboration with teachers in the classroom might be useful in enhancing teachers' awareness of DLD and its potential to impact learning and behavior.

We must also be able to demonstrate that the language interventions we provide after identification are valuable. Teachers and families may be reticent to begin the identification and assessment process if they perceive the benefits to be minimal. Research demonstrating that language intervention improves not only spoken language but also academic outcomes is critical. These could include knowledge outcomes in subjects such as social studies or science (see Curran & Van Horne, 2019, for a preliminary study of science outcomes among children with DLD who received recast intervention) and skill outcomes in reading, spelling, writing, and calculation (see Tomblin et al., 2020, for the effect of intervention on skill outcomes in children with hearing loss as an example).

An additional step is to develop and employ tools to aid identification. Language screenings are one such tool. Screening programs of various sorts are frequent in U.S. schools, but their content varies from state to state. Many conduct health screenings to detect potential problems with vision, hearing, asthma, scoliosis, blood pressure, dental health, and mental health ( Gracy et al., 2018). Screenings of academic areas are also ubiquitous. The U.S. Department of Education (2017) endorses school-wide reading screening as a critical step in identifying children at risk for reading and learning problems.

The massive variability in language development between and within individual toddlers and young preschoolers bodes against successful language screening at early ages ( Siu, 2015), but upon kindergarten entry, profiles are more stable, and screenings at or after that point are more likely to be efficacious. To be feasible in a busy school setting, a language screening tool should enable quick administration and scoring without sacrificing the reliability of the results.

To be useful, the tool should have excellent sensitivity for detecting potential cases and specificity for ruling out noncases; it must be robust to cultural and linguistic variations among test takers. We also need evidence of the predictive validity of screening tools. In other words, we need to know whether the children who fail the screener are those who are likely to struggle with communication, learning, and academic outcomes in the years ahead. Without this information, we risk a high rate of false positives and unnecessary alarm among families.

Currently, we lack language screening tools that are known to satisfy all desired criteria. A promising approach is to design screeners that tap known clinical markers of DLD. One such marker is poor sentence recall. In a sentence recall (imitation/repetition) task, the child hears a series of spoken sentences and is asked to repeat each one. Successful repetition reflects short-term verbal memory as well as vocabulary knowledge and grammatical skills ( Archibald & Joanisse, 2009). People with DLD are typically poorer at repeating sentences than their age-mates; in fact, the problem is so characteristic that it is considered a clinical marker ( Conti-Ramsden et al., 2001). Can we apply the sentence recall task as a quick, valid, and reliable screener for identifying potential cases of DLD? The evidence to date is supportive.

Plante and Vance (1995) judge screening tests to be good if their sensitivity is at least 90% and their specificity is at least 80%. Thus, in the evaluations of the Redmond (2005) sentence recall task conducted independently by Archibald and Joanisse (2009) and Redmond et al. (2019) with two different large samples, specificity was good, but sensitivity was lower than desired. That does not mean that the task is not useful. Because of its specificity, it is unlikely to overidentify many children; if it is used in conjunction with observation or other measures, concerns about sensitivity leading to underidentification may be reduced.

Poor sentence recall is not the only clinical marker of DLD that could serve as a focus of language screening. Other examples include nonword repetition deficits (see the screening procedure in Seymour et al., 2003) and problems with grammatical sentence comprehension (see procedures in Hendricks et al., 2019). Language screenings could go far toward reducing the inequities in identification if the screening tools are robust in the face of gender, ethnic, and linguistic variation. Researchers should set further development of valid, quick, and equitable language screenings as a high priority.

I encourage school SLPs to view language screenings as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, RTI frameworks that characterize eligibility identification in many U.S. schools. Screenings may enable earlier or more accurate identification of those most at risk of slow progress, by supplementing the most commonly used measures of progress-reading measures-with information about spoken language abilities ( Adlof & Hogan, 2019). Children can languish in Tier 1 of RTI for many reasons; a language screener might help when determining whether spoken language should be evaluated as a potential reason. Ultimately, screeners that are valid and efficient may become a useful means by which we can accomplish the Child Find mandate required by U.S. law ( IDEA, 2004). In countries where language services are provided outside of an educational context, screenings that teachers can conduct could provide a basis for referral to those services.

Reason 3: Outdated Policies Constrain Equitable Access to Services

Some barriers to identification reflect entrenched policy decisions in institutions of government, education, and health care. For example, insurance coverage for children with developmental speech-language impairments in the United States is far from common. Some insurers deny coverage for children with DLD because the problem is considered a delay. Others deny coverage because the services are considered educational, in other words, because the child can receive service at school ( ASHA, n.d.).

Viewing DLD as a delay that a child will eventually grow out of is wrong. Although some children do catch up to peers during their preschool years, those who present with DLD upon school entry are likely to manifest symptoms as adults ( Tomblin et al., 2003). Like ADHD and ASD, DLD can be a lifelong disorder. Moreover, viewing DLD or any other developmental disorders of learning and communication as solely an educational problem does not reflect advances in our understanding of the neural basis of these disorders (e.g., Neul, 2011; Schumann et al., 2011). In 2017, ASHA published a brochure to make a case for the need, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of insurance coverage for developmental speech, language, and hearing disorders. It states explicitly that "developmental delays are the result not the cause of developmental disorders which are rightly considered to be medical conditions." Simply put, these two reasons for denying coverage of DLD-because it is a delay that requires educational interventions alone-are invalid.

A Solution

In the United States, families of children with DLD are not yet prepared for the political advocacy efforts required to instigate change. They cannot find others who share their experience if there is no clear, consistent diagnosis communicated to them; they cannot make the arguments needed if they have a limited understanding of the disorder. It is our responsibility to help prepare them by giving them access to accurate information. When policies are based on myths, misinformation, or outdated evidence, we must educate. Researchers and clinicians in the field must ensure that evidence-based information is accessible to families and policy makers. Undoubtedly, we will need the power of our national organization behind us.

Law et al. (2013) encourage SLPs to take a seat at the policy table. We must promote understanding of spoken language development as well as its facilitation and importance to learning and health. In the long run, the betterment of health and education policies is an act of prevention. Such actions can, ultimately, serve to lower the incidence of clinically significant language challenges in a world that increasingly demands high levels of language competence from its citizens.

Reason 4: Educational Culture Constrains the Diagnosis of DLD

The vast majority of children who qualify for educational services in the categories of autism, hearing impairment and deafness, visual impairment, traumatic brain injury, orthopedic impairment, and emotional disturbance benefit from a two-armed approach to care, that is, one medical and the other educational. For example, it is likely that a medical audiologist originally diagnoses hearing impairment, and an educational team subsequently determines the disability. Likewise, an autism team in a clinical or medical setting will diagnose ASD, whereas an educational team, again, will determine disability in the school context. In contrast, in the United States, very few children with DLD are diagnosed outside of the educational setting. The medical/clinical arm is typically not available.

The medical model is mostly rejected in U.S. public schools, in large part because of the right-minded philosophy that supports should be provided based on need and not on a diagnostic category. That said, the first step toward assessing needs is the identification or, in medical terms, diagnosis of an impairment. When undertaking that step, the SLP is being asked to apply a medical model in an educational environment. Moreover, the SLP in a school setting may not have the opportunity to take a team approach to diagnosis, making it impossible to rule out other diagnoses that may be more accurate. Even when the school SLP is confident in the diagnosis of DLD, she may find that the mismatch between her role as a "pathologist" and the culture of the educational setting inhibits her from sharing this diagnosis with parents. This dissonance has unfortunate consequences for families living with DLD.

Anecdotally, I have heard from numerous school SLPs who say they are told not to diagnose or not to label the diagnosis (and plenty who say they encounter no barriers to diagnosis). Recent research suggests that barriers do exist. In extensive interviews with mothers of children who have DLD, it is clear that SLPs in school settings often give parents vague labels (e.g., language problem), irrelevant labels (e.g., speech problem), or no diagnostic label at all ( Ash et al., 2020). Not surprisingly, the parents are confused. The lack of diagnosis interferes with their understanding of the nature of DLD, their child's prognosis, and their role in helping their child. Parents report that they want a diagnostic label. They feel better able to understand and to explain childhood language disorder to others if they have both a description and a label ( Betz & Steigerwald, 2018).

A Solution

One solution is to do a bit more of myth-busting. There is nothing in federal law that prohibits an SLP from sharing diagnostic information with a family. A parallel issue arose around the use of the term dyslexia in U.S. public schools. In response, the Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague letter to clarify that IDEA does not prohibit the use of such terms. He goes on to note that there are situations where the child's parents and the professionals who work with the child would find it helpful to have access to information about the child's specific diagnosis ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015). If district policies constrain that information sharing, we must arm SLPs with the evidence they need to challenge those policies.

An additional solution is to create interprofessional models of service delivery for children with DLD. For example, Liu et al. (2018) propose an interprofessional team approach to the differential diagnosis of DLD. They recommend a core team composed of an SLP, a pediatric psychologist, and a developmental pediatrician, with other professionals such as an audiologist, an occupational therapist, a social worker, or a special education teacher, added according to the needs of the child. A differential diagnosis derived in this way would not replace the work done in schools but would complement it by allowing the diagnosis of impairment to be separate from the determination of its educational impact. Such models could also enable receipt of interventions that complement those provided at school or interventions that stand alone when the child is not eligible for services at school. Of course, changes in insurance coverage are required to ensure that this model is equitable for all.

A Call to Action

Children with DLD are not receiving the attention they deserve from our profession. Laypeople are unaware of the importance of spoken language development. Parents of children who have DLD do not have the words to label it, talk about it, or understand it. For decades, we have known that too many children are going unidentified and that some children are particularly likely to be missed. For decades, we have known that too little research is devoted to DLD. These problems-lack of awareness, lack of service, and lack of research-feed each other. A paradigm shift is needed.

In the United States, school SLPs will always be essential to the appropriate management of DLD. At the same time, the onus is not on school SLPs alone. Those of us who do not work in schools-medical and community SLPs, researchers, and policy makers-must support the continued efforts of school SLPs to provide excellent service to children with DLD. This work will require advocacy from us in collaboration with our national organization, clear communication with the families we serve, the development of new tools, and the formation of new partnerships with schools. Also, as a field, we must develop and implement models for prevention and service delivery that take place outside of the school setting and that complement the work of school-based professionals. No one action will remedy our failures to support children with DLD. I hope that our combined actions will enable innovative solutions to long-standing problems that hamper service, knowledge generation, and advocacy for these children and their families.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant R01 DC011742-07 (principal investigator: Karla K. McGregor). Dorothy Bishop generously consulted on the steps I took to replicate the procedures in Bishop (2010). Members of the Language Lab Discussion Group at Boys Town National Research Hospital engaged in a useful discussion of the ideas presented here. Skip Kennedy assisted with graphics.

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2017). Advocate for coverage of pediatric speech-language and hearing treatment. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.AN1.22072017.62 The ASHA Leader, 22(7), 62.

Betz, S., & Steigerwald, M. (2018). Diagnostic labels and their effect on parent perspectives of child language disorders [Poster presentation]. Symposium on Research in Child Language Disorders, Madison, WI, United States. https://www.pfw.edu/departments/coas/depts/csd/images/betz_steigerwald_srcld_2018_poster_final.pdf

Brugha, T., Cooper, S. A., McManus, S., Purdon, S., Smith, J., Scott, F. J., Spiers, N., & Tyrer, F. (2012, January). NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care. Estimating the prevalence of autism spectrum conditions in adults: Extending the 2007 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey. https://files.digital.nhs.uk/publicationimport/pub05xxx/pub05061/esti-prev-auti-ext-07-psyc-morb-surv-rep.pdf

Dockrell, J. E., & Lindsay, G. (2001). Children with specific speech and language difficulties-The teachers' perspective. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980120067410 Oxford Review of Education, 27(3), 369-394.

Goodwin, B. (2016). Parent's experiences accessing speech-language 1services across socioeconomic levels within private practice settings (Publication No. 10196195) [Master's thesis, California State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 101-476, § 104 Stat. 1142 (2004).

Lindsay, G., & Strand, S. (2016, November). Children with language impairment: Prevalence, associated difficulties, and ethnic disproportionality in an English population.https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2016.00002 Frontiers in Education, 1(2).

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2018, August 8). https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/autism-and-insurance-coverage-state-laws.aspx Autism and insurance coverage State laws.

Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Fourth Edition (CELF-4). Pearson Education.

Seymour, H. N., Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. G. (2003). Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test (DELV-ST). The Psychological Corporation.

Unumb, L. S. (2015). Legislating autism coverage: The conservative insurance mandate. Belmont Law Review, 2, 59.

Wittke, K., & Spaulding, T. J. (2018). Which preschool children with specific language impairment receive language intervention? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(1), 59-71.https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-17-0024

Author Notes

Disclosure: Karla K. McGregor is a founding member of DLDandMe.org and a current member of RADLD.org. Both are unpaid positions.

Editor-in-Chief: Holly L. Storkel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How We Fail Children With Developmental Language Disorder

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Purpose For over two decades, we have known that children with developmental language disorder (DLD) are underserved. We have also known that DLD does not attract the research attention that it merits given its prevalence and impact. The purposes of this clinical focus article are to present evidence that these failures continue, explore the reasons behind these failures, and propose solutions.

# data[].attributes.body
via First & Tenth Studio

(This company currently does not have a website.)

This pad was a gift from a friend.

# data[].attributes.body
Via Writing Reminders by Jim Burke

# data[].attributes.body
via Reading reminders: Tools, Tips, and Techniques by Burke

# data[].attributes.body
via Reading reminders: Tools, Tips, and Techniques by Burke

# data[].attributes.body
via Writing reminders: Tools, Tips, and Techniques by Burke

# data[].attributes.body
via The Writing Revolution

You will need to create a free account to access their free resources.

# data[].attributes.body
via Writing Better: Effective Strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties by Graham & Harris

# data[].attributes.body
via Writing reminders: Tools, Tips, and Techniques by Burke

# data[].attributes.body
via Writing reminders: Tools, Tips, and Techniques by Burke

# data[].attributes.body
via Writing reminders: Tools, Tips, and Techniques by Burke

# data[].attributes.body
via Writing reminders: Tools, Tips, and Techniques by Burke

# data[].attributes.body
via Writing reminders: Tools, Tips, and Techniques by Burke