# data[].attributes.headline
Achieve the Core Foundational Skills Guidance Document

# data[].attributes.subject
Achieve the Core Foundational Skills Guidance Document

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This guide outlines the essential instructional components to teach early reading skills. It helps teachers build their own knowledge of the components of foundational skills: print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, and fluency. It also provides helpful rules of thumb, suggested activities, and grade-specific best practices to support the explicit teaching of foundational skills.

Included are:

Content: The Components of Foundational Skills

Instructional Moves: The "How" of Foundational Skills

Grade-Level-Specific Guidance for Kindergarten

Grade-Level-Specific Guidance for 1st Grade

Grade-Level-Specific Guidance for 2nd Grade

Pitfalls or Challenges FAQs

Foundational Skills Weekly Planning Template

Effective Enhancements

Decodable Readers Protocol

Foundational Skills Assessment Protocol

Phonemic Awareness in Young Children: Simplified Scope and Sequence

Formative Assessments for Phonological Awareness

Phonological Awareness Diagnostic Tracker

Send Feedback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This guide outlines the essential instructional components to teach early reading skills. It helps teachers build their own knowledge of the components of foundational skills: print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, and fluency. It also provides helpful rules of thumb, suggested activities, and grade-specific best practices to support the explicit teaching of foundational skills.

# data[].attributes.body
Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction

# data[].attributes.body
Core Knowledge Assessment and Remediation Guide

# data[].attributes.body
Fluency Norms Chart 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
View the results of the updated 2017 study on oral reading fluency (ORF) by Jan Hasbrouck and Gerald Tindal, with compiled ORF norms for grades 1-6. You'll also find an analysis of how the 2017 norms differ from the 2006 norms.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Fluent Reader: Oral and Silent Reading Strategies for Building Word Recognition, Fluency, and Comprehension by Tim Rasinski

# data[].attributes.subject
The Fluent Reader: Oral and Silent Reading Strategies for Building Word Recognition, Fluency, and Comprehension by Tim Rasinski

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Posted:

Whole-Class Choral Reading
Setting aside small amounts of time in your daily instruction to practice reading fluency can make a huge difference for your students. Classroom strategies for increasing fluency can be employed using text passages that are currently a part of your existing curriculum or you may choose to supplement with other texts, particularly for certain strategies such as repeated reading (outlined below). A critical principle of fluency instruction is that students must have sufficient practice with a variety of texts. Strategies that provide practice with independent and instructional level texts encourage fluency development in readers. Below, we briefly mention several fluency strategies while a more detailed description is available for each at the link provided at the end of the description.
"That Sounded Good!" Using Whole-Class Choral Reading to Improve Fluency 16 Minutes of "Eyes-on-Text" Can Make a Difference: Whole-Class Choral Reading as an Adolescent Fluency Strategy The Importance of Adolescent Fluency Alternative Text Types to Improve Reading Fluency for Competent to Struggling Readers Paired or Buddy Reading
Whole-class choral reading is a strategy where all students read the same text aloud with the teacher. This is a powerful assisted reading strategy that can use either a repeated-reading or wide-reading implementation. Texts can and should be drawn directly from the curriculum. In a repeated-reading protocol, the same text is read multiple times across several days. With a wide-reading implementation, different but very similar texts are read each day. An example of a similar text might be an extended story where each day the next succeeding paragraph(s) is read. Whole-class choral reading provides many benefits for students. For example, students are able to hear a model of good reading because the teacher leads the class in reading. This also means that students are provided with immediate assistance on pronouncing unfamiliar words and phrases. Because students read with the teacher, they also hear a model of prosodic reading while they are reading. A key feature of choral reading is that it provides a safe "cover" for struggling readers as individual students are neither asked to read nor are they singled out for either good or poor reading. All praise and correction is given to the class as a single entity and not to individual students. Research evidence suggests that whole-class choral reading helps both proficient and struggling readers whether implemented in reading or content classes. The link below provides explicit implementation instructions.
Using Paired Reading to Increase Fluency and Peer Cooperation Repeated Reading
Paired or buddy reading is a peer-assisted learning strategy (PALS), where students read in groups of two; while it is most often used in the elementary grades, it can be used in older grades as well. In this strategy students take turns reading the text to each other. It is helpful if less fluent readers are paired with a more fluent reader. Texts are chosen that serve the curricular needs of the class and that are at the independent reading level of the better reader, but not so difficult that the partner is frustrated. It's important that a routine for paired reading be decided in advance by the teacher. Directions for how students will take turns reading, how they will handle instances where a student does not know a word, how to check for understanding, and how long a paired reading session will last must be decided in advance. The link below provides instructions for implementation.
SAP Fluency Packets Fluency Development Lesson
Repeated reading refers to instances when students read the same text several times. Often, repeated readings are distributed across several days where the passage is read two or three times the first day to reinforce proper pronunciation and phrasing, and then once a day for two to three more days. The idea is to help the student increase their automaticity with words and phrases specific to the text. This automaticity will then transfer to words and phrases in other texts. Repeated reading can be implemented in a one-on-one basis where a teacher or paraprofessional works directly with the student, in small groups, or as a whole class. In other instances, repeated reading is a feature within a strategy such as whole-class choral reading. SAP provides fluency packets at the link below:

Fluency instruction is not something that is "in addition to;" rather, it is intrinsic to effective reading instruction. The luency evelopment esson (Rasinski et al., 1994) was recognized by the National Reading Panel (2000) as an effective approach to developing fluent readers in grades 1-3. The FDL routine uses a Gradual Release of Responsibility model where the teacher shifts reading responsibility for reading to the students. At its essence, the FDL uses short pieces of text including poems, rhymes, and segments of stories which students read aloud in unison with the teacher (choral reading) several times (repeated reading). The reader should refer to the link below for the FDL instructional protocol. The Fluency Packets on Achieve the Core are very similar to this technique.

Would you recommend this article?

About the Author: David Liben is the Senior Content Specialist of the Literacy and English Language Arts team at Student Achievement Partners. David has taught elementary, middle school and high school students in public and private schools, as well as community college and teacher preparation courses, in New York City and Vermont. David still spends as much time as possible in schools with teachers and children. Together with Meredith Liben, David founded two innovative model schools in New York City - New York Prep, a junior high school in East Harlem, and in 1991, the Family Academy - where he served as Principal and lead curriculum designer. David holds a bachelor's degree in Psychology from the University of Wisconsin and a master's degree in school administration from Teachers College, Columbia University.

About the Author: David D. Paige is Associate Professor of Education at Bellarmine University in Louisville, Kentucky. After a 20-year career in business, Dr. Paige began his educational career as a special educator in an urban middle school in Memphis, TN. After completed his doctoral studies at the University of Memphis, Dr. Paige entered higher education where his work in schools includes early reading instruction, reading fluency, assessment, vocabulary, and comprehension in children from poverty. Dr. Paige presents regularly at national conferences such as the International Reading Association, the Association of Literacy Researchers and Educators, the American Educational Research Association, the Consortium for Research Accountability and Teacher Evaluation, the Standards Institute and Student Achievement Partners. In the summer of 2015 Dr. Paige was the recipient of the Jay and Maureen McGowan Presidential Award where he visited to Oxford University as a visiting research scholar. Dr. Paige has published his research in a variety of national journals including Reading & Writing, The Journal of Literacy Research, The Reading Teacher, Reading Psychology, Reading Horizons, Literacy Research and Instruction, the Yearbook of the Association of Literacy Researchers and Educators, the Journal of Adult and Adolescent Literacy, Cogent Education, and the Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, as well as several book chapters. Dr. Paige is Executive Director of the Thinking Schools Academy, an initiative to improve teaching and learning in India, and holds credentials as a special educator and school administrator. Dr. Paige is President-Elect of the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers, a national literacy organization.

A reading interventionist explains the strategies she uses to help struggling readers benefit from complex texts.

01/27/16, Katherine Linnehan

Strategies to scaffold instruction of Standards-aligned, complex texts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Building Reading Fluency - Achieve the Core Aligned Materials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Setting aside small amounts of time in your daily instruction to practice reading fluency can make a huge difference for your students. Classroom strategies for increasing fluency can be employed using text passages that are currently a part of your existing curriculum or you may choose to supplement with other texts, particularly for certain strategies ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Literacy experts David Liben and David Paige explain the characteristics of reading fluency

Posted:

How do you define "reading fluency?" For many, the term may be a little hazy - something to do with being able to read "well," but they aren't exactly sure what "well" encompasses.

It's important for educators to be able to define the characteristics of reading fluency and have materials to help their students gradually build those skills through consistent practice. Achieve the Core's Fluency Packets are sets of materials uniquely designed to address the skills needed to read fluently. The packets are intended for use in grades 2-12 (although in some instances, advanced students can start in grade 1). Each packet contains about 40 passages (enough to use one passage per week), along with comprehension questions, vocabulary, and instructions for use.
Word Identification Accuracy
What is reading fluency, however? What skills should you focus on when you allocate class time to working on reading fluency? The following are the characteristics of reading fluency:
Pacing
Students who understand the principles of phonics know the sounds of the English language are represented by printed letters and letter combinations, and when combined into letter strings make the words we use in speech. They have also learned the numerous rules and exceptions that regulate how these words are transferred from print to speech, a process we call decoding. With sufficient practice, readers learn to accurately and instantly recognize a large number of words without applying their decoding knowledge. These words become part of the reader's long-term memory. The "automatic" retrieval from long-term memory is accomplished without conscious awareness and consumes little if any of the reader's mental resources, allowing them to focus on comprehension. The extent to which a reader correctly identifies words in text is called word identification accuracy and reflects the efficiency with which the student has learned and can decode words. Thus, decoding knowledge provides the reader with a "bootstrapping" capability to self-learn new words. Unfortunately, disfluent readers with an insufficient knowledge of the decoding system can become quickly frustrated with what they may consider to be an exhausting and uninteresting activity of little value. In sum, the accuracy with which a reader decodes words in connected text is one reflection of an efficient reading system and an important indicator of fluent reading.
Prosody
The second indicator of smooth reading is the ability to read the text at an appropriate pace. Pacing is affected not only by accurate and automatic word reading, but also by familiarity with the syntax used by the author. Others factors involving comprehension processing can also affect the pace at which text is read. What is an appropriate pace? It is not speed reading. Encouraging students to read unnaturally fast will almost certainly result in poorer comprehension because the student must focus their attention on reading words quickly rather than on constructing deep meaning. Experts who study reading fluency suggest that the pace at which humans engage in conversation can be considered a rough approximation for appropriate oral reading. Of course we all know people who speak quickly and others who speak more slowly. The point here is that as teachers, we allow for the normal variance in speech when determining what represents conversational pacing for fluent reading. The goal for instruction, then, is to encourage students to read at a conversational pace that mimics their normal speech. As students grow in their reading ability they often read at a faster pace when reading silently because the articulation used to produce speech is not required.

Like the other two, this third indicator of reading fluency occurs in both oral and silent reading. Reading with prosody, or expression, is what the reader does to make the text mimic normal speech. Prosody is critical to human language because it acts as a sort of "cognitive framework" that helps us to comprehend when engaged in speaking and listening. Imagine listening to a fast-talking, monotone individual - it quickly becomes difficult to make meaning and stay engaged as a listener. Perhaps you've heard two people talking in a language you don't understand. After listening carefully you'll hear a "rhythm" to their speech that consists of pauses, inflections, phrases, and expression. What you're hearing is prosody and it helps the listener understand what's being said. Research suggests that students who read with prosody are more likely to understand what they read than those who do not.

For a deeper look at what reading fluency is and how to achieve it, see the Reading Fluency Overview attached at the bottom of this blog post.

About the Author: David Liben is the Senior Content Specialist of the Literacy and English Language Arts team at Student Achievement Partners. David has taught elementary, middle school and high school students in public and private schools, as well as community college and teacher preparation courses, in New York City and Vermont. David still spends as much time as possible in schools with teachers and children. Together with Meredith Liben, David founded two innovative model schools in New York City - New York Prep, a junior high school in East Harlem, and in 1991, the Family Academy - where he served as Principal and lead curriculum designer. David holds a bachelor's degree in Psychology from the University of Wisconsin and a master's degree in school administration from Teachers College, Columbia University.

About the Author: David D. Paige is Associate Professor of Education at Bellarmine University in Louisville, Kentucky. After a 20-year career in business, Dr. Paige began his educational career as a special educator in an urban middle school in Memphis, TN. After completed his doctoral studies at the University of Memphis, Dr. Paige entered higher education where his work in schools includes early reading instruction, reading fluency, assessment, vocabulary, and comprehension in children from poverty. Dr. Paige presents regularly at national conferences such as the International Reading Association, the Association of Literacy Researchers and Educators, the American Educational Research Association, the Consortium for Research Accountability and Teacher Evaluation, the Standards Institute and Student Achievement Partners. In the summer of 2015 Dr. Paige was the recipient of the Jay and Maureen McGowan Presidential Award where he visited to Oxford University as a visiting research scholar. Dr. Paige has published his research in a variety of national journals including Reading & Writing, The Journal of Literacy Research, The Reading Teacher, Reading Psychology, Reading Horizons, Literacy Research and Instruction, the Yearbook of the Association of Literacy Researchers and Educators, the Journal of Adult and Adolescent Literacy, Cogent Education, and the Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, as well as several book chapters. Dr. Paige is Executive Director of the Thinking Schools Academy, an initiative to improve teaching and learning in India, and holds credentials as a special educator and school administrator. Dr. Paige is President-Elect of the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers, a national literacy organization.

Strategies to scaffold instruction of Standards-aligned, complex texts

Focusing on building a student-centered classroom through digital applications

A reading interventionist explains the strategies she uses to help struggling readers benefit from complex texts.

01/27/16, Katherine Linnehan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Reading Fluency? - Achieve the Core Aligned Materials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do you define "reading fluency?" For many, the term may be a little hazy - something to do with being able to read "well," but they aren't exactly sure what "well" encompasses. It's important for educators to be able to define the characteristics of reading fluency and have materials to help their students gradually ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Writing Revolution - Empower teachers to help students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By training educators in The Hochman Method©, The Writing Revolution (TWR) aims to help all students become proficient writers, readers, and critical thinkers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ELA Curriculum | K-5 Reading & Writing English Language Curriculum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our goal is to provide the best English language reading & writing resources that will improve the next generation’s classroom learning. Contact us today!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using a fundamentally different approach to teaching reading, Amplify Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA)™ sequences deep content knowledge with research-based foundational skills.

# data[].attributes.body
(downloads)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EL Education K-8 English Language Arts (ELA) | K-8 Curriculum | Open Up Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Award-winning K-8 ELA curriculum. EL Education is nationally acclaimed for grades K-8. Learn more about K-8 ELA curriculum available from Open Up Resources today.

# data[].attributes.body
(free downloads)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For users of the EL Education K-5 Language Arts Curriculum content: Unless otherwise indicated, all work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Establish a foundation for reading, spelling, and handwriting in Tier 1 and Tier 2.

Fundations ® utilizes a structured literacy approach grounded in the science of reading to make learning to read fun while laying the groundwork for lifelong literacy. The program's research-based approach and extensive materials allow K-3 teachers to confidently present a carefully structured reading, spelling, and handwriting curriculum using engaging, multisensory techniques. Fundations is aligned with the science of reading and guides teachers to provide effective instructional practices.

WEBINAR RECORDiNG AVAILABLE

More Fun in 2023!
Explore What's New With Fundations®

Explore FUN HUB ® and our new Fundations Student Workbooks for Levels 1 and 2. Learn how these easy-to-use resources and materials enhance learning.

A Structured Literacy Approach Grounded in the Science of Reading

Teach the foundational skills that at-risk readers need and all students benefit from.

A structured literacy approach to foundational skills grounded in the Science of Reading contains the instructional topics and principles critical for foundational reading and writing success. Fundations' unique and multisensory approach to instruction makes learning efficient and effective while maximizing valuable classroom time. Instruction and practice occur in a systematic, cumulative, explicit, diagnostic, and integrated manner, allowing students to experience greater gains in the skills required for independent reading and spelling.

Student focus

Tier 1/Prevention: All K-3 students;
Tier 2/Early intervention: All struggling or at-risk K-3 readers in the lowest 30th percentile.

Professional learning & support

●Wilson Academy ®/Fundations Learning Community (online)

●Program Workshops

●Virtual Implementation Support

●Facilitator and Presenter Certifications

●Sustainability Plans

●Demonstration Sites with On-Site Coaching

Critical Fundational Skills Instruction

Fundationsstudents receive a systematic program in critical foundational skills emphasizing:

Print concepts

Letter formation

Phonological and phonemic awareness

Sound mastery

Phonics, word study, and advanced word study

Trick word (high frequency word) instruction

Vocabulary

Accuracy, Automaticity, and Fluency

Comprehension strategies

Handwriting

Spelling

The Pre-K Activity Set introduces Fundations activities for learning letter-keyword-sound, alphabetic order, and letter-formation skills.

Instruction and Intervention Within an MTSS/RTI Framework

Fundations serves as a foundational prevention program to help reduce reading and spelling failure. It is integral to an MTSS or RTI framework, providing research-based instruction in Tier 1 as well as Tier 2 for students at risk for reading difficulties. To support the implementation of an MTSS or RTI framework, progress monitoring is built into Fundations. This allows students requiring a more intensive program to be identified early.

Find the Right Instruction

In Grades 2 or 3, some students may not make sufficient progress in early intervention or require more intensive instruction due to a language-based learning disability. In these instances, instruction with the more comprehensive Wilson Reading System® (WRS) by a WRS Certified teacher would be appropriate.

As a teacher, I want my students to have a toolbox of strategies they can use to decode words. I don't want them to look at an unknown word and feel overwhelmed. Fundations has given my first graders the confidence to look at a multisyllabic word, break it into its parts, and then look for recognizable chunks like blends, glued sounds, and v-e patterns.
Lindsay Ciccone, First Grade Teacher, Madison, CT

Fundations Curriculum

Familiarize yourself with the skills and concepts taught in each of Fundations' four levels.

Fundations Implementation

Use in your general education classroom with all students and incorporate the intervention component as needed.

Fundations Materials

Comprehensive program materials allow K-3 teachers to confidently present a carefully structured foundational skills program using engaging, multisensory techniques.

Implemented Across the Country

Impact and efficacy studies of thousands of kindergarten and first grade students, including English learners, have demonstrated that Fundations students make greater gains in foundational literacy skills compared with students using other programs.

See what states have recognized Fundations

Fundations® Learning Community

With Fundations, you gain access to this membership-based companion site, which supports individuals teaching Wilson's programs. Gain access to reference and instructional materials, expert tips, and more.

FUN HUB® + Fundations Are Better Together

Strengthen Your Fundations Implementation with Exciting New FUN HUB Features

Unit Test Tracker

Say goodbye to managing spreadsheets!

Enhanced Digital Manual

Direct access to a dynamic PDF that allows for annotations.

Enhanced Search

Quickly find resources and materials when you need them!

Not an administrator? Your school or district may purchase a FUN HUB license for you. We encourage you to contact your school administrator, curriculum director, or the person responsible for digital purchases to find out how you can get access.

Ways to Subscribe

Qualifying Fundations materials purchased after January 5, 2023, include an individual license for an annual recurring subscription to FUN HUB.

Classroom Set (any Level)
Teacher Kit (any Level)
Multi-Level Kit (any Level)

Teacher's Manual (any Level)
Level 3 Implementation Kit
WinPrin Seat

Individual licenses to FUN HUB can be purchased for $95/year per user. Click on the button below to submit a purchase order. If you're paying with a credit card, please call Customer Support at 800.899.8454.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fundations - Wilson Language Training Corporation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WEBINAR RECORDiNG AVAILABLE More Fun in 2023! Explore What's New With Fundations® Explore FUN HUB® and our new Fundations Student Workbooks for Levels 1 and 2. Learn how these easy-to-use resources and materials enhance learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Great Minds (information on full ELA program)

# data[].attributes.subject
Great Minds (information on full ELA program)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
is a comprehensive K-8 English language arts curriculum crafted to help students build the knowledge and skills they need to be successful readers, exceptional writers, and effective communicators.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wit & Wisdom® - Elementary and Middle School ELA Curriculum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wit & Wisdom® is a K-8 English language arts (ELA) curriculum from Great Minds® that provides knowledge and skills to help students read, write, and communicate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Each book in the collection is designed to cultivate a deep reading experience, enabling students to apply decoding skills while building knowledge in history, science, and the arts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Geodes Library Preview | Level K-2 Titles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Each book in the collection is designed to cultivate a deep reading experience, enabling students to apply decoding skills while building knowledge in history, science, and the arts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Phonemic Awareness in Young Children by Marilyn Adams

# data[].attributes.subject
Phonemic Awareness in Young Children by Marilyn Adams

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free reviews of K-12 instructional materials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our reports offer information about a program's alignment to the standards.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mississippi Department of Education 's Third Grade Guide to Supporting Family Involvement

# data[].attributes.subject
Mississippi Department of Education 's Third Grade Guide to Supporting Family Involvement

# data[].attributes.headline
Mississippi Department of Education Division of Literacy

# data[].attributes.subject
Mississippi Department of Education Division of Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Office of Elementary Education and Reading, Division of Literacy is responsible for supporting and training K-3rd grade teachers, curriculum specialists, and other educators by providing research-based instructional strategies on literacy. Passed during the 2013 legislative session, the Literacy-Based Promotion Act (LBPA) places an emphasis on grade-level reading skills, particularly as students progress through grades K-3. Please see the FAQ for any questions.
Contacts: K-3 Assistant State Literacy Coordinators: 2022-2023 Literacy Coach Recruitment State Literacy Plan: Literacy Support School(s) Resources and Supports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Office of Elementary Education and Reading, Division of Literacy is responsible for supporting and training K-3rd grade teachers, curriculum specialists, and other educators by providing research-based instructional strategies on literacy. Passed during the 2013 legislative session, the Literacy-Based Promotion Act (LBPA) places an emphasis on grade-level reading skills, particularly as students progress through grades K-3.

# data[].attributes.headline
Spelling City (website for lists of words with different phonics patterns and grade-level word lists)

# data[].attributes.subject
Spelling City (website for lists of words with different phonics patterns and grade-level word lists)

# data[].attributes.headline
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) MSWord version

# data[].attributes.subject
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) MSWord version

# data[].attributes.headline
MDE Literacy Focus of the Month Grades 6-12

# data[].attributes.subject
MDE Literacy Focus of the Month Grades 6-12

# data[].attributes.headline
Achieve the Core Foundational Skills Resources

# data[].attributes.subject
Achieve the Core Foundational Skills Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All students should have access to the instruction, materials, and practice opportunities necessary for them to flourish as readers. For most students, coherent, structured reading foundational skills instruction is critical to unlock the code of written language. Below are planning resources to support the components of reading foundational skills instruction.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Megabook of Fluency by Tim Rasinski and Melissa Cheesman Smith

# data[].attributes.subject
The Megabook of Fluency by Tim Rasinski and Melissa Cheesman Smith

# data[].attributes.headline
Tim Rasinski and the Ohio Literacy Alliance

# data[].attributes.subject
Tim Rasinski and the Ohio Literacy Alliance

# data[].attributes.body
(free passages and guidance for high school fluency screening)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Quick and Easy High School Reading Assessments
Adolescent readers are often expected to read texts in their content classes that are too difficult for them. This guarantees failure and frustration on the part of students and teachers. By administering a simple and efficient 1-minute fluency probe, content teachers can determine which of their students are simply unable to read grade level texts. To meet the needs of students who are reading below grade level, teachers can search the Eureka Trade Books collection to find authentic alternative texts.

The following 1-minute probes, developed by Tim Rasinski at Kent State University, were drawn from 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade content textbooks. Their use provides reliable data on high school students' reading ability.

Below are links to the reading passages as well as instructions for administering the probes in PDF format and a link to the electronic scoring sheet.

Directions for administering the Graded Passages
Computer assisted scoring for Graded Passages results
Set A - Cities
Set B - Intrigues and Explorations
Set C - Artists
Set D - Biographies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ohio Literacy Alliance - Quick and Easy High School Reading Assessments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Adolescent readers are often expected to read texts in their content classes that are too difficult for them. This guarantees failure and frustration on the part of students and teachers. By administering a simple and efficient 1-minute fluency probe, content teachers can determine which of their students are simply unable to read grade level texts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tim Rasinski's THree Minute Reading Assessments (Grades 1-4)

# data[].attributes.subject
Tim Rasinski's THree Minute Reading Assessments (Grades 1-4)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Short Passages and Step-by-Step Directions to Assess Reading Performance Throughout the Year-and Quickly Identify Students Who Need Help

Professional Book
14.99

Short Passages and Step-by-Step Directions to Assess Reading Performance Throughout the Year-and Quickly Identify Students Who Need Help

This item does not qualify for OUR member pricing

Your order will ship on or around the release date

Item #: NTS965089

ISBN13: 9780439650892

Format: Professional Book

Pages: 64

Genre:

More...

Grades: 1 - 4

Funding Type:

Less...

More

Leveled passages with ready-to-use assessment pages help teachers quickly screen students for reading problems, such as low word recognition, poor fluency rate, and inadequate comprehension. Rubrics and grade-level norms make interpreting the data simple and easy, and record-keeping forms allow teachers to document and monitor student performance all year long. Meets Reading First guidelines. 64 pages.

Click here to learn more about Scholastic Professional

eBook
11.24

Short Passages and Step-by-Step Directions to Assess Reading Performance Throughout the Year-and Quickly Identify Students Who Need Help

LIST PRICE: 14.99 You Save 3.75 (25.0%)

This item does not qualify for OUR member pricing

Your order will ship on or around the release date

Item #: NTS519277

ISBN13: 9780545192774

Format: eBook

File Type: pdf

Genre:

More...

Grades: 1 - 4

Funding Type:

Title I, School Improvement,

More...

Less...

More

Leveled passages with ready-to-use assessment pages help teachers quickly screen students for reading problems, such as low word recognition, poor fluency rate, and inadequate comprehension. Rubrics and grade-level norms make interpreting the data simple and easy, and record-keeping forms allow teachers to document and monitor student performance all year long. Meets Reading First guidelines.

This item does not qualify for OUR member pricing

Your order will ship on or around the release date

Item #: NTS965089

ISBN13: 9780439650892

Format: Professional Book

Pages: 64

Genre:

More...

Grades: 1 - 4

Funding Type:

Less...

More

Leveled passages with ready-to-use assessment pages help teachers quickly screen students for reading problems, such as low word recognition, poor fluency rate, and inadequate comprehension. Rubrics and grade-level norms make interpreting the data simple and easy, and record-keeping forms allow teachers to document and monitor student performance all year long. Meets Reading First guidelines. 64 pages.

Click here to learn more about Scholastic Professional

3-Minute Reading Assessments: Word Recognition, Fluency, and Comprehension: Grades 1-4

Professional Book

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
leveled assessment low word recognition poor fluency rate inadequate comprehension rubric response to intervention rti professional book books teacher teaching resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3-Minute Reading Assessments: Word Recognition, Fluency, and Comprehension: Grades 1-4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leveled passages with ready-to-use assessment pages help teachers quickly screen students for reading problems, such as low word recognition, poor fluency rate, and inadequate comprehension. Rubrics and grade-level norms make interpreting the data simple and easy, and record-keeping forms allow teachers to document and monitor student performance all year long.

# data[].attributes.headline
What Works Clearinghouse  Practice Guide

# data[].attributes.subject
What Works Clearinghouse  Practice Guide

# data[].attributes.body
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through Third Grade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Timothy Rasinski is a professor of literacy education at Kent State University. He has written over 150 articles and has authored, co-authored or edited over 15 books or curriculum programs on reading education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These resources emphasize key aspects of the college- and career-ready standards, including additional support for fluency, a critical Foundational Skill. Reading at an appropriate rate, with expression and accuracy based on text and purpose, will help ensure success with grade level complex text comprehension.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Text Project (comprehensive resource site with downloadable readers)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Text Project (comprehensive resource site with downloadable readers)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TextProject is the only website with student texts and teacher guides based on the science of reading-available for free download. Download our research-based, open-access resources for teachers, teacher educators, parents, tutors, and students.

TextProject is the only website with high-quality student texts and teacher guides that are all available for free download.

download-student-texts-banner

Leveled | Research-based | Open access

Vocabulary instruction through networks of words

Vocabulary instruction through networks of words

A blog and video series based on evidence from reading research

A blog and video series based on evidence from reading research

Free Classroom Materials for Teaching Reading

Classroom-proven resources including favorite books, reading passages, vocabulary lessons, word pictures, literacy lists & forms.

Free Student Texts

Free texts for reading instruction! TextProject is the sole website with free texts based on the science of reading.

For programs such as BeginningReaders and FYI for Kids, world-renowned researcher and teacher educator, Patricia Cunningham, has written lessons to accompany the texts.

Vocabulary Instruction

Vocabulary is the strongest predictor of reading comprehension. TextProject provides free resources for the four kinds of vocabulary words that contribute to reading comprehension: core, academic, content-area, and literary.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Strategies, tools, and texts to bring beginning and struggling readers to proficient levels of literacy

# data[].attributes.headline
Explode the Code Books (A, B, C, and 1-8)

# data[].attributes.subject
Explode the Code Books (A, B, C, and 1-8)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
explode the code educators publishing service

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Explode the Code homeschool phonics curriculum from Educators Publishing Service features child-drawn illustrations and easy phonics exercises for a homeschool-friendly early reading and literacy program.

# data[].attributes.headline
Head Start's School Readiness Effective Practice Guides

# data[].attributes.subject
Head Start's School Readiness Effective Practice Guides

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework (ELOF) Effective Practice Guides provide information about domain-specific teaching practices that support children's development. The guides show what these practices look like in early learning settings. They also help staff reflect on and improve their teaching practices. In home-based settings, teaching practices are the ways that home visitors work with families to provide experiences that support the child's development and learning, engage in responsive interactions, and use the home as the learning environment.

About the Effective Practice Guides

The guides are organized around four components of learning:

Know: Teaching practices that are effective at supporting children's development in the sub-domain

See: Video clips of effective teaching practices in action

Do: Tips to try in your own program when working with children to support their development in this sub-domain, or when working with children and parents in the home-based setting

Improve: Follows the Practice-Based Coaching (PBC) steps as a way to think about using PBC to improve domain-specific teaching practices. The steps include:

Planning Goals and Action Steps

Focused Observation

Reflection and Feedback

To learn how the guides connect to the domains and dimensions of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS ®), review the ELOF Effective Practice Guide (EPG)/CLASS® Pre-K Crosswalk.

To learn how the guides connect to the scales and dimensions of the Quality of Caregiver-Child Interactions for Infants and Toddlers (Q-CCIIT) Tool, review the ELOF Effective Practice Guide (EPG)/Quality of Caregiver-Child Interactions for Infants and Toddlers (Q-CCIIT) Crosswalk.

How to Use the Effective Practice Guides

Teachers, family child care providers, and home visitors can use the guides to learn more about how to effectively support children's growth and development across the ELOF domains.

Education managers and child development specialists can use the guides to help teachers, family child care providers, and home visitors gain insight into what effective teaching practices look like in early learning settings. Managers and specialists can also use them to think about what supports these direct service staff might need to apply new learning in their settings.

Coaches, trainers, and other professional development staff can use the guides as they work side by side with staff to apply learning and implement effective practices in their work with children and families.

Central Domains

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework (ELOF) Effective Practice Guides provide information about domain-specific teaching practices that support children's development. The guides show what these practices look like in early learning settings. They also help staff reflect on and improve their teaching practices.

# data[].attributes.headline
Learning to Read: The Importance of Both Phonological and Morphological Approaches

# data[].attributes.subject
Learning to Read: The Importance of Both Phonological and Morphological Approaches

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Add to favorites
By Dr. Deborah Berrill, Professor Emeritus, School of Education & Professional Learning, Trent University and English LD Expert, LD@school
Many children who have learning disabilities (LDs) have difficulty in reading. There are multiple reasons for this, reminding us of the complexities of the neurobiological underpinnings of LDs and how brain differences affect learning.

One of the main reading difficulties people with LDs have is in decoding printed words. People without LDs often use a phonics approach to sound out unfamiliar words but that does not work as well for many people with LDs who have difficulty in phonological processing - that is, in hearing the different sounds in words. They may also have difficulty associating sounds with letters (Lyon, 1995). This, in turn, interferes not only with the ability to sound out unfamiliar words but it also strongly affects spelling - for how could someone spell a word accurately when they do not hear all of the sounds in the word?
Click here to read more about Literacy and LDs.
Phonological awareness includes not only hearing different sounds but also being able to manipulate sounds in words. This is not something that comes naturally to people: rather, the processes of phonological awareness must be explicitly taught. This is particularly important because in the early stages of reading, phonological awareness is the strongest predictor of reading progress (Stanovich, 1986).

Adams et al (1998) indicate that a child's level of phonological awareness at the end of kindergarten is one of the strongest predictors of future reading success. Yet they also note that "more than 20 percent of students struggle with some aspects of phonological awareness, while 8-10 percent exhibit significant delays. Early intervention is crucial and can make a real difference to students with limited levels of phonological awareness" ( Comprehensive Literacy Resource for Kindergarten Teachers. Chapter 2: Phonological Awareness).

What is Phonemic Awareness?

Phonological awareness includes the ability to identify and manipulate sounds in oral language, from parts of words to syllables and phrases. Phonological awareness thus refers to a wide range of skills. Phonemic awareness is a subset of phonological awareness focusing just on the smallest units of sound in human speech. These units are called phonemes and phonemes form the sound system of a given language. The same phonemic principles apply whether the language is English or French, Greek or Chinese.

In English, although we have 26 letters in our alphabet, there are 44 phonemes (sounds) because some letters have more than one sound. For example, the letter 'a' represents one sound or phoneme in the word bat and a different phoneme in the word baby; similarly, the letter 'c' represents one sound in the word cup and a different sound in the word city. Additionally, some letters form a completely new sound when they are put together, such as 'th' in the word the or 'ch' in the word chat. For a complete list of phonemes in the English language, please click here to visit the Reading Well website.

Phonemic awareness relates to the ability to hear and identify individual phonemes. Citing multiple research studies, Bryant et al (2014: 211) note the strong "connection between young children's awareness of phonological segments, particularly of phonemes, and their progress in learning to read (Badian, 1994; Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Cardoso-Martins & Pennington, 2004; de Jong & van der Leij, 1999; Ehri et al., 2001; Muter & Snowling, 1998; Parrila, Kirby, & McQuarrie, 2004)." Many other studies consistently confirm that phonemic awareness along with letter recognition are the two best early predictors of reading success, and more recent studies have demonstrated that phonemic awareness skills influence children's broader academic success throughout most of their schooling (Blomert & Csépe, 2012; Bryant et al, 2014; Vaessen & Blomert, 2010).

Phonemic Awareness Skills

In reading, we are interested in a child's ability to distinguish the sounds in three different locations: at the beginning of words; at the end of words; and in the middle of words. Each of these is a different skill. Once these three skills are mastered, the child needs to learn how to blend sounds together to make a full word. As words becomes more complex, more complex phonemic awareness skills are needed.

There are five different types of phonemic skills of importance. These are outlined on the Reading Rockets website and include the following:

Phoneme matching - the ability to identify words that begin with the same sound.

Phoneme isolation - the ability to isolate a single sound from within a word.

Phoneme blending - the ability to blend individual sounds into a word.

Phoneme segmentation - the ability to break a word into individual sounds.

Phoneme manipulation - the ability to modify, change, or move the individual sounds in a word.

Unfortunately, many people with LDs have difficulty developing these skills. It is important to understand these skills and to recognize if a child is having difficulty with them. Teachers - and family, too - need to understand that if this is the case, it is not because the child is not trying. Rather, it is because the physiology of a child's brain makes the task extremely difficult.

Assessment FOR Learning in Phonemic Awareness

Teachers and parents can do some informal exploration of a child's phonemic awareness, starting with an exploration of their ability to segment - or isolate - sounds in short words. Let the child know that you are going to play a word game. Then tell them that you are going to say a word and they have to tell you the first sound in that word (Weiner, 1994). E.g., "What sound do you hear at the beginning of the word pat?" (/p/). This would be followed by asking, "What sound do you hear at the end of the word pat?" (/t/).

We start with the initial sound in a word first - that is the easiest. Then we ask for the last sound. If the child can do both of those, then ask, "What sound do you hear in the middle of the word pat?" (/a/). More complex versions of these skills would involve identifying consonant blends such as bl, tr, sp, at the beginning, at the end and in the middle of words.

Other tasks that help us understand a child's phonemic awareness abilities include the following:

Phoneme deletion: "What word would be left if the /k/ sound were taken away from cat?" Or, at a more difficult level, "Say the word 'play.' Now say it again but don't say /p/."

Word to word matching: "Do pen and pipe begin with the same sound?"

Blending of sounds: "What word would we have if we blended these sounds together: /m/ /o/ /p/?")

Phoneme segmentation: "What sounds do you hear in the word 'hot'?"

Phoneme counting: "How many sounds do you hear in the word 'cake'?" (Three: /k/ /ā/ /k/)

Rhyming: "Tell me all of the words that you know that rhyme with the word 'cat'."

(Stanovich, 1994).

A child may be able to do phoneme deletion relatively easily with short words but they may have more difficulty with longer words or deletions that are not at the beginning or end of the word. (E.g., "Say the word 'stale.' Now say it again, but don't say /l/.") Phonemic awareness skills are on a continuum from less complex skills, like rhyming, to more complex skills such as deletion of medial sound (sounds in the middle of words) or blends. The latter might include a task such as "Say the word 'stale.' Now say it again but don't say /t/."

The Rosner Test of Auditory Analysis Skills can be a helpful starting point. Children should be able to respond correctly to the following by the end of Grade 3.

Phonemic Awareness of Phoneme Deletion: The Rosner Test of Auditory Analysis Skills (1993) (Click here to view the Test of Auditory Analysis Skills.)

There are multiple phonemic awareness assessment tools supported by research that can be used beginning in Kindergarten and going through higher grades, including the Rosner Test of Auditory Analysis Skills (Rosner, 1993), the Test of Phonological Awareness-Kindergarten (TOPA-K; Torgesen & Bryant, 1993), the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation (Yopp, 1995) and the Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, DIBELS (Kaminski & Good, 1996). Click here to access a full list of research-supported phonemic awareness measures on the LD Online website. Having evidence to know whether or not a child has difficulty with phonological processing is essential in knowing how to best meet their needs.

If a child has difficulty with phonemic awareness, it is important to talk with the Special Education Resource Teacher at your school. They can do additional assessment and together you can plan what type of explicit instruction in auditory analysis the child will receive.

Blending Phonemes

Once a child is able to isolate sounds, they need to learn to blend those sounds together. The child would be asked, "What word do we have if we blend together the following sounds: /p/ /a/ /t/ ?" Like other phonemic awareness skills, this often needs to be taught through modelling and blending the word orally with the child. The initial slow blending needs to be done increasingly quickly so the child can hear the full word properly. What is particularly heartening is that we know that phonemic awareness training, where children are taught how to blend sounds and how to delete sounds, can be extremely effective and subsequently makes a significant difference in reading ability (e.g., Rosner, 1974; Weiner, 1994). With children who have learning disabilities, this training needs to be explicit and intensive in order to be effective.

Phonemic awareness skills of isolating and blending sounds in simple words are usually mastered by Grade 1. And the ability to manipulate phonemes is usually mastered by the end of Grade 1 or early Grade 2. For a full list of ages at which specific segmentation and manipulation skills are typically mastered, click here to visit the Reading Rockets website.

Where Does Phonics Fit In?

Phonics is an approach to reading that involves the association of sounds to written letters and includes "sounding out" unfamiliar words. A large body of research confirms that readers who can use a phonics approach by sounding out unfamiliar words are more successful readers. Yet many people with LDs have great difficulty in being able to use a phonics approach either because they cannot the different sounds (phonological awareness) or they may have difficulty in blending sounds together. Nagy, Berninger and Abbott (2006: 136) note that "an increasing body of research has documented how a variety of symptoms of reading disability can be traced to a basic phonological deficit (e.g., Adams, 1990; Morris et al., 1998; Olson, Wise, Conners, Rack, & Fulker, 1989; Shankweiler et al., 1995; Stanovich, 1986)." This challenge makes a phonics approach to reading almost useless to them.

The longstanding findings of the effectiveness of explicit teaching of phonics was again re-affirmed in a recent thee-year pilot project launched by New York City in 2008 with 700 children in ten low income schools. Results were matched with 350 children in ten demographically similar schools who did not receive the same instruction. Students who received explicit phonics teaching showed significantly greater gains than children who did not in word identification, word attack, comprehension and spelling as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson III assessment.

Metacognition Is Needed Along With Phonemic Awareness

For many aspiring readers, learning phonemic awareness skills is not enough in itself to improve reading (Weiner 1994). Instead, as both Cunningham (1986) and Wittrock (1986) emphasize, it is critical to teach children how to think about their reading - using metacognition or thinking about one's thinking - and to train them regarding when and why to use various segmentation and blending strategies to decode new words.

A number of reading software programs and reading approaches incorporate metacognitive strategies. These include the Empower TM reading program ( click here to learn more about EmpowerTM) and Lexia Core 5 R software ( click here to learn more about Lexia Core 5R), programs which are highly recommended by Ontario Provincial Demonstration Schools for students with LDs. For instance, Empower TM teaches five different decoding strategies and children explain which strategies they will use in decoding specific words. This metacognitive awareness of what strategies are being used is helpful because if those strategies don't work with a particular word, the child can purposefully choose a different strategy. This teaches them that different strategies may be more helpful for decoding different words and helps them from getting stuck in their reading.

Summary: Phonological Approaches to Reading

1. Phonemic awareness, the ability to hear and distinguish different sounds in words, has been directly correlated with reading success and achievement.

2. Children with learning disabilities are often unable to distinguish sounds or to manipulate them, making a phonics approach to reading untenable for them.

3. Explicit and intensive teaching of phonemic skills along with metacognitive awareness of when to use the different skills has proven to be successful for children who were previously unable to master these skills.

Morphological Analysis: A Complementary Approach to Strengthening Reading
Whereas phonemes are the smallest units of sound in a language, morphemes are the smallest units of meaning in a language - either in whole words or in parts of words. Morphology, the study of morphemes, explains the basis for our spelling system. People may understand morphology best when thinking about affixes (prefixes and suffixes) and root words: these are the three types of morphemes.

For instance, the word unzipped has three morphemes: the prefix un- which means "not" or "opposite;" the root or base word zip; and the suffix - ed which indicates that this was an action done in the past. Understanding morphology helps a reader determine the meaning of an unfamiliar word by enabling the reader to segment, or break down, a word into its root word and its affixes. This also helps readers better understand meaning and also spelling.

Understanding that root words in English come from a variety of languages, including Greek, Latin, French, and Anglo-Saxon, helps explain the logic behind what may seem like random differences between the spelling of different words. Research has established that knowing root words, prefixes and suffixes helps readers gain control over decoding and improves reading success as well as broader success at school (Bryant et al, 2014; Nagy et al, 2006; Wolf & Kennedy, 2003). The work of Hurry et al (2006) also demonstrates that learning about morphemes results in improvements in students' spelling.

A morphological approach thus not only complements a phonemic approach to decoding but it is of tremendous help for people who have difficulty with the phonics approach as it does not rely on the ability to hear the sounds in words. Rather, a morphological approach relies on recognizing and understanding the meanings of root words and affixes.

Unfortunately, research in North America and in England shows that some teachers do not know what morphemes are and that many who do know about them do not understand their importance for reading and spelling (Hurry et al, 2006; Wolf & Kennedy, 2003). As a result, teaching students about morphemes often does not occur or occurs only incidentally rather than explicitly (Snow, Griffin & Burns, 2005). The ramifications of this have particularly negative impact for students with LDs, many of whom have phonological challenges.
Supporting Morphemic Awareness at School
Morphemic awareness is something that should be part of regular teaching practice. Explicit teaching of common prefixes, suffixes and root words should be part of the introduction of new words and new topics.

These words should then be posted, either on chart paper with the name of the unit/topic at the top of the paper, or on a word wall. Prefixes will all be written in one colour, the suffixes in a different colour and the root words in a third colour. For example:

prefixes in green (like the "go" colour on a traffic light, signaling the beginning of the word)

suffixes in red ("stop" on a traffic light, signaling the end of the word)

Keep reviewing learned affixes and slowly add new ones. According to Honig et al (2000), the four most common prefixes in English (dis-, in/im-, re- and un-) account for 97% of prefixed words printed in school English, and the same is true for the four most common suffixes (-ed, -ing, -ly, -s/es).

Students will enjoy a game that reinforces prefixes and suffixes and root words that can be played at least once a week.
Click here to access a lesson plan for a morpheme awareness game entitled Build-a-Word Game.
Morphology is powerful, for those who know morphemes understand that the meanings of words are predictable from the meanings of their parts (Nagy & Anderson, 1984). Bear et al (2004) have shown that knowledge of morphemes is essential for accuracy in spelling and Nagy et al (2006) have shown that since almost all longer words are made up of numerous morphemes, understanding of morphemes contributes to fluency in the recognition of more complex words. Kirby and Bowers (2012) emphasize that "morphology works" as it helps increase vocabulary knowledge and understanding and it predicts reading development and achievement.

The earliest approaches to reading are sound/letter correspondences and phonological awareness training. Morphological approaches, however, can begin quite early as well.

Morphological approaches to reading make a distinct contribution to reading success by grade 4 and the impact increases as students get older and words get longer and more complex (Nagy et al, 2006).
Challenges Become Greater with Each Passing Year
More than 30 years ago, Stanovich (1986:379) noted that the "growing body of data indicates that variation in vocabulary knowledge is a causal determinant of differences in reading comprehension ability (Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982; McKeown, Beck, Omanson & Perfetti, 1983; Stahl, 1983)." By grade 4, children whose vocabulary knowledge is below grade level are likely to have difficulties in reading comprehension (Biemiller & Boote, 2006).

The challenges only become greater and more profound with each passing year. Since reading is difficult for most children with LDs, they read significantly less than children reading at grade level expectations. This difference in the amount of reading that occurs has ramifications on vocabulary development, access to new information, and learning in all academic areas. We have known this for more than 30 years. In 1984, Nagy and Anderson wrote that the children who are least motivated to read "in the middle grades might read 100,000 words a year while the average children at this level might read 1,000,000. The figure for the voracious middle-grade reader might be 10,000,000 or even as high as 50,000,000. If these guesses are anywhere near the mark, there are staggering individual differences in the volume of language experience, and therefore, an opportunity to learn new words (p. 328)." This has been reinforced by Juel & Minden-Cupp (2000) and affects learning new ideas across all subject areas.

Stanovich (1986) referred to the cumulative effect of reading challenges as "the Matthew effect," which comes from the notion that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. With this analogy, Stanovich emphasizes that the learning and knowledge gap between poor readers and good readers continues to grow and grow over time, further disenfranchising poorer readers with every passing year.

Research confirms what Stanovich (1986) indicated: the learning and knowledge gap between poor readers and good readers grows and grows over time because poor readers read less - and learn less - and good readers read more - and more complex text - with each passing year.

However, this does not need to happen. A large body of research demonstrates the powerfulness of explicit training in phonological awareness - even at grades 9 and 10. This combined with the complementary approach of morphological awareness makes a significant and life-changing impact on students who have been struggling in reading (Nagy et al, 2006).

References:

Adams, M. J., Foorman, B.R., Lundberg, I. and Beeler, T. (1998) Phonemic Awareness in Young Children: A Classroom Curriculum. Paul Brookes Publishing Co.

Beck, S., Condy, J. L. (2017). Instructional principals used to teach critical comprehension skills to a Grade 4 learner. Reading & Writing. Capetown. Vol. 8, Iss. 1.

Berninger, V., Nagy, W., Carlisle, J. Thomson, J., Hoffer, D., Abbott, S., and Aylward, E. (2003). Effective treatment for dyslexics in grade 4 to 6. In B. Foorman (Ed.,), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 382-417). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 44-62.

Blomert, L., & Cs epe, V. (2012). Psychological foundations of reading acquisition and assessment. In B. Csapo & V. Csépe (Eds.), Framework for diagnostic assessment of reading (pp. 17-78). Budapest, Hungary: Nemzeti Tanko€nyvkiado .

Bowers, P.N., Kirby, J. R. & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80, 144-179.

Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. (2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Re ading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 515-537.

Bryant, P., Nunes, T., & Barros, R. (2014). The connection between children's knowledge and use of grapho‐phonic and morphemic units in written text and their learning at school. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (2), 211-225.

Cunningham, A. E. (1986). Phonemic awareness: The development of early reading competency. Un-published doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33 , 934-945.

D'Angelo, Nadia Marie. Understanding the language bases of poor reading comprehension in English and French. PhD dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts International.

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z. and Shanahan, T. (2001), Phonemic Awareness Instruction Helps Children Learn to Read: Evidence From the National Reading Panel's Meta-Analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287. doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2

ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (1995). Beginning reading and phonological awareness for students with learning disabilities. ERIC Digest #E540. Accessed Dec. 5, 2017.
http://www.ldonline.org/article/6280/
Hart, B. & Risley, T. (2003). The Early Catastrophe: The 30 Million Word Gap. American Educator, 27, 4-9.

Hendrix, R. A; Griffin & Robert A. (2017). "Rooting" on Adolescents. Literacy Today. Newark. Vol. 35 (3), 36-37.

Honig, B., Diamond, L. and Gutlohn, L. (2000.) Teaching Reading Sourcebook: For Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. Arena Press.

Hurry, J., Curno, T., Parker, M., & Pretzlik, U. (2006). An intervention program for classroom teaching about morphemes; effects on the children's vocabulary. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Improving literacy by teaching morphemes (pp. 134-154). London, UK: Routledge.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to Read and Write: A Longitudinal Study of Fifty-four Children from First through Fourth Grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

Juel, C. & Minden-Cupp C. (2000). One down and 80,000 to go: Word recognition instruction in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 53(4), 332-335.

Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H., 111 (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215- 227.

Kirby, J.R. & Bowers, P.N. (2012). Morphology Works. What Works? Research Into Practice. Research Monograph 41. Ontario: Ministry of Education. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Morphology.pdf

Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3-27.

McCutchen, Deborah; Logan, Becky. (2011). Inside Incidental Word Learning: Children's Strategic Use of Morphological Information to Infer Word Meanings. Reading Research Quarterly; Vol. 46 (4), 334-349.

Nagy, W.E. & Anderson, R.C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304-330.

Nagy, W., Berninger, V.W. & Abbot, R. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134-147.

Nunes, T. & Bryant, P. (2006). Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. New York, NY: Routledge.

Rosner, J., & Simon, D.P. (1971). The Auditory Analysis Test: An initial report. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 384-392.

Rosner, J. (1974). Auditory analysis training with prereaders. The Reading Teacher, 27, 379-384.

Rosner, J. (1993). Helping children overcome learning difficulties. 3rd ed. New York: Walker and Company.

Savage, R., & Carless, S. (2004). Predicting curriculum and test performance at age 7 years from pupil background, baseline skills and phonological awareness at age 5. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 155-171. doi:10.1348/000709904773839815

Shapiro, L.R. & Solity, J. (2016). Differing effects of two synthetic phonics programmes on early reading development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 182-203.

Snow, C.E., Griffin, P. & Burns, M. S. (Eds.) (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.

Stanovich, K.E. (1994). Romance and reality. The Reading Teacher, 47 (4), 280-291.

Torgesen, J. K., & Bryant, B. R. (1993). Test of phonological awareness. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Torgerson, C. J., Brooks, G., & Hall, J. (2006). A systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling (DfES Research Rep. 711). London, UK: Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives. gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications.

Vaessen, A., & Blomert, L. (2010). Long-term cognitive dynamics of fluent reading development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105( 3), 213-231.

Weiner, S. (1994). Effects of phonemic awareness training on low- and middle-achieving first graders' phonemic awareness and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26 (3), 277-300.

Wolf, M. & Kennedy, R. (2003). How the origins of written language instruct us to teach A response to Steven Strauss. Educational Researcher, 32(2), 26-30.

Yopp, H. K. (1995). A test for assessing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 49, 20-29

Web Resources
Click here to access the Reading Rockets website and learn about phonological and phonemic awareness. Click here to visit the LDonline website and access the article, "Beginning Reading and Phonological Awareness for Students with Learning Disabilities". Click here to access the Saskatchewan Learning Resource, "Teaching Students with Reading Difficulties and Disabilities: A Guide for Educators".
Click here to visit the Core Knowledge website.
Click here to access the Comprehensive Literacy Resource for Kindergarten Teachers, Chapter 2: Phonological Awareness. Click here to visit the Reading Well website and access the article, "The 44 Phonemes in English". Click here to visit the Reading Rockets website and access the article, "Phonemic Awareness Assessment". Click here to visit the LDonline website and access the article, "Phonological Awareness: Instructional and Assessment Guidelines". Click here to visit the Sick Kids website and learn more about EmpowerTM Reading. Click here to visit the Lexia website and access the article, "Lexia Reading Core5". Click here to access the graphic organizer "Most Common Prefixes" on the Scholastic website. Click here to access the graphic organizer "The 20 Most Common Prefixes in the Academic Texts" on the Centre for Development & Learning website.
Phonemic Awareness Games
Click here to visit the Reading by Phonics website to access videos, learning guides, and learning activities related to phonics. Click here to visit the Top Notch Teaching website and access the article, "4 Useful Strategies to Improve Phoneme Manipulation".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning to Read: The Importance of Both Phonological and Morphological Approaches

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Dr. Deborah Berrill, Professor Emeritus, School of Education & Professional Learning, Trent University and English LD Expert, LD@school Many children who have learning disabilities (LDs) have difficulty in reading. There are multiple reasons for this, reminding us of the complexities of the neurobiological underpinnings of LDs and how brain differences affect learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Three-Cueing System by Balanced Literacy

# data[].attributes.subject
The Three-Cueing System by Balanced Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the most popular and widely referenced models for word recognition is the Three Cueing Systems model. This model suggests that there are three cues that good readers make use of to identify individual words in text. The model further places these cues in a hierarchical order of importance.

The first and most important cue is semantics (sometimes called context). The range of possible words is restricted by the context, so when children come to a word they do not know, they can "guess" based upon the context.

The second cue is syntax. English places restrictions on the order that words can be placed in a meaningful sentence, so when semantics and syntax are both considered by a young reader, the model suggests that they can make an even more educated "guess" about individual words in the passage.

The third, and least important cue, according to this model, is the letter-sound information (orthographic information).

So this model suggests that when good readers are reading, they are depending upon semantic and syntactic cues to guess each word, and then they occationally "sample" from the text to confirm their predictions.

At BalancedReading.com, we always defer to the research, and in this case, the research suggests that the Three Cueing Systsms model is inaccurate. Simple logic reveals some of the problems with the model. First of all, if we depend so heavily on context to identify words, how do we identify the first few words in a sentence? Or how do we identify words when they are out of context? Secondly, English syntax is not all that constraining - in the sentence "Mary wrote her answers on ____," the blank could be an article ("the" or "a") or it could be a noun ("paper") or it could be a proper noun ("Billy's") or it could be a pronoun ("her" or "his") or it could be an adjective ("white" "flat" "smooth" "lined" "green" "perfect" etc, etc, etc.).

When you think about it, there is simply no way to accurately "guess" words in sentences, and research has shown this to be true. People are only correct about 1 out of 10 times when they try to "guess" content words in running text. To decode text, the first and really only cue that good readers use is the orthographic information - the visual information contained in the letters in the words.

For further reading, here is a brief paper (in PDF format) that describes the model and some of its more apparent flaws. For further reading on the Three Cueing Systems, see the recent article published by Marilyn Jager Adams.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the most popular and widely referenced models for word recognition is the Three Cueing Systems model. This model suggests that there are three cues that good readers make use of to identify individual words in text. The model further places these cues in a hierarchical order of importance.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article on Three-Cueing System (the origins and the tragedy) by Marilyn Adams

# data[].attributes.subject
Article on Three-Cueing System (the origins and the tragedy) by Marilyn Adams

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Still on the topic of 'multi-cueing reading strategies' - known commonly as The Three Cueing System, or the Searchlights in England, you will find below a very important/historic/famous article written by Marilyn Jager Adams on looking for the origins of the multi-cueing graphic and notion.

You may not want (nor have the time) to wade through the whole article - but I very much wanted it on my blog to provide further evidence that we really need to address this prevailing confusion about the difference between 'multi-cueing' when this relates to using multiple cues to guess unknown printed words compared to multi-cueing when used to support meaning-making. These differences are very, very important, not arbitrary, and teachers need to understand how and why they are not one and the same thing. Teachers, and others, have commonly misinterpreted the idea of 'multi-cueing' as a list of unreliable and inappropriate word-guessing activities shown by research to be damaging to reading. Multi-cueing reading strategies amounting to such activities as: guessing printed words from the picture, context, initial letter, word shape and reading-on (then going back) - are all potentially damaging. They dilute and detract from any all-through-the-word phonics teaching and learning and give children the wrong messages about how reading/decoding (lifting the words off the page) works. It leads to children with poor reading habits that will fail them sooner or later - often unbeknown to teachers and parents.

Tragically, the perpetuation of the multi-cueing notion, where this amounts to the list of word-guessing strategies, damages professional understanding and dilutes and detracts from teachers teaching phonics comprehensively or at all. Further, it promotes the use of early books that are not easily decodable for the learner (such as repetitive or predictable texts), rather than teachers ensuring the provision of ample reading material matching any phonics taught systematically to date so that children can 'apply and extend' their phonics knowledge beyond word-level work to cumulative text level material which builds up their decoding fluency and confidence.

Before providing the full paper, I'm highlighting some snippets (in colour) from Marilyn's summary so you can immediately see the importance of her conclusion regarding the devastating effects of misunderstandings based on the three-cueing, or multi-cueing, notion for reading instruction.

Marilyn wrote:

If the intended message of the three-cueing system was originally that teachers should take care not to overemphasize phonics to the neglect of comprehension, its received message has broadly become that teachers should minimize attention to phonics lest it compete with comprehension. If the original premise of the three-cueing system was that the reason for reading the words is to understand the text, it has since been oddly converted such that, in effect, the reason for understanding the text is in order to figure out the words. How did this happen?

Further, she wrote:

Consistent with Reyes's (1992) lament, the sobering revelation of this story is the profound breach in information and communication that separates the teaching and research communities. In the world of practice, the widespread subscription to the belief system that the three-cueing diagram has come to represent has wreaked disaster on students and hardship on teachers.

Her final words which are still relevant to this day:

We must work together to rebuild the bridge, socially and intellectually, between those involved in research and practice. Toward regaining respect for as well as the productivity, morale, and forward momentum of our educational system, there may be no more important effort we can undertake.

Below is the full text - please note the dates! Here we are in 2017, however, and yet still we have such a long way to go to address ' the profound breach in information and communication that separates the teaching and research communities'. [Note that even in England, where Systematic Synthetic Phonics as the main route to lift the words off the page has been embedded in the National Curriculum, confusion remains in the teaching profession.]:
The Three Cueing System
By Marilyn Jager Adams
Visiting Scholar, Harvard University Graduate School of Education

From Adams, M. J. (1998). "The Three-Cueing System." In F. Lehr and J. Osborn (Eds.), Literacy For All Issues In Teaching And Learning, pp. 73-99. New York Guilford Press.

The meaningfulness of a text depends no more on the knowledge and thought with which it has been written than it does on the knowledge and thought with which it is read. Indeed, readers can interpret and evaluate an author's message from the print on the page only to the extent that they possess and call forth the vocabulary, syntactic, rhetorical, topical, analytic, and social knowledge and sensitivities on which the meaning of the text depends.

Over the last several decades, cognitive scientists have energetically investigated the extent to which such dimensions of background knowledge and responsiveness might explain individual differences in reading proficiency. As expected, children do contrast along such dimensions, both with each other and with the demands of their texts. Also as expected, instructional support of such knowledge and strategies generally does result in increases in the productivity of their reading. Yet, research has also shown that as children's reading experience grows, these sorts of capabilities tend to grow alongside. That is, to the extent that children do read, they generally do learn new words, new meanings, new linguistic structures, and new modes of thought in course (Stanovich, 1993).

The wisdom of the popular dictum, that reading is best learned through reading, follows directly. So, too, however, does the seriousness of its most nettlesome caveat: Where children find reading too difficult, they very often will not do it-or at least not with the sort of engagement that best fosters learning. Fortunately, with respect to the language and meaning of text, finding selections that are within a child's comfort level is rarely a problem. However, the same is not true with respect to the wording of text.
M. J. Adams Three-Cueing System
Until well into the middle grades, children's ability to understand text that is read aloud to them significantly exceeds their ability to understand the same text when reading on their own (Curtis, 1980). The bulk of this difference is traced to their difficulties in reading the words. Moreover, poorly developed word recognition skills are the most pervasive and debilitating source of reading difficulty (Adams, 1990; Perfetti, 1985; Share and Stanovich, 1995).

Words, as it turns out, are the raw data of text. It is the words of a text that evoke the starter set of concepts and relationships from which its meaning must be built. Research has shown that for skillful readers, and regardless of the difficulty of the text, the basic dynamic of reading is line by line, left to-right, and word by word. It is because skillful readers are able to recognize words so quickly that they can take in text at rates of approximately five words per second or nearly a full type-written page per minute. It is because their capacity for word recognition is so over learned and effortless that it proceeds almost sub-attentionally, feeding rather than competing with comprehension processes. Most surprising of all, research has taught us that what enables this remarkably swift and efficient capacity to recognize words is the skillful reader's deep and ready knowledge of their spellings and spelling-speech correspondences. During that fraction of a second while the eyes are paused on any given word of the text, its spelling is registered with complete, letter wise precision even as it is instantly and automatically mapped to the speech patterns it represents.

Although scientists are only beginning to understand the various roles of these spelling-to-speech translations, they are clearly of critical importance to the reading process. To the extent that knowledge of spelling-to-speech correspondences is underdeveloped (as evidenced, for example, by subnormal speed or accuracy in reading nonsense words), it is strongly and reliably associated with specific reading disability (Rack, Snowling & Olson, 1992). Moreover, research affirms that except as children have internalized the spelling-to-speech correspondences of the language, learning to recognize an adequate number of words with the speed and accuracy on which fluent reading depends is essentially impossible.

Useful knowledge of the spelling-to-speech correspondences of English does not come naturally. For all children, it requires a great deal of practice, and for many children, it is not easy. The acquisition of this knowledge depends on developing a reflective appreciation of the phonemic structure of the spoken language; on learning about letter-sound correspondences and spelling conventions of the orthography; and on consolidating and extending this knowledge by using it in the course of one's own reading and writing. Each of these accomplishments depends, in turn, on certain insights and observations that for many if not most children are simply not forthcoming without special instructional guidance and support (for review, see Adams, 1990). As researchers have gained appreciation of the critical importance of able word recognition within the reading complex, they have also uncovered reasons for its difficulty (e.g., Juel, 1994; Liberman & Liberman, 1990; Stanovich, 1986) and a variety of instructional strategies for easing, speeding, and assessing its acquisition (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Byrne & Fielding-Barnesley, 1989, 1991; Henry, 1989; Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988; Uhry & Shepard, 1993). Moreover, it is because there is far, far more to literacy development than recognizing the words that these lessons are of such crucial importance to everyone in the business of reading education.
What is the Three-Cueing System
Over the last few years, I have spent much time in schools around the country, working with teachers and administrators. My challenge has been to tell them about these lessons from research and their implications with respect to instruction. At some point during such sessions, I am almost inevitably asked how what I have said relates to the three-cueing system.

The first time I was hit with this question, I naively asked what, specifically, my audience meant by "the three-cueing system." Whose three-cueing system? Although nobody could provide a reference, someone in my audience graciously drew a schematic of the three-cueing system for me (see Figure 1).

I was greatly relieved. I understood this schematic. It looked to be nothing more or less than a Venn diagram. As such, its interpretation was straightforward. The intersection or overlap of the circles of a Venn diagram correspond to a logical AND between the sets its circles respectively represent. In logic, when an outcome depends on any number of elements linked by AND, it means that if any of those elements is missing, the outcome will not follow. Thus by depicting the meaning of a text in the intersection of its semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic cues, the Venn diagram succinctly asserts that the meaning of a text depends on all three; all three of these types of information are necessary, all three must be properly processed, and not one of them can be safely ignored or finessed except at the risk of forfeiting or distorting the meaning of the text. Sometimes, as shown in Figure 1, a fourth cueing system, pragmatics, is included to indicate that, in addition, getting to the author's point from what she or he has literally written depends on the application of practical knowledge and good sense.

Not only was the logic of this schematic clear to me, its evident message was thoroughly familiar as well. That the meaning of text is constructed by the reader as jointly determined by its lexical, semantic, and syntactic constraints had been a central theme of the reading literature in the late 1970s and early 1980s (examples include Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Bransford, Barclay & Franks, 1972; Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, and Campione, 1983; Perfetti & Roth, 1977; Rumelhart, 1980; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977; Sanford & Garrod, 198 1; Smith, 197 1; Stanovich, 1980). It was, as a matter of fact, a literature to which I, too, had contributed (Adams, 1980, 1982; Adams, M. J. Adams Three-Cueing System Anderson, & Durkin, 1978; Adams & Bruce, 1982; Adams & Collins; 1979; Huggins & Adams, 1980). I was delighted to find that the essence of the researchers' collective effort had so enduringly impressed the practitioners before me.

Feeling thus endorsed, I turned attention to how each of the three "cueing systems" could mislead a reader except as used in coordination with the others. To concretize the point, I presented a number of examples and linguistic surprises; I showed how the system explained a variety of confusions due to developmental difficulties and crosslinguistic differences; and I led my audience to share examples from their own classrooms and discuss their instructional implications. This was happy, familiar territory, and I carried on for nearly an hour. My audience was clearly interested. Yet, they also seemed a bit uncomfortable. It was evident from their faces and posture that what I was saying differed from what they were expecting in some fundamental way. Whatever they saw as the main point of this schematic, I knew I was somehow missing it.

In fact, I understate the dissonance in the room that day. When I asked these people what they meant by the three-cueing system, they looked at me as though I were from Mars. They were at least as embarrassed as I. For indeed, how could I not know? How could I present myself to them as an expert on early literacy and not know. What was at issue here was clearly not any general notion of the interplay of syntax, semantics, and graphophonemics but, rather, some particular, specific version of this notion-one with which I was frankly unfamiliar.
The Source of the Three-Cueing System
From that day on, it seemed that I encountered the three-cueing system at every turn. Not only was I asked about it again and again, but I also found pictures of or allusions to it in in-service materials across the country and at the center of a surprising number of state and district reading/language arts documents. Though the schematic differed slightly from one source to the next, the common ancestry was apparent. Casually, at first, I began to collect examples (see Appendix 1).

Idle curiosity it might have remained, except that I soon found the three-cueing system getting in the way of my efforts to communicate with practitioners more often than it helped. The problem, to my mind, was not the schematic but some of the interpretations that had become attached to it. Given the widespread familiarity of the schematic in the community of practice, I wanted to correct and clarify its intent. To do so, I needed to find the original. I was confident of the original author's logical leanings and scholarship from the very fact that she or he had chosen a Venn diagram as means of expression.

I began to search in earnest. In addition to tackling the literature, I took to asking audiences everywhere if they had encountered this schematic and if they could give me a source. People gave me copies of the schematic instead, and my collection grew. Still, in not one single instance, did the graphic include a citation of its source.

Turning to the internet, I posted a query to the TAWL (Teachers Applying Whole Language) list serve. A number of people responded, indicating their familiarity with the schematic ("I'm looking at it right now," wrote one). Some had hypotheses as to its original author. Most prominently, these suggestions included Ken and Yetta Goodman, Marie Clay, Don Holdaway, and Brian Cambourne. However, nobody was sure. Notably, Ken Goodman, who is himself a frequent participant on the TAWL list serve, seemed most perplexed of all.

In addition to asking practitioners, I probed my colleagues in educational research, beginning with those whom I have long revered as having near-encyclopedic knowledge of the literature. As it turns out, the schematic was unfamiliar to most of them, as it had been to me. Their best guesses as to its origin were by and large the same as those offered by the TAWL subscribers. A few were certain they had seen it before; they reached back into their minds with that pained look of arduous recall. I became hopeful. But again, to no avail. In every one of these cases, interestingly, what I ultimately got back was a pointer to work by Lois Bloom. Indeed, Bloom did publish such a Venn triplet, twice. In the first case (Bloom, 1970, p. 232), the circles are labeled "Cognitive Perceptual Development ... .. Linguistic Experience," and "Nonlinguistic Experience," and their overlap is labeled "Linguistic Competence." In the second (Bloom & Lahey, 1978, p. 22), the three circles are labeled "Form," "Content," and "Use," and their overlap as "Language." In other words, Bloom's graphic was similar, but her topic was not. Bloom was not the source I was seeking, but her repeated citation did affirm my faith in these people's mental inventory of the literature they had read. Whatever the true source of the three-cueing schematic, I was increasingly convinced that it was not part of the mainstream academic repertoire.

As I continued my search, several people suggested that the schematic's original printing had been in a publication of the New Zealand Ministry of Education. Brian Cutting, now Educational Director of the Wright Group/Sunshine Reading Programme and who has long been centrally involved in reading practice, policy, and research in New Zealand, valiantly volunteered to help me out on this front, but again to no avail.

Among sources of consternation in this quest was the frequency with which the schematic was used and the similarity with which it was described in state and district reading documents. Pushing this angle, I was told by several people that the schematic came from the Frameworks group. This group operates through the Wayne-Finger Lakes Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) in New York with funding from Rigby Education and the Children's Literacy Foundation, a video-disc literacy in-service enterprise started by Ben Brady, founder of Rigby of America. Featuring Jan Turbill, Andrea Butler, and Brian Cambourrie, Frameworks is an outgrowth of Australia's "Early Literacy In-service Course" (ELIC) and offers in-services throughout the country on staff development and, in particular, on how to write a reading framework document.

Working from an advertisement in the International Reading Association's newspaper, Reading Today, I called the Frameworks office and requested information. They were very cordial, but the information never came.

Turning again to the internet, I submitted a query to the "Reading Specialists Online" at the Wright Group's website. In response, one of their specialists, Katy Kane, posted a very nice explanation of the origin and interpretive intent of the schematic on the Wright Group's online Question and Answer page: The term "cueing systems" comes from Ken and Yetta Goodman, Carolyn Burke, Marie Clay, Brian Cambourne, and New Zealand's Reading in Junior Classes. Cueing systems are assessed with running records (Clay) and reading miscue analysis (Goodman, Watson, Burke, et al) to illustrate the strategies that readers have at their disposal when confronting [unfamiliar words], how these strategies are integrated, what readers do when they come to something they don't know, what patterns emerge, how well readers self correct, and always and ever, what does what they have read mean to them. The Venn diagram is used and explained in Invitations (1994) by Regie Routman.

The version of the three-cueing schematic that appears in Routman's (1988, 1994) books is included in Appendix 1. Of note, it is one of only two that I have been able to find in archival journals or books as opposed to, for example, in-service handouts, framework documents, and advertising copy. The other, which is also the oldest in my collection, is from an article by David Pearson that first appeared in Language Arts in 1976 and was later reprinted in an International Reading Association volume on What Research Says Lo the Teacher (Samuels, 1983). 1 did not find this article on my own. Instead, it was sent to me by Pearson, himself, in response to one of my end-of-talk queries. He assures me that he created it on his own in 1976. Nevertheless, he, too, had been unaware of the schematic's present-day ubiquity-and seemed wholly bemused by the thought that it might have been he who started it. In any case, if this article by Pearson (1976) is the original source for the three-cueing schematic, then, insofar as I can tell, it lay dormant for over a decade.
The Significance of the Three-Cueing System
Again, my concerns with the three-cueing system relate not to the schematic, which I find wholly sensible insofar as it goes. My concerns relate instead, and in two major ways, to the interpretations so broadly attached to the schematic.

First, the three-cueing schematic is sometimes presented as rationale for subordinating the value of the graphophonemic information to syntax and semantics and, by extension, for minimizing and even eschewing attention to the teaching, learning, and use of the graphophonemic system. This interpretation directly contradicts the logical import of the Venn diagram which, by virtue of its structure, asserts that productive reading depends on the inter-working of all three systems. More importantly in the context of instructional guidance for teachers and school districts, such marginaliziation of the role of spelling to speech correspondences is alarmingly discrepant with what research has taught us about the knowledge and processes involved in learning to read.

My second major concern is that discussion of the remaining two or three systems syntax, semantics, and pragmatics - tends to be unproductively superficial in the discourse surrounding the three-cueing schematic. Given the extreme, if inappropriate, share of the reading load that is ascribed to these sophisticated systems, this lack of guidance with respect to the instructional support that each warrants is all the more troubling.
The Demise of the Graphophonemic System
Pearson's 1976/1978 article might well have been the original source not just of the three-cueing schematic but also of the de-emphasis of spelling-sound instruction that so often attends it. With respect to graphophonemic instruction, Pearson proposes that teachers should "value most highly those phonics skill activities which allow children to utilize the most semantic and syntactic information while they are 'cracking the code,"' and, conversely, "value least highly those phonics skill activities which are most isolated from context" (Pearson, 1978, p. 90). To anchor this argument, he writes, . Efficient readers maximize their reliance on syntactic and semantic information in order to minimize the amount of print to speech processing (call this decoding, phonic, or grapho-phonemic analysis) they have to do.... For example, it doesn't take much visual or grapho-phonemic information to confirm the hypothesis that telescope fits into the sentence, "The astronomer looked through the _." (p. 86).

Presented in excerpt, however, the force of such quotes may be misleading; in journal articles as in children's literature, context matters. A full read of the paper assures that Pearson's goal is one of promoting classroom support of semantic and syntactic factors not instead of but relative to phonics. Thus, he clarifies, although initial phonics instruction may need be conducted "in isolated contexts, we will always require the intermediate phonics-in-context step before the attempt to have children transfer the skill to a real reading situation" (Pearson, 1978, p. 90). To illustrate this intermediate, phonics-in-context step, he provides examples that look very much like traditional skills worksheets and very little like the whole language activities of today; the suggested activities are primarily designed to teach phonics, albeit with semantic and/or syntactic support (e.g., given a picture of a can, choose the label: can. cane). In overview, Pearson's intention seems not in the least to dismiss or even diminish the teaching or learning of the graphophonemic system. It is instead to criticize texts and activities that are made abstruse or incomprehensible through emphasis of phonics elements to the exclusion or at the expense of the other, potentially supportive dimensions of language and learning. At the same time, he strives to emphasize the pedagogical importance of providing enlightened instructional support for the other two systems.

Pearson (1976, 1978) attributes the inspiration for his three-cueing system graphic at least the ideas that the graphic was intended to capture-to a book by Frank Smith (1975). Smith, I would agree, deserves singular credit for the philosophy that spellings and spelling/sound correspondences are essentially irrelevant to reading or leaning to read (see Adams, 1991). On the other hand, insofar as I can determine, in neither that book nor any of his others, has Smith discussed reading in terms of semantic, syntactic, and graphophonemic cueing systems.

Rather, the description of reading in terms of semantic, syntactic, and graphophonemic cueing systems seems best attributed to early work by Ken Goodman (e.g., 1970a, reprinted in Smith, 1973; Goodman, 1970b, reprinted in Singer & Ruddell, 1976). Each of the systems, Goodman explains, is necessary and used simultaneously in the reading process.

The graphophonic system, Goodman continues, is particularly useful for beginning readers as they are developing control over written language. Drawing on their oral language competence, children "recode graphic input as speech" such that "the alphabetic character of the writing system makes it possible to match sound sequences already known with less familiar graphic sequences" (Goodman, 1976, p. 48 1). The print-to speech route, he suggests, falls to secondary or back-up status only as the reader becomes proficient and, even then, he points out, "there is some echo of speech involved as the reader proceeds even in silent reading., At times, the reader may find it helpful to recode print as speech and then [construct its meaning]" (p. 482).

Meanwhile in his model, which he emphasizes "represents the proficient reader" (Goodman, 1976, p. 483), the process of rapidly sampling, predicting, and comprehending the text is continually monitored and adjusted through instant, easy access to words from their spellings and, as needed, spelling-sound correspondences. Given that the model "also represents the competence which is the goal of reading instruction" (p. 483), he quite reasonably cautions that restricting children's early instruction to isolated words and meaningless phonic elements is, at best, shortsighted. Goodman's thesis, in short, is that instruction should be designed with sensitive awareness that as readers gain in skill, their active attention is devoted less and less to sounding out words and more and more to the higher-order nuances and import of the text. In this spirit, he also provides more insightful and sophisticated discussion of the kinds of support warranted than I have seen in any recent text. Within the present discussion, however, the point is that neither can contemporary dismissal of spelling-sound instruction be traced to Goodman's early work.

If Routman (1978, 1994) borrowed the three-cueing system schematic from Pearson (1976), she does not mention him. Nor does she credit Goodman. Instead she attributes her inspiration to Holdaway (1979) and, indeed, Holdaway's express view of the utility of graphophonemic information is extreme.

Holdaway begins his discussion of graphophonemic cues with an example:' "An illuminating exercise to place oneself in a similar position to the beginning reader ... by using our own alphabetic code with deprived cues" (1979, p. 91). Through an exercise suitable to the London Times, he therewith purports to demonstrate the superfluousness of letters and spelling-sound correspondences. He then walks us, insight by insight, through an explanation of how it is that the full and complete wording of the following sentence leaps to mind, almost instantly and with incontestable clarity:

The exercise is intended to demonstrate not merely our scant dependence on letters while reading - only 12 of the 39 letters of this sentence are available - but, further, that what letter information we do use, need entail "no necessary phonic involvement" (Holdaway, 1979, p. 93). Instead, he assures us, our ready success in understanding the sentence is the product of nothing more than our deep and ready knowledge of the semantic and syntactic constraints of text. Plus our faith that the author would not write so as to foil or confuse our initial expectations. And solid sense of the informational value of word length and configuration cues. Along with an ability to parse words into roots and affixes given the scantiest visual cues. Complemented by a prodigious sense of the distributional properties and redundancies of English spelling.

Holdaway's exercise is fun. It sparkles with energy and intelligence as does his text throughout. His encrypted sentence (which, by the way, is intended to read, "Letters are not the only clues to unknown words") is a clever springboard for discussing the layers upon layers of redundancy that characterize written language. As a developmental analogy, however, it is unconvincing at best: The knowledge and processes he leads us to use in its decryption are not remotely available to the beginning reader. Nevertheless, this exercise is the departure point from which Holdaway builds his theory of how the reading process works and the instructional recommendations on which Routman, in turn, builds hers.

Routman's books, Transitions (1988) and Invitations (1994), in which she shares the attitudes and process of becoming a whole language teacher, are extremely popular among practitioners. Her treatment of phonics in her first book, Transitions (1988), is full of angst and ambivalence. On one hand, she acknowledges the pressure, from both within the educational community and without, that phonics be taught first and well; on the other, she is concerned that this pressure is misguided. On one hand, she reports that the teaching of phonics had been the main emphasis of her pre-service and graduate training; on the other, she has just read, and been strongly impressed with, Holdaway's (1979) book. On one hand, she cites the validation of phonics instruction by the then recent report of the National Commission on Reading (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985), Becoming A Nation of Readers; on the other, she does not see how such phonics emphasis can be reconciled with the report's tandem recommendation for the use of more meaningful, memorable stories with beginners. Although she has heard "enthusiastic talk by salesmen of 'predictable text,' 'meaningful story,' and 'real literature,"' the basal textbooks she has seen are still "driven by skills and phonics" (1988, p. 23). She disdains the detailed teacher manuals that accompany the basals as "demeaning to teachers and to children. They discourage independent thought and imply that teachers and students are not to be trusted" (p. 24). Yet she also reports with satisfaction her past pleasure and success in using Recipe for Reading (Traub & Bloom, 1975), a phonics supplement in which skills are taught explicitly, systematically, and in isolation.

Routman observes that good readers both know and use phonics well. In contrast, nearly all poor readers struggle with phonics and, when reading meaningful text, this struggle directly detracts from their capacity for comprehension. The epiphany came, she claims, in the course of her experience as a Reading Recovery trainee. There she has witnessed beginners who "became competent readers by relying primarily on meaning especially picture cues and memory for text" and "without ever having mastered short vowels and other phonics generalizations" (19-88, p. 45). The paradox, to her mind, was resolved. "Effective readers," she concludes, "use all three cueing systems interdependently. Ineffective readers tend to rely too heavily upon graphophonic cues" (p. 41). Moreover, she explains, "It has become crystal clear to me - and it has taken about ten years to come to this understanding - that children learn phonics best after they can already read. I am convinced that the reason our good readers are good at phonics is that in their being able to read they can intuitively make sense of phonics" (p. 44).

Thus, in her second book, Invitations (1994, p. 147), Routman presents the three-cueing schematic with the following introduction: Proficient readers function with an interdependence between the three cueing systems: semantics, syntax, and grapho-phonics. Semantic cues (context: what makes sense) and syntactic cues (structure and grammar: what sounds right grammatically) are strategies the reader needs to be using already in order for phonics (letter-sound relationships: what looks right visually and sounds right phonetically) to make sense .... While phonics is integral to the reading process, it is subordinate to semantics and syntax. (This is apparently why the graphophonic system is depicted beneath the other two in her version of the diagram. Note, however, that the position of the circles is formally of no significance to the logic of a Venn diagram. What matters is only whether they overlap partly, totally, or not at all with each other and the outcome of interest.)

The major reason for poor readers' over-reliance on graphophonic cues, Routman surmises, is its instructional overemphasis by their parents and teachers. To help teachers discourage parents from asking their children to sound words out, she provides a reproducible letter (see Appendix 2), entitled, "Ways to Help your Child with Reading at Home" (1994, p. 200b). I ask that you read through the recommendations in this letter to parents: Phonics truly seems the last resort.

To help teachers deal with unknown words without directing attention to graphophonemic cues, Routman provides a similar reproducible set of guidelines for the classroom (1994, p. 226b). In addition, she describes a few ways of introducing various phonic elements in what she deems proper subordination to other literacy goals. Although some of these activities are similar to those proposed by Holdaway (1979), the differences are also noteworthy. First, Holdaway's recommendations were intended principally for kindergarten children and motivated by his experience with Maori children who approached the challenge of learning to read with much trepidation and little notion of what it was all about. Routman's recommendations are directed to teachers across the kindergarten and primary grades. Second, although Holdaway uses context for motivation and support, he gradually does expose and exercise the full logic of the alphabetic system, if somewhat haphazardly. Routman's (1994) activities, in contrast, are focused on initial and final consonants: The vowels, she submits, are generally unnecessary for printed word recognition, and their evident difficulty should convince us that beginning readers are not developmentally ready for them anyhow. In refusing the vowels and focusing instead on bits and pieces of occasional words, Routman's approach not only denies the utility of the alphabetic principle but fails to reveal its basic logic and structure. Routman frequently acknowledges the difficulty of pursuing her avowed instructional course:

It has taken me well over ten years to feel completely comfortable with this approach. One thing that eased my further transition was holding onto the spelling workbooks for a while after I had long given up phonics worksheets. Knowing that the skills were still being covered relieved my conscience and helped my comfort level. Like many teachers, I did not believe children would really learn to read without a heavy dose of phonics first. (1994,p.149)

Encountering such remarks again and again, I kept wondering if the reason she was able to make the switch complete was because she had become a resource teacher. Visiting classrooms only "by invitation" to give demonstration lessons, she was no longer responsible for monitoring the children's larger developmental progress. In any case, here is a note Routman received from a regular first-grade teacher:

I did more phonics in context this year, noting beginning and ending sounds and digraphs in chart poems and Big Books. The kids really like the big charts we made where they could add their own words, but I am still struggling to find a balance in teaching phonics. I find myself feeling pressure from some of the second grade teachers who expect kids to arrive with solid word attack skills. Also, I feel guilty for not giving spelling tests. When I'm teaching all the phonics sounds, I feel as through I'm teaching spelling too. I still teach phonics separately even though I don't see kids transferring the skills. I notice that every time I pull a sound out of context, two or three kids give me an example of a word that doesn't fit the rule at all. I'm still not comfortable with the way I handle phonics. (1994, p. 157)

Having reprinted this letter so as to encourage others to take heart, Routman consoles,

"Most of us seem to find the transition from prescribed phonics in isolation to teaching meaningful phonics in the context of literature very difficult and slow going. It may be reassuring to know that most teachers are struggling with making phonics teaching more relevant and applicable to reading and writing" (1994, p. 157).

Whether Routman's text is its source or echo, this attitude about the disruptiveness of phonics and its instruction is one that is very broadly held in the field. Appendix 3 shows a tabular summary of the three-cueing system, used in inservice sessions provided by the California Early Literacy Learning (CELL) Project which is affiliated with the Reading Recovery center at the San Bernardino campus of the California State University. Note, in particular, the admonition at top: "Let's all work together to avoid the phrase, 'sound it out'!" According to David Pesetsky, a professor in the Linguistics Department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it was an in-school poster very like Routman's letter to parents, along with his first-grade son's steadfast insistence that he was not to sound words out, that initially triggered his own concern about how reading was being taught. Seeking an audience for that concern, first in his son's classroom, then in his son's school, then at the district level, he was ultimately given a copy of the proposed Reading Curriculum Framework for the State of Massachusetts - only to find the phonics-last philosophy promoted in that document as well.

The result was the famous letter from 40 linguists and psycholinguists to the Massachusetts Secretary of Education (see Appendix 4). The focus of the linguists' protest is the document's promotion of the view that "the decoding of written words plays a relatively minor role in reading compared to strategies such as contextual guessing. This treats the alphabetic nature of our writing system as little more than an accident, when in fact it is the most important property of written English." They conclude: We are concerned that the Commonwealth, through its powers to set standards for schools, should presume to legislate an erroneous view of how human language works, a view that runs counter to most of the major scientific results of more than 100 years of linguistics and psycholinguistics. We are even more concerned that uninformed thinking about language should lie at the heart of a "standards" document for Massachusetts schools. (See Appendix 4) Broadly circulated via the internet and in part, no doubt, because of the world renown of many of its individual signers, this letter quickly found its way into policy forums on reading across the country. In Massachusetts, it was singularly responsible for the retraction and rewriting of the state's language arts framework to include due acknowledgement of the importance of teaching children to how to understand and use phonics.

Routman's observation that good readers, as a group, are quite facile with phonics is correct. Yet her conjecture that this is because they are good readers is just backwards. Again, scientific research argues incontrovertibly that becoming a good reader depends on understanding and using spellings and spelling-sound correspondences and, conversely, that poorly developed knowledge or facility with spellings and spelling-sound correspondences is the most pervasive cause of reading delay or disability (Rack, Snowling, & Olson, 1992; Stanovich, 1986). Research further demonstrates that, with the exception of no more than 1-3% of children, reading disability can be prevented through well-designed early instruction (Vellutino et al., 1996). However, such instruction must include attention to phonics, and is most effective when it includes explicit, systematic instruction on the alphabetic principle, including phonemic awareness and on the spelling-sound patterns and conventions of English, as well as an active emphasis on practicing and using that knowledge both in isolation and in the context of meaningful reading and writing (Bond & Dykstra, 1966; Brown & Felton, 1990, Chall, 1967; Foorman et al, 1997).
The Diminution of the Other Cueing Systems.
Given that the principal argument for the de-emphasis of phonics instruction has been that children are in greater need of developing their sensitivity to the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic cues of text, one might expect an attendant surge in the amount and rigor of instruction on the latter. Yet, quite the opposite has happened. I had struggled with resulting problems a number of times from a number of angles and in a number of different situations before I realized them as part of the same elephant. One such encounter occurred as I was reviewing a draft language arts framework for one of the state departments of education. The topic was that of supporting vocabulary knowledge. The text did a laudable job of explaining the importance of ensuring that children possessed the background knowledge on which productive understanding of a word's meaning depended. However, the text neglected to mention anything about helping the children add the words per se to their vocabularies. I wrote a comment to this effect. But it went unheeded. On the next draft, I provided a carefully worded insert to the same effect. Still it was not accepted. I ran into this same oversight again as a worked on the reading advisory for another state. This time I was a legitimate co-author of the document, so I exercised the prerogative of adding the point:

Written language places far greater demands on people's vocabulary knowledge than does casual spoken language. Indeed, more advanced texts depend so heavily on precise wording to build meaning and message that, from the middle grades on, students' reading comprehension can be closely estimated by measures of their vocabulary. Students will be able to learn from these texts only if they approach them with most of the vocabulary they require. (California Department of Education, 1996, p. 9). The text goes on to discuss both the prospects of expanding one's vocabulary through reading, as explored by Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, (1987), as well as the potency of Matthew effects (the rich get richer) in understanding and retaining new vocabulary items (e.g., Robbins & Ehri, 1994), and suggests, quite sensibly I thought, that "Beginning in kindergarten, vocabulary growth should be actively supported in the classroom" (p. 10). Not long thereafter, I received an unauthorized copy of an email that had been circulating through the state internet referring to "Marilyn Adams's pernicious use of Nagy's vocabulary data." I didn't get it. I wrote to Bill Nagy. He didn't get it either.

I had a similar experience in critiquing the explanation of semantic cues in one of these draft frameworks. The text explained that semantic cues "are meaning cues used as readers bring their knowledge of the world, feelings, attitudes, and beliefs to the printed page." Correcting what again seemed to me to be nothing more than an oversight, I suggested the most minor edit: Semantic cues "are meaning cues used as readers bring their knowledge of the meanings of words and of the world, feelings, attitudes, and beliefs to the printed page." Again, the insert was rejected. How strange. After all, in cognitive psychology, the distributed semantics of words are held to be the starting points from which the meaning of text is constructed.

One of the fundamental tenets of the three-cueing rhetoric is that readers must learn to monitor their comprehension as they read. Thus, in the typical exposition of the three cueing system, a question is provided with each system. For the semantic cues, readers are to ask, "Does it make sense?" For the syntactic system, they are to ask, "Does it sound like language?" And for the pragmatic system, they are to ask, "Is this the language that should be used in this situation?" Encountering these questions in the draft framework on which I was working, it seemed to me that each could be augmented so as to give teachers better guidance as to comprehension difficulties associated with its system. With this thought in mind, I added to the semantic question, "Do I understand to what the author is referring?" To the syntactic question, I added, "Do I understand how the author wants me to interrelate the concepts s/he has named?"

But I balked at the question provided for the pragmatic system. Pragmatic sensitivity is about the larger meaning and message of the text. It is about understanding why the author chooses to say what she or he says and how she or he chooses to say it. It is about the author's point and point of view. In Goodman's words, it is about "the subtle differences between the straightforward and the sarcastic, the profane and the profound, the humorous and the serious" ( 1976, p. 832). Pragmatic processing, in short, is just another term for metacognitive processing. As such, and more so than for any of the other systems, sensitivity to pragmatics depends on readers' willingness and ability to examine the language, the cohesion, and the nuances of the text and to bring their own background knowledge actively and critically to bear. Of all the questions one might provide to clarify the role and importance of pragmatic processing, why in the world would the first choice be: "Is this the language that should be used in this situation?"

And then it hit me. In discussions of pragmatics within the three-cueing rhetoric, the standard explanation is that proficient readers, having experienced language in many contexts, are familiar with the kinds of words and language that are used in informal versus formal situations, in literature versus science, and so on. In other words, the question, "Is this the language that should be used in this situation?", is not intended to guide readers' pragmatic understanding of the text at all. It is instead intended exactly and only to remind them to use any such understanding they might have as means of assessing whether they have misidentified a word.

I was stunned. Yet, when I looked again, the questions attached to the other systems had the same character. None of these questions was directed toward supporting or strengthening the children's comprehension skills. The semantic question had nothing to do with prodding readers to monitor or extend their understanding of the text. The question is not "Does the text make sense given the words I've read?" but, instead, "Does this word make sense given my understanding of the text?" In view of this, the strong emphasis on choosing literature that matches students' prior knowledge and interests is understandable. However, the converse message - that comprehension instruction integrally involves building students' background knowledge and vocabulary so as to meet the demands of new texts tends to get lost. The latter message was among the focal points of both Pearson's (1976) and Goodman's (1970b) works. It was, moreover, among the central and critical lessons of schema theory.

Similarly, the syntax of written text is important and tricky. Syntax is language's formal means of communicating the intended relations between concepts and events, as in the difference between "Students who like school get good grades" versus "Students who get good grades like school." In reading essays and informational texts, where the motive is to create new understandings and knowledge by building new relationships between familiar concepts, syntax is vital. In understanding algebra. problems, syntax is almost all that matters; whether the problem is about a plane in the wind or a riverboat in a current is only incidental with respect to the mathematics at issue. Learning to use the syntactic cues of text well is not easy. Yet, the syntactic issue in focus with the question "Does it sound right?" is only that some strings of words are permissible in English, and some are not. The purpose of the question is only to alert the reader to syntactically anomalous word recognition errors.

I finally understood why my audience looked so puzzled on that first run-in with the three-cueing system. They had been operating on the belief that the semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic cues were straightforward and familiar to children, and, because of this, were wholly available for use in finessing the graphophonemic system, which was complicated and unfamiliar. It had never occurred to them that there was much to teach or learn about the semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic cues involved in skillful reading. What I was saying must have been totally disorienting to these people.
Summary
If the intended message of the three-cueing system was originally that teachers should take care not to overemphasize phonics to the neglect of comprehension, its received message has broadly become that teachers should minimize attention to phonics lest it compete with comprehension. If the original premise of the three-cueing system was that the reason for reading the words is to understand the text, it has since been oddly converted such that, in effect, the reason for understanding the text is in order to figure out the words. How did this happen?

My reason for quoting so extensively from Routman's (1988, 1994) text was to convey a sense of how the three-cueing belief system is realized in the field - in terms of both its classroom practice and the arduous commitment of its practitioners. Although Regie Routman is extremely influential among practitioners, I do not believe her books to be the source of this widespread belief system. First, if they were, more people would have cited Routman as a source of the schematic. Yet, of the many, many people I asked, only one did so. Second, the very fact that there are so many slightly different versions of the schematic around suggests that people's knowledge of it is not coming from a book. Given the option, after all, it is much easier to cut and paste than to draw a graphic anew. Third, marginal interpretations of the three-cueing schematic are also too scattered for me to believe they are a product of book-learning. For example, in the core curriculum of one district with which I worked, cursive writing and spelling conventions are given as instances of the syntactic cueing system; inasmuch as the syntactic cueing system was explained as knowledge about the order and structure of language, these errors were understandable-except for the fact that syntax has nothing to do with the order or structural properties of letters.

Again, the simplifications and distortions that the three-cueing system has suffered are uncharacteristic of the fate of written information. My hypothesis is, instead, that the three-cueing system has principally proliferated through inservices, workshops, and conferences, and that it is through that process that its interpretation has been changed and its heritage forgotten. Such forums have become a common mode of inservice education in recent years:

With some exceptions, university- and college-level literacy courses have not kept pace with the widespread implementation of process instruction. Instead, process instruction has been largely a grassroots movement spreading from coast to coast. Organized teacher groups, known as Teachers Applying Whole Language (TAWL), have sprung up everywhere ... and have served as support groups for those implementing whole language. The majority of teachers not involved in these groups, however, has relied primarily on information learned from institutes, workshops, and conferences conducted by whole language and writing process advocates. In many cases, teachers attending these meetings have taught other teachers in their school districts.

While the enthusiasm of teachers teaching teachers is commendable, the short-term nature of such training presents a unique problem; it virtually assures that only the rudimentary elements of these theories can be presented. (Reyes, 1992, p 429)

Consistent with Reyes's (1992) lament, the sobering revelation of this story is the profound breach in information and communication that separates the teaching and research communities. In the world of practice, the widespread subscription to the belief system that the three-cueing diagram has come to represent has wreaked disaster on students and hardship on teachers. At the same time, it is the underlying cause of not insignificant distrust and ill-will between teachers, teacher educators, and researchers. Yet, while teachers widely believe that the lore of the three-cueing system is based on the best of current research, researchers are barely aware of its existence, nature, or influence. The lesson of the story is thus clear and urgent. We must work together to rebuild the bridge, socially and intellectually, between those involved in research and practice. Toward regaining respect for as well as the productivity, morale, and forward momentum of our educational system, there may be no more important effort we can undertake.
References
Adams, M. J. (1980). Failures to comprehend and levels of processing in reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in readinR comprehension (pp. 87-112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates.

Adams, M. J. (1982). Models of reading. In J. F. LeNy and W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension, (pp. 193-206). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about pELnt. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Adams, M. J. (1991). Why not phonics and whole language? In W. Ellis (Ed.), All language and the creation of literacy, (pp. 40-53). Baltimore, MD: Orton Dyslexia Society.

Adams, M. J., Anderson, R. C., & Durkin, D. (1978). Beginning reading: Theory and practice. Language Arts, 55, 19-25.

Adams, M. J., & Bruce, B. C. (1982). Background knowledge and reading comprehension. In J. A. Langer & M. T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Reader meets author Bridging the 2ap (pp. 2-25). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Adams, M. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Word recognition: The interface of educational policies and scientific research. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplina[Y Journal, 5, 113-139.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marilyn Jäger Adams: The Three Cueing System (the origins - and the tragedy described in the summary)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Still on the topic of 'multi-cueing reading strategies' - known commonly as The Three Cueing System, or the Searchlights in England, you will find below a very important/historic/famous [...]

# data[].attributes.body
What Does Research Tell Us About Teaching Reading to English Language Learners?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Executive summary. Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Available at: http://www.cal.org/natl-lit-panel/reports/Executive_Summary.pdf

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Collier, R., ∓ Thomas, W. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Resource Collection Series #9. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

The Education Alliance at Brown University. (n.d.). The knowledge loom: Spotlight on elementary literacy. Available at http://knowledgeloom.org/elemlit/index.jsp

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.cfm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Does Research Tell Us About Teaching Reading to English Language Learners?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this article, a seasoned ELL teacher synthesizes her own classroom experience and the findings of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth to make recommendations for effective literacy instruction of ELL students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sounds of the English Phonic Code -Synthetic Phonics.wmv

# data[].attributes.headline
Videos to help you pronounce phonemes precisely and accurately

# data[].attributes.subject
Videos to help you pronounce phonemes precisely and accurately

# data[].attributes.headline
Phoneme Segmentation Cheat Sheet (chart of two-, three-, and four-phoneme words)

# data[].attributes.subject
Phoneme Segmentation Cheat Sheet (chart of two-, three-, and four-phoneme words)

# data[].attributes.headline
American Reading Company's Independent Reading Level Assessment Overview

# data[].attributes.subject
American Reading Company's Independent Reading Level Assessment Overview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
www.americanreading.comis using a security service for protection against online attacks.
The service requires full JavaScript support in order to view this website.

Please enable JavaScript on your browser and try again.

www.americanreading.com is using a security service for protection against online attacks. This process is automatic. You will be redirected once the validation process is complete.

# data[].attributes.body
Print Awareness: Guidelines for Instruction

# data[].attributes.headline
Short, Comprehensive Resource from the Legit Literacy Website

# data[].attributes.subject
Short, Comprehensive Resource from the Legit Literacy Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Concepts of print are "the basic understandings of reading" (McKenna & Stahl, 2009). "Concepts of print can be viewed as basic knowledge about how print in general, and books work" (Holdgreve-Resendez, 2010a).

Concepts of print include:

Reading from left to right

Reading from top to bottom

The fact that letters and words convey a message.

Print is what we read.

The "return sweep", to move from one line to the next

Illustrations in a book correspond to the print

Every book as a front, back, and an author

The alphabetic principle is important when thinking about concepts of print. The alphabetic principle is the "understanding that words are made of letters, which stand for the sound we say when we say words. It includes the understanding that by putting letters together in different ways, we make different words"(Holdgreve-Resendez, 2010a).

The YouTube video below is a teacher explaining what concepts of print are, as well as how students work with them!

Concepts of print are important because the teach children how reading "works" (Holdgreve-Resendez, 2010a) . It can be viewed as the foundation to reading and writing. Concepts of print teach children at an early age how to orient themselves in terms of reading. Many times fluent readers can take concepts of print for granted, because they are second nature to the reader. These concepts are foreign to beginning readers (Stahl & McKenna, 2009).

Concepts of print are a great predictor in a child's future success as a reader. Concepts of print influence a child's fluency and accuracy as a reader later in life.

Instructors will assume that all children know the concepts of print when the student enters the classroom, but that is not always true. Students enter a classroom at all different learning levels. Teachers and parents must educate their students on the concepts of print and the alphabetical principle. (Stahl & McKenna, 2009).

Concepts of print start to develop early in a child. By the time a child reaches school, they may still be developing their concepts of print. There is no known sequence to learning concepts of print. The order is dependent on the child. Affective instruction early in a child's life is extremely important. Many times, children will create their own theories on how concepts of print work.

The best ways for students and children to learn the concepts of print are by allowing them to explore books, writing, and drawing for themselves.

Informal assessments:
When using an informal assessment, it is important to remember to always document what the administrator of the test says, as well as to record what the student responds with. The administrator of the assessment should be questioning the child on book orientation, directionality, and concepts of letters, words, and punctuation.

A great resource to use is Reading Rockets. (www.readingrockets.org). At this site, there are videos available to demonstrate on how to give informal assessments.

The following PDF is a formal assessments for concepts of print. The MLPP is a Michigan standard assessment for students. It has a checklist of questions that teachers can use.

There are many different instructional strategies for teaching students about the concepts of print. They include:

Interactive read aloud

Talking about parts of the book

Talk about the author and/or illustrator

This allows for the book to become more interesting and interactive. Another idea is to have the student become an author. This allows for the child to feel special and celebrated (Showerman, 2010)
There are many different types of issues that Second Language Learners (SLL) can have with concepts of print.

One issue, is that the SLL might not be able to communicate with the teacher that he or she understands. When language is acquired, learners comprehend before they produce the language (Spada, 1983).

Another issue is that the concepts of print can be totally foreign to the SLL. Different languages have different concepts of print. For example, Arabic and Hebrew read from right to left while English, Spanish and French all read left to right.

Articles and Journals (PDF)
Bialystok, E. (1997). Effects of bilingualism and biliteracy on children's emerging concepts of print. Shanahan, T, & Lonigan, C. (2010). Developmental Psychology, 33(3), Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science
Educational Researcher, 39(4 279-285), Retrieved from http://edr.sagepub.com/content/39/4/279.full doi: 10.3102/0013189X10369172

Holdgreve-Resendez, R. T. (2010). Concepts of Print and Genre. Extracted from www.angel.msu.edu on October 13, 2010. Concept of Print and Genre.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course.
Holdgreve-Resendez, R. T. (2010a). Concepts of Print and Genre. Extracted from www.angel.msu.edu on October 13, 2010. Concept of Print and Genre.

Levy, B, Gong, Z, Hessels, S, & Evans, M. (2006). Understanding print: early reading development and contributions of home literacy experiences. Science Direct, 93, 63-93.

Herrera, C. (2006). Concepts of print: dual language learners and early literacy development. Las Angeles, Ca: California Preschool Instructional Network.

McKenna, M. C., & Stahl, K. A. D. (2009). Pentimonti, J, & Justice, L. (2009). Teacher's use of scaffolding strategies during read alouds in the preschool classroom. Assessment for reading instruction, second
edition. New York: Guilford.

Early Childhood Education, 37, 241-248.

Savignnon, S. (2001). Communicative language teaching for the twenty-first century.

Showerman, A. (2010) Concepts of Print. TE301SEC005. Notes taken on September 22, 2010.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Concepts of print are "the basic understandings of reading" (McKenna & Stahl, 2009). "Concepts of print can be viewed as basic knowledge about how print in general, and books work" (Holdgreve-Resendez, 2010a). Concepts of print include: Reading from left to right Reading from top to bottom The fact that letters and words convey a message.

# data[].attributes.headline
Free, Quick Online Assessment Tool from Reading Rockets

# data[].attributes.subject
Free, Quick Online Assessment Tool from Reading Rockets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reading Rockets is a national multimedia project that offers a wealth of research-based reading strategies, lessons, and activities designed to help young children learn how to read and read better. Our reading resources assist parents, teachers, and other educators in helping struggling readers bui…

# data[].attributes.headline
7 Proven Ways to Teach the ABCs to Adults

# data[].attributes.subject
7 Proven Ways to Teach the ABCs to Adults

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Vicky Zurakowski 125,565 views

There are many preconceptions that teaching mature learners English is far easier than teaching younger children. There is the idea in place that adults have more motivation to learn whereas young children are more likely to be there because their parents have sent them. Others would argue that because adults are of a mature age it's easier to teach and control the class whereas young children can often be unruly and over zealous. Perhaps this is all true but what about the content? What about teaching the basics?

When we start learning a language, other than the basic greetings, one of the first things we learn is the alphabet. We learn the order of the letters, phonetic sounds of the letters and various words associated to them. Teaching the alphabet is easy to young learners due numerous fun games, songs, pictures and flashcards that can be implemented in the language classroom with the most common one being the ABC song. These methods do not bode well with adults and even though knowing the alphabet is essential in a language, such teaching techniques are deemed inappropriate and juvenile. To many teachers this may be obvious but to others not so much. Teachers often make the mistake of using the same techniques and approaches teaching both adults and younger learners which in turn could lead to detrimental learning. If you take a glance at any lower elementary course book it is clear that there are specific activities that need to be covered. If adult participants feel like they're being treated like children they'll quickly retract thus making the learning process more complicated. When teaching adult learners it's absolutely essential to take the material and modify it so it doesn't appear to be too simplistic and condescending. So, what are some effective ways to help your ESL adult learners acquire basic knowledge in an age-appropriate way?

Consider Some Great Methods to Help Your Adult Students Learn the Basics

1. Doing Diagnostics

The greatest challenge with teaching adult ESL learners in a classroom environment is that you'll have learners of all different levels. You'll have those who are true beginners and those who are false beginners therefore it is necessary to carry out diagnostic tests to determine their actual English literacy level.

Adult learners like to be tested. It's a method that suits them and it appears to be more formal and as adults, they like structure. Additionally, because they're investing both their time and money into learning English they want organization and they want to see results.

Testing their English literacy level could simply be done by having the participants of the class fill out a short form with biographical information. Participants can fill out simple realistic forms which will require them to state their name, address, age, telephone number and so on. Tutors will need to demonstrate this on the board and afterwards they'll be given an idea of what the class knows and doesn't know.

Realistic diagnostic tests to determine their level will motivate adult learners. Filling in forms is a part of everyday adult life and they'll see this as a useful task.

2. Pre-testing ABC Knowledge

It's also a good idea to see which letters your learners already know. Instead of using flashcards use something more adult like to show the class particular letters. Using a projector with a PowerPoint presentation will make adult learners feel more comfortable. After all, this type of technology is commonplace in the workplace and it will make the learning and testing process more realistic.

Randomly project letters onto the screen and have your learners say them to determine their preexisting knowledge.

3. Writing Sheets to Recognize Letters

Passing out different sheets with single letters to your adult learners will help them with autonomous learning. With sheets directly in front of them, as opposed to the group chanting you would do with younger learners, you will help the adult participants have more control over their own learning.

As you pass out each paper be sure to repeat the letter as you hand them out. After repeating each letter, continue to repeat the phonetic sound. Don't force your adult learners to chant and repeat after you as most adult learners have more inhibitions than younger learners. Let them repeat at their own free will. After they get used to the new methods they'll then begin to respond and you'll see them mouthing the sounds after you until they become more comfortable in their new learning environment.

4. Introduce Flashcards

After the teacher has allowed the learners to mouth and see the words themselves and they feel more comfortable in their knowledge the use of the traditional flashcards can be implemented. Adult learners generally need to feel safer in their environment before they will participate vocally in class especially if this is the first time learning a language.

Without speaking, hold up plain, non-decorated alphabet cards randomly and prompt the adults to name them through your body language and your smile. After a few rounds of uncertain guessing they'll begin to become more confident and willing to participate which will be evident in their louder more certain voices.

5. Alphabet Association

When associating words with letters to improve alphabet knowledge care also needs to be taken with adult learners. With children this method is easy as there are number of great words and simple words that are relevant to children for example B is for ball, baby, Batman and so on. Adjusting your materials and modifying your lesson content to suit the needs of your adult learners is necessary. It makes the learning more meaningful and in turn they'll be more motivated to learn.

Again PowerPoint presentations can be useful in this scenario. Have a letter projected on the board and with each click show pictures and the word corresponding to the letter in focus.

In order to do this, you need to look at the demographics of the class and have a clear understanding of their purpose for learning English. If it's for business purposes, an example of this could be C is for computer, cartridge, calculator, camera and so on. As your learners grow more confident with saying and pronouncing the words you can just project the picture. Ask them for the phonetic sound of the word and then have them say the word. This will need to be modeled a few times and they'll quickly pick it up.

This particular way of helping your adult learners associate words with letters is also a great way of expanding their vocabulary and because it is all related to their needs there will be more motivation as they'll have more chances to use this language in their everyday situations.

6. Mirror Mirror...

Language and phonetic acquisition is much more difficult for adult learners after they're used to the sounds of their own mother tongue. Each language differs in sounds and it's often more challenging to get pronunciation right from the onset. Additionally adult learners are shier when repeating sounds over and over again and can often become frustrated in the fact that they don't pick things up immediately.

Tutors can distribute handheld mirrors throughout the class and have their students examine the movements of their mouths and lips as they sound out the sounds. All teachers should model the sound first and exaggerate it so the participants can clearly see the movement of the mouth as the sound is made. Have the learners repeat these methods and they'll be able to pick up the phonetic sounds of the letters easier as they'll be able to see and control their mouths in front of the mirrors.

Adult learners prefer structure and having rules. While this method does not distinctly have a list of rules it will help them to visually see what it is they're doing right or wrong.

7. Read it...

A great way to continue practicing recognition of letters, individual sounds, and diphthongs in English is to have your participants read. When adults feel like they're making progress and see changes in their L2 abilities, they'll feel like they've achieved part of their goal in their second language acquisition. Be sure to either create your own materials with core words and easy sounds to suit them. Choosing simple children's books is not appropriate in any case of adult learning as it could be seen as insulting, which is why great care needs to be taken when selecting language materials for adults.

Teaching or reviewing the alphabet with adult ESL learners does need approaching carefully.

These are just a few simple and tried methods that will encourage your learners to practice without feeling they're being treated like children. In saying this, after they feel more comfortable in their new learning surroundings more fun activities can be gradually be introduced for review. Be sure to modify all learning materials to suit the needs of the class and always bear in mind you're working with adults not kids.

P.S. If you enjoyed this article, please help spread it by clicking one of those sharing buttons below. And if you are interested in more, you should follow our Facebook page where we share more about creative, non-boring ways to teach English.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Proven Ways to Teach the ABCs to Adults

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Vicky Zurakowski 125,565 views There are many preconceptions that teaching mature learners English is far easier than teaching younger children. There is the idea in place that adults have more motivation to learn whereas young children are more likely to be there because their parents have sent them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cara Batema is a musician, teacher and writer who specializes in early childhood, special needs and psychology. Since 2010, Batema has been an active writer in the fields of education, parenting, science and health. She holds a bachelor's degree in music therapy and creative writing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Teach the Alphabet to Adults | Synonym

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cara Batema is a musician, teacher and writer who specializes in early childhood, special needs and psychology. Since 2010, Batema has been an active writer in the fields of education, parenting, science and health. She holds a bachelor's degree in music therapy and creative writing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
50 of the Absolute Best Alphabet Books for Children of All Ages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Alphabet books are a great way to teach children letters. Here are 50 of the absolute best alphabet books, compiled by a Kindergarten teacher.

# data[].attributes.headline
P is for Pterodactyl: The Worst Alphabet Book Ever by Raj Haldar (Alphabet book for older children)

# data[].attributes.subject
P is for Pterodactyl: The Worst Alphabet Book Ever by Raj Haldar (Alphabet book for older children)

# data[].attributes.headline
The Graphic Alphabet by David Pelletier 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Graphic Alphabet by David Pelletier 

# data[].attributes.body
(Alphabet book for older children)

# data[].attributes.body
(Alphabet book for older children)

# data[].attributes.body
Chicka Chicka Boom Boom by Bill Martin

# data[].attributes.headline
Alphabet and Phonological Awareness Activities

# data[].attributes.subject
Alphabet and Phonological Awareness Activities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Literacy Instruction for
Students with Significant Disabilities

"Phonemic awareness and alphabet learning should be interactive, authentic, and FUN!"
-Caroline Musselwhite

ALPHABET AND PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS

What is alphabet and phonological awareness?

During the emergent literacy phase, children are busy developing their oral language, their understandings of how and why to use print, and their early phonemic and syntactic awareness (Senechal, LeFerve, Smith-Chant, & Colton, 2001).

An important component of beginning reading instruction is effectively teaching letters and sounds. Related to letter and sound knowledge are phonological awareness (the ability to hear and manipulate sounds in oral language(, and phonemic awareness (the ability to hear and manipulate phonemes, the smallest units of sound in oral language). It can be tempting to teach these skills in isolation since they can be easily parsed, but they are very difficult to apply and generalize when they are taught in isolation. (from Quick Guides to Inclusion, page 185)

Alphabet knowledge is the knowledge of individual letter names, sounds, and shapes. The alphabetic principle is the idea that letters and groups of letters represent the sounds of spoken language. Readers apply the alphabetic principle through phonics when they use their knowledge of the relationships between sounds and letters to read both familiar and unfamiliar words.

The goal of instruction in the alphabetic principle is to teach students to apply their knowledge of letters and letter sounds rather than targeting identification, matching, and mastery through direct instruction and repeated trials. There is no evidence to support that isolated instruction of alphabet knowledge has any impact on important reading-related outcomes. (from Research Based Practices for Creating Access to the General Curriculum in Reading and Literacy for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities)

Which students would benefit from alphabet and phonological awareness?

know some of the letters of the alphabet, some of the time

do not yet know the letters of the alphabet

are beginning to develop letter-sound connections

have not yet developed letter-sound connections

are developing print awareness and are scribbling

How can students benefit from alphabet and phonological awareness?

Students who are at the emergent reading and writing level need explicit instruction around the alphabet and sounds to improve their alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness.

Hall and Williams (2000) list "letters and sounds" as one of the primary blocks that needs to be focused on in emergent literacy instruction. Letters and sounds are often listed together because as well as learning the letters, students also need to develop the alphabetic principle. They need to understand the different sounds that individual letters and groups of letters can make - and use this alphabetic principle to begin to spell words and to decode words. (from Jane Farrall)

Practice in manipulating sounds in words is a necessary preliminary ability to the systematic study of phonics, which takes the next step to connect these sounds to letters and words in print (word identification and decoding).

How do we teach alphabet and phonological awareness?

Students who are at the emergent reading and writing level need explicit instruction around the alphabet and sounds to improve their alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness. Using words to teach letters and sounds integrates the skills and teaches their application from the beginning.

At an emergent level, word work will focus on phonemic awareness with activities created to bring attention to rhyme (word endings), rhythm (memory), repetition, alliteration (word onsets), and predictability. Use words that are meaningful to the student, beginning with first names and other words that they are likely to see often.

When teaching letter and sound knowledge, use a variety of approaches that encourage generalized understanding from the beginning rather than rote learning, such as:

read alphabet books

point out letters and print in the environment

talk about letters and their sounds when you encounter them in every day activities

provide opportunities to play with letter shapes and sounds

explicitly reference letter names and sounds in shared reading and writing activities

use mnemonics and actions

use student names!

Some key ideas to keep in mind:

explicitly teach, model and emphasize sounds and letters throughout the day in meaningful contexts

teach phonological skills during regular activities (e.g. read alouds, telling stories, writing activities, word work, predictable chart writing, guided reading)

sound matching and sorting activities can be done with devices, PODD, eye gaze frames and with low tech paper solutions.

Following are suggestions for teaching alphabet and phonological awareness from Caroline Musselwhite:

Resources

Alphabet Action Man Game - Caroline Musselwhite
Too often, students with significant disabilities are taught the alphabet through flip cards and other boring, inauthentic tasks. The Alphabet Action Man Game is a quick activity for making alphabet instruction fun and meaningful.

Phoneme Isolation - Caroline Musselwhite
To support the development of phoneme isolation, which requires recognizing individual sounds.

Phonemic Sound Substitution - Caroline Musselwhite
To support the development of sound substitution, which requires listening to words, then substituting the initial sound to create a rhyming word.

Tar Heel Reader Alphabet Books
http://tarheelreader.org/favorites/?collection=alphabet-books

Where can I learn more about alphabet and phonological awareness?

The ABCs of Alphabet Knowledge and Phonological Awareness
Alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness are foundational components of emergent literacy. This 92-page book provides a rationale, brief research overview, and suggestions for interactive instructional tasks based on evidence based practice. While all of the activities in this book are appropriate for any emergent learners, the focus is on providing access to activities for learners with significant disabilities, including individuals with physical impairments and people who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). The strategies suggested focus on supporting ALL learners at home and in classrooms. This book should be informative and helpful for teachers, therapists, and family members. Use this book to explore best practice in alphabet knowledge AND engage in fun learning opportunities with a wide range of learners.

Word Wall, Word Activities and Extension into Writing
This presentation highlights the importance of meaningful, purposeful communication in learning to read and write and connecting oral language to phonological awareness. Many interactive and engaging word wall and word activity examples are provided.
http://www.literacyforallab.ca/past-webinars

Working with Words
Alberta teachers demonstrate how they use word walls and related making word activities to build literacy skills of all students in their classroom, including students with significant disabilities. (Length: 7 minutes 2 seconds)

Learning Guide: Working with Words

Support for Implementation

The resources found on this site were developed by the ERLC, a member of Alberta Regional Professional Development Consortia (ARPDC), as a result of grants from Alberta Education, to support implementation.

Learning for All | Copyright © 2016
Terms of Use | Contact Us

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alphabet & phonological awareness | Literacy Instruction for Students with Significant Disabilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Literacy Instruction for Students with Significant Disabilities "Phonemic awareness and alphabet learning should be interactive, authentic, and FUN!" -Caroline Musselwhite ALPHABET AND PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS During the emergent literacy phase, children are busy developing their oral language, their understandings of how and why to use print, and their early phonemic and syntactic awareness (Senechal, LeFerve, Smith-Chant, & Colton, 2001).

# data[].attributes.body
(refrigerator magnet letters)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The ABC Song | Easy Alphabet Song | Super Simple ABCs

# data[].attributes.body
ABC by Dr. Seuss

# data[].attributes.headline
New York Times article mentioned in the Introduction

# data[].attributes.subject
New York Times article mentioned in the Introduction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit... The New York Times Archives

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times's print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

On West 121st Street in Harlem is a public elementary school small enough for things to be taken into consideration. For example, Malachi Reece is a perfectly decent, upstanding kindergartener who will not nap.

"Malachi don't nap to save his life," says a school secretary, Modupe Ballard. So after lunch, while his buddies are sacked out, Malachi sits outside the principal's office drawing and making his letters with Ms. Ballard. "Is that Barney?" she asks, pointing to a picture that looked like a potato with four ziggy things in the middle. "It looks just like Barney."

That day Henry Dixon walked his son Henry Jr., a first grader, to school and stayed. Mr. Dixon is an out-of-work cook and spent the morning using the public school's phone to job hunt. When people ask how to get in touch with him, Mr. Dixon says, "Just leave a message for me here at the school." When Cheryl Rivera, a single parent on welfare, went into the hospital recently, her two girls, Crystal, a second grader, and Cheila, a kindergartener, spent a few nights at the home of the principal, David Liben, and his wife.

Opened three years ago, this little public school in Harlem, near Frederick Douglass Boulevard and populated mainly by children on welfare, is called the Family Academy, and it is. There is a family room, where parents can hang out or take classes in everything from nutrition to black literature. Deborah Griffith drops off her daughters Shakia and Alice, then puts on a pot of coffee and studies for her G.E.D. Another parent, Scherisse Gibson, runs a Daisy and Brownie troop out of the family room.

Very little about the Family Academy resembles other public elementary schools in New York City -- or anywhere else -- and to visit is to feel all the possibilities of urban educational reform, as well as the size of the task. The school day ends at 5 P.M., the school year is 11 months. The school has the money to stay open most nights until 8 for the parents' courses. It has the money for a full-time social worker, Elizabeth Hittenmark, who spends a good deal of her time keeping foster children from being scattered around the city. ("Elizabeth's good," the principal says. "She wears a beeper.")

When the Ray sisters, Laquichah and Quintana, were about to be split up and sent to foster families on opposite sides of the city, Ms. Hittenmark intervened and found an older foster parent in Harlem who was willing to take the girls if she got some help. The woman did -- the school kept Laquichah and Quintana each night until 8, feeding them supper. The girls did not miss a day of school and now live with a relative.

The Family Academy was started three years ago by Mr. Liben; his wife, Meredith (a teacher at the school), and Christina Giammalva. All taught in public schools in East Harlem, the district that pioneered alternative schools and school choice in the city. But while they admired how choice had improved the District 4 schools described in the book "Miracle in East Harlem," they weren't at East Harlem's miracle schools. They were at the second-tier intermediate schools with fewer resources and kids who were already lost.

Mr. Liben wanted to work with the poorest and neediest, but he wanted to start with them in kindergarten, not seventh grade, and he wanted a school that would hold onto them until high school graduation.

So in 1991 when District 3 embraced alternative schools, the three went west, crosstown. In the entrepeneurial spirit now seeping into public education, they raised $40,000 from Ms. Giammalva's family contacts in the financial community and used it as leverage to win board approval of their school. That led to a $100,000 grant from the Tiger Foundation.

They started with kindergarten, added a grade yearly and now have 150 children through second grade housed on the vacant third floor of P.S. 76. They are board approved through fifth grade and hope to get extended through 12th.

Though there is a waiting list, Mr. Liben says he is committed to not "creaming" middle-class students from elsewhere, and selects all of the children from the neighborhood. "We have no middle-class kids," he says. "The top would be a single mother with three kids working as a secretary downtown."

Once a public school gets noticed, the benefits can be enormous. Several companies have donated to the Family Academy, and a public relations firm gives its time, attracting reporters, more notice and more money. This year the school's publicly financed budget of $6,500 per pupil is supplemented by $400,000 in private money, or $2,700 extra per pupil, that pays for more teachers, the social workers and the long year.

This in turn attracts more quality teachers. Angel Gonzalez, a first-grade teacher, does a unit on bugs that is wildly popular. He had several mothers in Morningside Park with spoons, bug hunting. "That park's got a lot of bugs," says Guillermo Reyes, a first grader. "Spiders and ants and roly-polies. And I can spell roly-poly."

These extras make a difference daily. There's a silent kindergarten girl that a District 3 evaluation team has classified as retarded and wants to remove from the school. Dr. Gail Furman, the Family Academy's psychologist, disagrees. She says that the girl's older brother just grunted when he first came to the school, that he now functions well as a second grader and that the younger sister's problems may result from child abuse. "Without understanding the family dynamic, a decision is being made that she's retarded," Dr. Furman says.

Today at 1 P.M., Dr. Furman and Ms. Hittenmark, the social worker, have set up a special meeting with the District 3 team to fight to keep the girl in the school. "Since the team visited, she can ID four letters and write the four letters," Ms. Hittenmark says. "I think we can win this."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In School; A public school in Harlem that takes the time, and the trouble, to be family. (Published 1994)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times's print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them. Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Free resources from the book's publisher

# data[].attributes.subject
Free resources from the book's publisher

# data[].attributes.body
Learning Sciences International

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Know Better, Do Better - Know Better, Do Better: Teaching the Foundations So That Every Child Can Read | Learning Sciences International