# data[].attributes.body
Easy CBM is a free tool to use as a screener - could possibly be used as a diagnostic and/or progress monitoring.

# data[].attributes.body
The Scarborough Reading Rope illustrates how various components, such as phonological awareness, decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension, come together to support a reader's ability to understand and interpret text.

# data[].attributes.body
Dibels has free assessments for K-8. You download them to your computer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This manual includes information about DIBELS 8, how DIBELS 8 differs from previous editions of DIBELS, how to administer and score DIBELS 8 subtests, and how to use DIBELS 8 data to inform instructional decision-making.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This manual includes information about DIBELS 8, how DIBELS 8 differs from previous editions of DIBELS, how to administer and score DIBELS 8 subtests, and how to use DIBELS 8 data to inform instructional decision-making.

# data[].attributes.body
The simple view of reading explains that reading comprehension is the product of two key components: decoding words and understanding language.

# data[].attributes.body
You can download the assessments in PDF form for free.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reading Assessments, Tools, and Resources | Acadience Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unlock the potential in each student with Acadience Reading, because you know that reading proficiency correlates with greater success in school and life.

# data[].attributes.body
The reading workshop framework is an instructional approach where students engage in independent reading, small group discussions, and teacher-led lessons to foster a love for reading and develop essential literacy skills.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Community - Science of Reading Course

# data[].attributes.subject
The Community - Science of Reading Course

# data[].attributes.body
Investigate the on demand course in the community on The Science of Reading K-2 & 3-5, what to hold on to and what to shred.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Phonemic Awareness Inventory - Informal.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These student assessments can be used to monitor student progress with phonological and phonemic awareness skills, and the results can be used to plan for instruction. The Heggerty Phonemic Awareness assessments are not required to teach the curriculum.
Please note: English assessments were updated August 2021 to align to the digital assessments now available on myHeggerty. For the previous version of the English assessments, please scroll to the bottom of the page and open the archive folder.
Pre-Kindergarten Assessments:

Progress Monitoring Assessments:
Progress monitoring assessments for individual phonemic awareness skills can be used to gather data about a students' progress. These assessments can be administered throughout the school year to students in Kindergarten, 1st or 2nd grade. Specific lessons from the Kindergarten and Primary curriculum are listed on each assessment, to assist teachers with planning for instruction.

↓ Initial Phoneme Isolation
↓ Final Phoneme Isolation
↓ Medial Phoneme Isolation
↓ Blending Syllables
↓ Blending Body Coda and Onset Rime
↓ Blending Phonemes
↓ Segmenting into Syllables
↓ Segmenting Onset-Rime
↓ Segmenting into Phonemes
↓ Adding Syllables
↓ Adding Initial or Final Phonemes
↓ Substituting Initial, Final, and Medial Phonemes
↓ Deleting Syllables
↓ Deleting Initial or Final Phonemes
↓ Deleting Initial Phonemes - Extra

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Phonemic Awareness Assessments & Lesson Plans | Heggerty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download free phonemic awareness assessments and lesson plans in English and Spanish for pre-k, kindergarten, and primary curriculums.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Phonemic Awareness Assessment
The following assessments for preschool through first grade are provided by Literary Resources, Inc., a company that was created by thirty year veteran teacher, Dr. Michael Heggerty. As a first grade classroom teacher, Dr. Heggerty worked on an action research project on the importance of phonemic awareness in acquiring and mastering sound reading skills. These assessments are designed to be used throughout the school year. The same assessment can be given as a pre-assessment and then as a post-assessment, or a second assessment has been provided to be used at the end of the preschool year. This second assessment asks students to segment and blend with phonemes, and asks students to produce rhyming words. Both assessments are able to provide teachers with baseline data and data at the end of the school year. There is also an assessment provided for second grade and above if it is needed.

Informal Assessment

Formative/Summative Assessments

Target Grade Level: Pre-K-1

This assessment measures phonemic awareness.

Estimated Completion Time: 15 minutes

Format: Oral

This assessment should be administered individually.

Phonemic Awareness Assessment
This assessment was created by early reading specialist, Wiley Blevins. This assessment was published in his book Phonics from A to Z. This assessment measures the ability to hear and manipulate the sounds in spoken words and the understanding that spoken words and syllables are made up of sequences of speech sounds.

Informal Assessment

Target Age Range: 5-8

This assessment measures phonemic awareness.

Estimated Completion Time: 10 minutes

Format: Oral

This assessment should be administered individually.

DIBELS Assessments
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) are a set of procedures and measures for assessing the acquisition of early literacy skills from kindergarten through sixth grade.They are designed to be short fluency measures used to regularly monitor the development of early literacy and early reading skills. These research-based measures are linked to one another and predictive of later reading proficiency. The measures are also consistent with many of the Common Core State Standards in reading, especially the foundational skills. Listed below are the DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency. You can learn more about DIBELS here. You can access all DIBELS assessments here.

Formal Assessment

Target Grade Level: Pre-K-1

These assessments measure initial sound fluency and phoneme segmentation fluency.

Estimated Completion Time: 5 minutes

Format: Oral

This assessment should be administered individually.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Phonemic Awareness Assessment This assessment was created by early reading specialist, Wiley Blevins. This assessment was published in his book Phonics from A to Z. This assessment measures the...

# data[].attributes.body
Making big words is a great intervention to use with a small group - to relearn elementary decoding skills.

# data[].attributes.body
The information is helpful - the examples are more primary. Insert different poetry and turn it into a Poetry Slam.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Dynamic Duo: Poetry and Fluency - Literacy Junkie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Poetry and fluency are like Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire. Their reciprocal relationship complimented one another and their dancing was expressive, emotive, fluid, easy to understand and a joy to watch. It was a visual language. Similarly, fluency in reading is pleasing to the ear and mind, so the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching Oral Reading Fluency to Older Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oh goodness, everybody’s least favorite topic (except maybe Tim Rasinski’s). What I’m talking about is fluency instruction/practice for older students … grades 4 and up, let’s say.

# data[].attributes.headline
Intervention Activities and Ideas by Skill

# data[].attributes.subject
Intervention Activities and Ideas by Skill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fourth Grade and Fifth Grade Student Center Activities Advanced Phonics | Fluency | Vocabulary | Comprehension

# data[].attributes.body
Middle School Case Study

# data[].attributes.body
While in small groups - other students could be completing a BookaKucha.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The video on the left is a screencast created by the teacher going over how a #BookaKucha works.

This video is an example of a student's #BookaKucha and his presentation screencast.

This video shows how a student used FlipGrid to present her #BookaKucha

Bookakucha flipgrid example.mp4

# data[].attributes.body
Great place for free texts - with a school email address.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your web browser.

World-class content

Access thousands of reading lessons and our comprehensive ELA curriculum, CommonLit 360.

Accessible for all learners

Tailor instruction to students' needs with text-to-speech, translation, and digital note-taking.

Actionable data

Track students' reading performance, set goals, and plan instructional next steps.

CommonLit
Digital Library

Discover thousands of free, supplemental lessons and quizzes in English and Spanish - all featuring great authors.

CommonLit
Assessment Series

Measure growth in reading comprehension with three benchmark assessments when you unlock our premium packages.

CommonLit 360 &
Professional Development

Support a successful rollout of our research-backed ELA curriculum with personalized webinars and on-demand trainings.

"

CommonLit has made a tremendously positive impact on my teaching practice. I'm very proud to teach CommonLit!

Jennifer Lane ELA Teacher

"

CommonLit definitely keeps me organized. It's easy for me to grade and it's easy for me to see students' reading growth increase throughout the year.

"

The CommonLit assessment questions are aligned to our ELA standards, which is extremely helpful when prepping for the state exam.

Teachers trust CommonLit to foster students' reading comprehension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CommonLit | Free Online Reading Passages and Literacy Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CommonLit is a comprehensive literacy program with thousands of reading lessons, full-year ELA curriculum, benchmark assessments, and standards-based data for teachers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please answer the following questions to help me share resources and tailor future sessions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Templates

What teacher doesn't want to save themselves time and teach better? It's finding those low-prep, high-return activities that we can use right away that can be challenging. That's where EduProtocols come in.

EduProtocols, created by Jon Corippo and Marlena Hebern, are a series of lesson frames that are easy to adapt to any subject or grade. And the amazing part is that many of their templates are absolutely FREE!

So what exactly ARE EduProtocols? Watch the video below for a short walkthrough.

Ready to get started?
In a past #Ditchbook chat, guest moderators Jon and Marlena, creators of EduProtocols and authors of The EduProtocol Field Guide Series, showered us with loads of FREE resources. And of course, the #Ditchbook community shared tons of great tips, ideas, and resources of their own!

Below you will find:

More than 10 FREE EduProtocol templates

10 tips and ideas for using EduProtocols in your classroom from the Ditch That Textbook community

10 Ways to use EduProtocols to wrap up the year by Deploying EduProtocols author Kim Voge

Ready to dive in even deeper?

10+ FREE EduProtocol templates

The Fast and Curious EduProtocol

Repetition-based worksheet homework frustrates teachers and students alike. It often struggles to get results and you never know who's doing the work. Plus, the feedback to students comes very, very late.

There's an alternative. Try the Fast and the Curious EduProtocol, an idea from Marlena Hebern and Jon Corippo's book, "The EduProtocol Field Guide." It provides students with timely feedback. It's fun. It gives great repetitions. In short: it works!

Check out this video that gives you the step-by-step instructions on how to use it and why it works.

Three additional points from EduProtocols author Jon Corippo:

- This is a pedagogy that applies to any kind of instant CFU product (Kahoot with groups, GoFormative to draw answers, Socrative with open ended questions). The pedagogy of "test light, feedback, test again" daily functions in other apps.

- I'm going to go until we hit 95 percent. On a tough week, that might be on Thursday on the second round. On an easy week, that might be Tuesday on the first round. I'm getting more than one day back!

- The repetitions are important! If a student gets them right the first time, we should be able to get them done faster the second time. It's like shooting a three-point shot in basketball. You can't make one and say, "I've got it!" It takes repetitions.

The Random Emoji Generator Power Paragraph

Use the Random Emoji Generator for story ideas and summarizing practice. EduProtocols has created a kid-safe emojis and animated emojis built in at Eduprotocols.com/class.

The Emoji Power Paragraph for Seesaw

Check out this Seesaw version of the emoji power paragraph by Jennifer Dean. It's a perfect way to use the emoji power paragraph with littles.

BookaKucha

BookaKucha puts a new and exciting spin on your basic, boring book report. Use BookaKucha to monitor independent reading progress while connecting back to skills learned in class.

BookaKucha can be a powerful tool in any classroom. Read more about this EduProtocol and how Heather Marshall incorporated it into her middle school class in her post The BookaKucha.

Frayer a Friend

During the first few weeks of school use this EduProtocol to build community and learn more about each other. Watch the EduProtocols Worldwide 1 The Frayer Model video below to see how teacher Brian Fish using the Frayer model with high school students.

EduProtocols Smart Start

Ready to have the first four days of school planned for you? The Smart Start includes links to directions for each EduProtocol plus TONS of FREE templates! Learn more about Smart Start in this video What is Smart Start?

Get the best start to your school year ever! Enroll in the Smart Start Your Year with EduProtocols online course

What you'll get:
-Two 45 minute recorded sessions with EduProtocols Master Trainers and Authors
-FOUR days of EduProtocols - based lessons
-Over 20 ready to use EduProtocols Smart Start Lessons
-Free Lifetime Tech Support and access to session recordings

20 ideas for using EduProtocols with your class

10 ways to use EduProtocols in class
From the Ditch That Textbook community

1. Use Smart Start at the beginning of the year, after a long break and again to finish the year strong!

2. Use the Cyber Sandwich to (GASP) summarize the textbook!

3. Combine Cyber Sandwich with VR to level up the experience.

4. Study social interactions with Iron Chef.

5. Level up the emoji paragraph with fake text messages.

7. Combine Quizlet Live with the Fast and Curious EduProtocol.

8. Combine Math Reps and Jamboard for engaging math activities anywhere!

9. Incorporate BookaKucha into small group guided reading and literature circles.

10 Ways to use EduProtocols to wrap up the year
Teach Better- Work Less - Achieve More by Kim Voge

1. Gamify it!

Review facts, dates, vocabulary using the Fast and Curious EduProtocol

The key to remembering is repetition. Gain back valuable teaching time by making the basics fun and gamified.

Choose your topic and find or create a quiz. We love Gimkit, Blooket, and Quizziz.

Run the "quiz" and see how your students do round 1.

Provide a mini lesson to address the gaps.

Run the "quiz" again to see the immediate impact of review and feedback.

Repeat this process daily until it is time for the assessment.

2. No Paper Exit Tickets!

Use Thin Slides! Provide a slide deck where students grab a slide and include 1 word or sentence and 1 image to show what they know. This flexible EduProtocol can be used as a way to see what students think they know or as an exit ticket. It can also be used as a way to document what new knowledge is gained. Really flex the collaborative nature of learning with the Thin Slide Study Guide. No need for flashcards...routine review over time will build lasting impact.

3. Make independent reading purposeful with Game of Quotes.

Heather Marshall put together this gem based on "bring your own book". I found additional quote cards here.

Students read independently for about 10 minutes.

The teacher announces the subject on the game card.

Students search the text they have just read (close reading!) and look for the quote that embodies the topic on the game card.

When a student locates the "perfect quote" they notify the teacher. The rest of the class has 2 minutes to find their own quote.

Students share quotes a table group and vote for the winning quote for the table.

Those students then stand and read their quotes.

Informal voting can occur to declare a "winner".

4. Revamp the research project with Thick Slides

Thick Slides quickly became a class favorite in Spring 2021. Students didn't even realize they were doing a research project. (It's like slipping the veggies into the dessert!) Thick Slides are a deconstructed paragraph. Students are researching and writing all the parts of a paragraph, but in a highly engaging way that does not lead to paragraphs that start and end with "Let me tell you about" or "I hope you like my paragraph". As with all EduProtocols, you need to start with a fun, low cognitive load topic. In the samples attached, you will see how we went from favorite food, odd animals, to researching a self selected topic. The template is in there, too!

5. End plagiarism with Parafly

In general, students struggle with putting things into their own words. We need to teach them this skill so they learn how to paraphrase and find synonyms to "put things into their own words". Last year, Jon came up with Parafly. My sixth grade students successfully paraphrased and were able to metacognate about this activity, explaining their thought processes.

Find a multiparagraph piece of content, but at a lower lexile.

Open up Socrative and launch a "short answer" question.

Copy and paste a paragraph from the article.

Send out to students, providing them with support as they learn how to paraphrase (invert sentence order, say it in plain language, use synonyms, join ideas)

Display work on board in class, not showing names. Find some "glows" and "grows" to share aloud. Ask students to verbalize what they notice as well.

Launch a new paragraph and practice again, repeating this process.

Once you do this a few times, students get the idea. You may need to revisit often or review before the next research project. The instant feedback and repetition are key to this working well!

6. Crowdsource learning with Number Mania.

Number Mania is an innovative way to introduce a topic or summarize learning via an infographic. Students contribute number related facts to a Google Form that auto populates a spreadsheet that students can access. Set the timer and have students begin the hunt for facts. After 7-10 minutes, students create an infographic. I find it helpful to expedite the creation process by providing a template with some icons readily available. Here is a student created sample.

7. Grow writing skills with purposeful practice 3X Genre.

This idea, inspired by Josie Wozniak, allows students to practice 3 genres of writing. Provide an image or gif for your students. Then select 3 genres/purposes for writing. For example, you may have a picture of a skateboard and students need to come up with a title and the first paragraph if they were writing a personal narrative, informative article, or a persuasive letter. This builds on-demand writing skills. This can be used across multiple content areas as well. The picture can be a primary source, artwork, sport, etc. Here is a generic template.

8. Solidify math skills or front load for next year with Math Reps.

Lisa Nowakowski and Jeramiah Reusch wrote the book, literally, about using EduProtocols for Math. Lisa's Math Reps website has templates ready to go. You basically supply a few numbers and students practice multiple standards based on a domain of learning.

9. Use the Random Emoji Generator for story ideas and summarizing practice.

Have your kids ever ASKED to write? We have kid-safe emojis and animated emojis built in at Eduprotocols.com/class Here's the flow:

Teacher opens up Socrative and launches a Short Answer question. Students join class.

Teacher opens Eduprotocols.com/class in a new tab, displaying this for the class.

Teacher clicks to reveal the first emoji.

Students write a sentence BUT THEY DO NOT submit.

Teacher reveals next emoji and the process repeats until all 5 emojis have been revealed.

Now that students have 5 sentences, they press submit.

The teacher can display paragraphs without student names and provide some global feedback.

The paragraphs can be sent out to be viewed and voted on by students.

NACHO Paragraph (as in "It's not your paragraph" is a great follow up where students can edit a classmates' paragraph. Here is an example of how I used this with my students.

10. Keep the collaboration going with Iron Chef.

Think Jigsaw, but with a twist. Students work in groups on a slide deck, each with their own focused piece. They note the facts, vocabulary, or information about a provided topic. They insert a picture or gif and then the Secret Ingredient. The Secret Ingredient is often a way for students to connect to the material, provide an additional random fact, something humorous, or even a vocabulary word in context. You can grab the Iron Chef template here.

As with ALL EduProtocols, be sure to introduce using low cognitive load material. A commercial, picture book, or low lexile passage are ideal. Once students understand how to use the protocol, then you can dial up the information and cognitive load.

More EduProtocols!
Scroll through this Wakelet of over 50 collections of EduProtocol resources! You'll find more templates, video tutorials, tips, ideas and tons of inspiration.

For notifications of new Ditch That Textbook content and helpful links:

Are you looking for quality, meaningful professional learning that both equips and inspires teachers?

Matt provides in-person and virtual keynotes, workshops and breakout sessions that equip, inspire and encourage teachers to create change in their classrooms. Teachers leave with loads of resources. They participate. They laugh. They see tech use and teaching in a new light. Click the link below to contact us and learn how you can bring Matt to your school or district!

FREE teaching ideas and templates in your inbox every week!

Subscribe to Ditch That Textbook

©2023 Ditch That Textbook by Matt Miller.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10+ FREE EduProtocol templates + ideas for using them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What teacher doesn't want to save themselves time and teach better? It's finding those low-prep, high-return activities that we can use right away that

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Instruction | Blended Learning Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Small group instruction is one of the greatest benefits of a blended learning environment. Thanks to the highly engaging, personalized instruction and practice, some students are engaging with on computers through adaptive content providers, a blended learning teacher has the ability to teach to a s…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Blended Learning: Station Rotation- AVID Open Access

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to implement the blended-learning model of station rotation in a face-to-face, remote, or hybrid classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Find out how strong your vocabulary is and learn new words at Vocabulary.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vocabulary.com helps you learn new words, play games that improve your vocabulary, and explore language.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An important strategy to help students build their vocabulary is use of context - i.e., using the clues or hints provided in the text that surround an unfamiliar word to help guess the meaning without depending on a dictionary. This can include words, phrases, or sentences that appear before, after, or close to the word. It can also include visuals or headings embedded in the text - basically anything that helps a reader understand the meaning of an unfamiliar word. Expository, non-fiction text tends to offer more context clues than narrative text.

The main goal for developing students' ability to use context is to aid comprehension, not to teach words in-depth. When students encounter and "stumble" over unfamiliar words that are essential to making meaning of a passage, their comprehension suffers. If the context provides clues to the meanings of these words, comprehension is aided.

Use of context does not come naturally to many students. It takes time to become proficient with this strategy - students benefit from explicit instruction and guided practice. Studies have shown that when students are taught to use context clues they become better at figuring out the definitions of words compared to students who are not directly taught this skill (Kuhn & Stahl, 1998). The first step is helping students recognize when they don't know the meaning of a word and the need to make reasonable judgements about how to address that lack of knowledge.
Types of Context Clues
There are categories of types of clues that are useful for teachers to know, described below with examples from classroom texts. Knowledge of these types of clues benefits the teacher in terms of finding examples in text to use for explicit instruction and practice. However, it is not helpful to expect students to identify the type of clue provided in text. Shanahan (2022) points out that the research synthesis noted above by Kuhn and Stahl determined persuasively that students benefit from instruction for use of context, but it was not category training that helped, only the actual practice in figuring out word meanings from context.

Synonym Clue: A word that is similar to he word is provided.

Example: Water soaks into the ground pores, or spaces, among the fragments of soil.

Example: It was a triptych, or three-paneled, painting.

Contrast Clue: The word is contrasted with another word, usually an antonym.

Example: Unlike a compound, an element cannot be broken down into simpler materials.

Example: Volunteering to join the army offers the choice that a draftee does not have.

Instruction Using Classroom Text Examples
Rather than using contrived examples on worksheets to practice use of context, instruction works best when explicit instruction and guided practice is provided on a regular basis using examples from text that is already being used in the classroom. Teachers should review text and be on the lookout for examples where context clues are provided prior to assigning text for student reading.

Graves (2006, p. 99) suggests teaching students the following four-step strategy for inferring words from context:

1. Read carefully and ask yourself, "Does this make sense?"

2. Notice when you don't know the meaning of a word and slow down. Read that sentence at least once more, looking for clues.

3. If necessary, go back and reread the sentences before and after, looking for clues that help you figure out what the word might mean.

4. When you figure out what the word might mean, substitute your guess for the difficult word and see if it makes sense. If it does, keep on reading. If it doesn't, try again.

Context Doesn't Always Provide Clues
It is important to emphasize with students that use of context doesn't always work! Research shows that sometimes when readers attempt to derive the meanings of words in context they may get them wrong (Pressley et al., 2007). This may be because the student does not have enough prior knowledge to make sense of the clues in the text, or it may be that the clues are misleading. Contexts vary in how much information they provide a reader. Sometimes the context provides a direct explanation of the meaning of a word as shown in the examples of types of clues above, and in this example where the meaning of photosynthesis is directly stated in the previous sentence:

Up to this point we have been referring to the process in which light energy is used to make food simply as the food-making process. But this important process has its own special name: photosynthesis.

Sometimes the context provides some information about an unfamiliar word, but not enough for the student to be aware of its full meaning, as shown in the example below where the student may guess that a vaccination has something to do with preventing disease, but there is not enough information to discern just what a vaccination is.

In order to gain active immunity to a disease, one of two things must occur - either you come down with the disease, or you receive a vaccination.

Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) identified some text as "misdirective" (i.e., leading to a misunderstanding). Here is an example of a misdirective from their book Bringing Words to Life where the students might wrongfully assume that Ginny admired Sandra's dancing:

Sandra had won the dance contest, and the audience's cheers brought her to the stage for an encore. "Every step she takes is so perfect and graceful," Ginny said grudgingly as she watched Sandra dance." (p. 4)

Shanahan (2022) suggests including examples sometimes from real text where words can't successfully be figured out from context, rather than using contrived examples to avoid what he calls "over consistency". He points out that this is being realistic with students about how use of context really works in most reading situations.
Using Word Parts
Another strategy for determining the meaning of an unfamiliar word is to use knowledge of meaningful word parts (roots, prefixes, suffixes), which is the subject of a blog post I wrote in 2018 titled Using Morphology to Teach Vocabulary. Carlisle (2007) maintains that incidental word learning through contextual clues and morphological analysis is the primary means through which students acquire new vocabulary. Frey and Fisher (2011) suggest teaching students to "Look inside the word and outside the word to see what you know." When used in tandem, use of word parts (inside the word) and use of context (outside the word) can be very helpful.
Additional Resources References

Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.

Carlisle, J.F. (2007). Fostering morphological processing, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension. In R.K. Wagner, A.E. Muse, & K.R. Tannenbaum (Eds.). Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension. New York: The Guilford Press.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Word wise and content rich: Five essential steps to teaching academic vocabulary. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Graves, M.F. (2006). The vocabulary book. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kuhn, M.R., & Stahl, S. A. (1998). Teaching children to learn word meanings from context: A synthesis and some questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 119-138.

Pressley, M., Disney, L., & Anderson, K. (2007). Landmark vocabulary instructional research and the vocabulary instructional research that makes sense now. In Richard K. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, and P.B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, 745-799. New York: Longman.

Shanahan, T. (2022). Blog post: Teaching Students to Use Context

Joan Sedita

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vocabulary Strategy: Use of Context - Keys to Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An important strategy to help students build their vocabulary is use of context - i.e., using the clues or hints provided in the text that surround an unfamiliar word to help guess the meaning without depending on a dictionary. This can include words, phrases, or sentences that appear before, after, or close to the word.

# data[].attributes.body
Research based, straightforward, strategies that work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was created in 2002 to be a central and trusted source of scientific evidence for what works in education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lesson Resources

The UFLI Foundations Toolbox contains all the lesson resources to accompany the lesson plans provided in the UFLI Foundations manual. (Don't have a manual yet? Click here to order one) Every lesson has companion resources that will help you implement the lessons efficiently, effectively, and consistently.

Some of the companion lesson resources you will find below include:

Lesson slide decks (in PowerPoint and Google Slide formats)

Decodable passages

Homework sheets

Games and activities for additional practice

We have grouped the lessons into smaller units so you can access these resources more easily. Scroll down to use the buttons below to find the resources for each lesson or groups of lessons.

Please note that we are still building out these free resources, and we will be editing this page over the next few weeks. We wanted you to be able to access some materials as soon as possible, but be sure to come back later to see the rest!
New to UFLI Foundations? Learn about its development, check out a sample lesson plan, view the scope and sequence, and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UFLI Foundations Toolbox contains all the lesson resources to accompany the lesson plans provided in the UFLI Foundations manual. (Don't have a manual yet? Click here to order one) Every lesson has companion resources that will help you implement the lessons efficiently, effectively, and consistently.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fourth and Fifth Grade | Florida Center for Reading Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fourth Grade and Fifth Grade Student Center Activities Advanced Phonics | Fluency | Vocabulary | Comprehension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In recent years, schools have begun to implement schoolwide prevention models in an effort to increase student achievement, particularly in the areas of reading and math, referred to as A defining feature of an MTSS framework is a relative increase in intensity among the tiers; more time, attention, and resources are devoted to students at Tier 3 relative to Tier 2 or Tier 1. This increase in support, particularly between Tier 2 and Tier 3, can be summarized across two sets of factors derived from the literature: (a) To further illustrate the difference between Tier 2 and Tier 3 support, a list of instructional factors and how they can be conceptualized between the tiers is also presented as part of Table 1. Previous research has summarized research-based instructional factors that can be adjusted to intensify instruction (see Harlacher, Nelson Walker, & Sanford, 2010; Harn et al., 2007; Mellard, McKnight, & Jordan, 2010; and Kupzyck, Daly, Ihlo, & Young, 2012). Using those references as a basis, a selection of commonly discussed instructional factors was created and examples included within Table 1. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but instead is a selection of commonly discussed instructional factors.A straightforward difference between Tier 2 and Tier 3 is simply the person who is leading the group and actually teaching the students. Typically, general-education teachers or specialists facilitate Tier 2, and more experienced teachers, such as a special education teacher, content specialist, or teacher with expertise in a content area, facilitate Tier 3 (Harn et al., 2007).One protocol used by schools is the "combined protocol," which specifies that standard interventions and group problem-solving are used at Tier 2, and individually designed interventions and individual problem solving are used at Tier 3 (Tilly, 2008). With group problem-solving, the common instructional need is identified among students needing Tier 2 support using brief diagnostic assessments. For example, if oral reading fluency is used as a screening assessment, an assessor can determine a student's rate (i.e., number of words read correctly in 1 minute) and accuracy (i.e., percentage of words read correctly) when reading connected text. From there, educators can identify what skills within reading to focus on (e.g., inaccurate and slow readers are provided general reading instruction, whereas accurate and slow readers are provided fluency instruction). As another example, imagine a grade-level team that analyzed the results of a common assessment used in reading for their 2nd graders. The results revealed that for students who received Tier 2, only 22% of them have mastered At Tier 3, the unit of analysis moves from the group to the individual student. As opposed to group analysis, educators use individualized diagnostic assessments to evaluate the exact skills a student has and does not have rather than the skills a group of students have and do not have. In an RTI process, Another assessment difference between Tier 2 and Tier 3 is the frequency with which students are progress monitored. Students receiving Tier 2 support are monitored once per month or twice per month, compared to weekly or twice a week at Tier 3 (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2010). Usually, students at Tier 2 are monitored monthly, but some suggest monitoring every 2 weeks (Kaminski, Cumming, Powell-Smith, & Good, 2008) or weekly monitoring (Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, & McKnight, 2006). Progress monitoring at Tier 3 is more frequent, but relative to the frequency of monitoring at Tier 2. If monthly monitoring occurs at Tier 2, then biweekly or weekly monitoring occurs for students in Tier 3 (Harn et al., 2007; Vaughn et al., 2007). The guiding principle is that, as the need of the student increases, so does the attention and responsiveness of the staff. The increase in data collection at Tier 3 reflects the urgency of the student's educational need and allows the staff to make decisions regarding instruction more frequently (e.g., every 2 months instead of once per quarter) In deciding upon the frequency of progress monitoring, schools have to consider the number of data points needed. The validity of the slope (i.e., rate of improvement or rate of growth) depends on the number of data points that comprise it (Kennedy, 2005), and anywhere from 8 to 14 data points are needed to make a valid judgment of a student's growth (Christ, Zopluoglu, Long, & Monaghen, 2012). Consequently, schools may face a conundrum when the intervention has been implemented for a reasonable amount of time, yet the data is not sufficient to make a valid decision. For example, an intervention may have been implemented for 20 weeks, but monthly monitoring has resulted in only five data points. In such a scenario, schools have three options:

Additional Articles

Additional Resources

Abstract
Within Response-to-Intervention models, schools create layers of instructional tiers to match levels of support to students' needs. However, there are seemingly contradictory descriptions of Tier 2 and Tier 3 within the literature, and there is a reported need for further clarification on how to intensify instruction within RTI. To provide that clarity, the exact differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3 supplemental support are presented. The differences are described across (a) organizational factors, including time and group size, and (b) assessment factors, including the level of problem analysis and frequency of progress monitoring. Scheduling of instructional time and differences between elementary and secondary settings are also discussed. A list of instructional factors is also included.

Distinguishing Between Tier 2 and Tier 3 Instruction in Order to Support Implementation of Academic RTI
Response to Intervention (RTI; Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2010; Haager, Klingner, & Vaughn, 2007; Jimerson, Burns, & VanDerHeyden, 2007; NASDSE, 2005). Various terms have been used to describe such models, depending on whether the focus is on the academic or behavioral outcomes of students. RTI has often been used to describe an academic tiered model, whereas positive behavioral interventions and support (PBIS) is used to describe a behavioral teired model. Recently, the term
Within an MTSS, all students receive core instruction as the foundation for learning. Those students at-risk for academic failure on the basis of their performance (and validation of their performance) on screening assessments are then provided supplemental support. This first layer of additional support, Tier 2, occurs outside of the time dedicated to core instruction, in groups of 5-8 students, and focuses primarily on providing increased opportunities to practice and learn skills taught in the core (Baker, Fien, & Baker, 2010; Vaughn, Wanzek, Woodruff, & Linan-Thompson, 2007). When Tier 2 is insufficient to meet student need, students are provided Tier 3. Compared to Tier 2, Tier 3 is more explicit, focuses on remediation of skills, is provided for a longer duration of time (both in overall length of intervention and regularly scheduled minutes of instructional time), and occurs in smaller groups (i.e., groups of 1-3 students; Haager et al., 2007; Harn, Kame'enui, & Simmons, 2007; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003).
One of the primary differences between MTSS and traditional service delivery models is the use of levels of instructional support to flexibly group students according to need. Having instructional tiers ensures proper support for each student because schools are able to match more intensive instruction and resources to students with more intensive needs and less intensive instruction and resources to students with less intensive needs. However, understanding the differences between tiers, particularly Tier 2 and Tier 3, may be difficult for several reasons related to the varying descriptions of Tier 2 and Tier 3 in the literature. For example, some researchers have described Tier 2 instruction as occurring two to three times per week and Tier 3 instruction as occurring daily (Brown-Chidsey, Bronaugh, & McGraw, 2009), whereas others have described both Tier 2 and Tier 3 support as occurring daily (Chard & Harn, 2008; Denton, Fletcher, Simos, Papanicolaou, & Anthony, 2007). Others have described Tier 2 support as utilizing small groups comprising 4-8 students and Tier 3 as groups of 1-3 students (Chard & Harn, 2008), yet others have described both Tier 2 and Tier 3 support as groups comprising 1-3 students (Algozzine, Cooke, White, Helf, Algozzine, & McClanahan, 2008; Denton et al., 2007). multi-tier system of supports (MTSS) has emerged to describe the framework in schools that provides both academic and behavioral support for students. The term RTI has evolved to refer to the process for academic decision making. In this article, we discuss the academic side of an MTSS. MTSS is a schoolwide approach that establishes a seamless connection between three components: (1) a viable, standards-aligned curriculum and research-based instructional practices; (2) a comprehensive assessment system; and (3) use of the problem-solving model. MTSS commonly employs three layers of instruction, called tiers, which are used to match the level of instruction students need to their level of support. Students' growth is monitored and instructional placements are adjusted accordingly if students do not make adequate progress (Jimerson et al., 2007).
In addition to varying descriptions of Tier 2 and Tier 3 in the literature, there is also a lack of clarity around certain aspects of providing supplemental support. For example, Gessler Werts, Lambert, and Carpenter (2009) surveyed special education directors about RTI. Although 75% of the respondents reported that they had received formal training on RTI, there was limited consensus on various topics, including the amount of time needed for the delivery of Tier 2 and Tier 3 sessions. Other sites have reported needing more training on how to modify instruction that is currently in place (Bollman, Silberglitt, & Gibbons, 2007; Greenfield, Rinaldi, Proctor, & Cardarelli, 2010). In particular, sites need further clarification on how to intensify instruction at Tier 2 and Tier 3 that is more than just changing the intervention program used, such as learning how and when to modify pacing and group sizes and how to improve the coordination of instruction in the school (Callender, 2007).
Additionally, sites often go through a trial and error process as they try out different processes within the model to find one that fits their site (Dulaney, 2012; White, Polly, & Audette, 2012). Dulaney (2012) described the implementation of RTI within a middle school, and a major finding was that the school went through an evolution process to find a clear procedure for implementing Tier 2 and Tier 3. Prewett et al. (2012) reported similar findings in their analysis of secondary RTI implementation. They analyzed implementation among 17 middle schools and many of the schools reported that they would try one method, only to refine it later after gaining more experience with RTI. Such dynamics can lead to slower implementation and results because sites have to spend time with processes or practices that aren't as efficient or effective as others. Unfortunately, schools do not have time to waste as different processes are tried, and students certainly can't wait either. The lowest 10% of readers in the middle of 1st grade are likely to stay the lowest 10% of readers unless they receive additional support (Good, Simmons, & Smith, 1998), and 74% of poor readers in the 3rd grade likely remain poor readers in the 9th grade (Fletcher & Lyon, 1998). Understanding how to intensify instruction between tiers and knowing how to match expended resources to student need is critical because studies indicate at-risk students make substantial gains in achievement and may even catch up to peers that are on-track when instruction is sufficiently intense (Harn et al., 2007; Vaughn et al., 2003).
What would benefit sites in designing their MTSS frameworks and RTI models is a clear picture of how Tier 2 is different from Tier 3 along several dimensions, including (a) the group size, (b) the processes for monitoring the effectiveness and fidelity of the tiers, (c) what instructional adjustments can be made between the tiers (Greenfield et al., 2010; Murakami-Ramalho & Wilcox, 2012), and (d) ways to schedule time for the additional support (Dulaney, 2012; Greenfield et al., 2010; Swanson, Solis, Ciullo, & McKenna, 2012). To bring more clarity to the literature and to assist schools with understanding particular aspects of an academic MTSS framework, the differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3 support are presented in this article.

Supplemental Support Within an Academic MTSS Framework: Defining Tier 2 and Tier 3 Specifications
organizational factors, and (b) assessment factors. Each set of factors is described in detail next, illustrating how each one becomes more explicit and intensive between Tier 2 and Tier 3. A summary of the two sets of factors is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: A Summary of Research-Based Factors that Illustrate the Differences Between Tier 2 and Tier 3

Factor

Tiers of Instructional Support

Organizational Factors Tier 2 Tier 3

Time allotted for instruction

30 minutes, 3-5 days/week

45-120 minutes, 5 days/week

Assessment Factors Tier 2 Tier 3

Instructional Factors Tier 2 Tier 3

Instructional focus

Use of core and supplemental programs with support of reteaching and review

Group-level needs

More strategically structured, remediation intervention programs

Individual-level needs

Behavioral expectations

Provide more structured systems to reinforce and correct challenging behavior

Use functional behavioral assessment to plan an individualized intervention

Precorrection

Utilize group precorrection

Utilize individual precorrection

Amount of review and repetitions

Review and practice of core concepts taught in Tier 1

More intensive practice of core and remediation content

Considerably more time spent on reviewing concepts and allowing practice

Organizational Factors
The primary organizational differences between Tier 2 and 3 are (a) the person facilitating the group; (b) the frequency and duration of the supplemental support, which is the number of days of additional support per week, the number of minutes of each instructional session, and the number of weeks of the support; and (c) the size of the group (i.e., number of students). In addition, there are considerations for scheduling and the coordination of Tier 3 support with Tier 1 instruction.
Person facilitating the group.

Time and group size in Tier 2. Across studies, elementary students typically receive 30-minute blocks of Tier 2 support in groups no larger than 8 and receive that intervention 3-5 days per week for a period of 8-15 weeks (Abbott et al., 2008; Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2010; Vaughn et al., 2007). At the secondary level (i.e., middle and high school), students receive Tier 2 support in groups of 3-8 students (Burns, 2008; Prewett et al., 2012) for 40-50 minutes each day (Vaughn et al., 2010). It is recommended that any Tier 2 intervention not last longer than 20 weeks because students make the most gains within the first 20 weeks and much less thereafter (Vaughn, Wanzek, & Murray, 2012).
Group sizes at the secondary level can vary because of the nature of block scheduling and because instruction focuses more on remediation of skills than does elementary schools (Burns, 2008; Prewett et al., 2012). Most sites describe group sizes between 3 and 8 students (Burns, 2008; Prewett et al., 2012), yet some provide Tier 2 in groups of 5-15 students (Pyle & Vaughn, 2012; Prewett et al., 2012; Vaughn et al., 2010). In these instances, however, although all of the students receive intervention during the same time period, the group can be differentiated so that some students work independently while others receive small-group instruction in groups of 3 to 8 (Burns, 2008; Prewett et al., 2012). Depending on the structure of the classes and the schedule used (e.g., block scheduling vs. traditional scheduling), students may receive a daily intervention that is 40-50 minutes, or a 90-minute intervention block two to three times per week (Prewett et al., 2012; Pyle & Vaughn, 2012).
Time and group size in Tier 3. Within Tier 3, students are taught in groups of 1-4 (Denton et al., 2007). Instruction is provided on a daily basis (five times per week), for at least 45-60 minutes at a time (Abbott et al., 2008; Vaughn et al., 2007), and it may extend longer than the 8-15 weeks designated for Tier 2 (Vaughn et al., 2003). In some cases, Tier 3 may be provided anywhere from 60 to 120 additional minutes (Denton et al., 2007). Tier 3 is sometimes described as "triple dipped," meaning that the student(s) may receive core instruction, Tier 2 support, and a third dose of instruction in Tier 3 (Harn et al., 2007). The defining features for Tier 2 support are that it occurs outside of the core time, occurs at least twice per week, and is delivered in small groups (NASDSE, 2005). In contrast, Tier 3 intervention occurs at least four times per week, but usually daily, in groups comprising 1-3 students (Chard & Harn, 2008; Harn et al., 2007).
Although there are guidelines for group size and time, the main difference between Tier 2 and Tier 3 is the increase in intensity of support. While there are guidelines for group sizes and duration for Tier 2 and Tier 3, the difference is a contextual one, as school will provide instruction at a higher frequency, for a longer duration, for more minutes during instructional sessions, and in smaller groups at Tier 3 relative to what is in place at Tier 2. For example, Chard and Harn (2008) described a model in which students receive instruction in groups of 4-8 at Tier 2 and in groups of 1-3 at Tier 3. Conversely, Denton and colleagues (2007) reported Tier 2 group sizes of 1-3 students for 40 minutes, 5 days per week, and Tier 3 group sizes of 2 students and 120 minutes of daily intervention time. Both are appropriate, contextual models of MTSS and RTI processes because of the relative increase in support.
Coordinating the delivery of Tier 3. Vital to the provision of Tier 3 is its coordination with core instruction. To ensure that students receive exposure to core content skills and have adequate time for remediation of missing or weak skills, Tier 3 cannot supplant students' access to core instruction or substitute for a core lesson in the general education classroom. Otherwise, although beneficial in remediating some skills, the intervention would create gaps in other skills (Sanford, Brown, & Turner, 2012). Instead, Tier 3, like Tier 2, must complement and supplement core instruction, without interrupting, conflicting with, or cutting instructional time from core blocks. This ensures that the students in Tier 3 receive practice with the academic language and concepts demanded by grade level standards taught in the core program, while also receiving small-group instruction focused on remediation of skills.
However, doing so requires careful communication between educators and strategic teaching of content. Whereas Tier 2 support is viewed as providing additional instructional time without any major adjustment to the student's core time, Tier 3 often calls for significant adjustment of the student's core time. This adjustment is particularly necessary when schools cannot provide a separate time above and beyond Tier 1 and Tier 2 for Tier 3 support.
Harn and colleagues (2007) described one way to coordinate instruction for students in need of Tier 3 support. In their study, students assigned to Tier 2 received 90 minutes of core instruction plus 30 additional minutes of support. At Tier 3, students also received 30 minutes of additional support time; however, Tier 2 supports were supplanted with Tier 3 supports. In addition, the students' core was "cut in half" for the purposes of delineating a focus on the most vital content. Tier 3 students spent 45 minutes in whole-group core instruction with grade-level peers focusing on grade-level concepts, but then received extended small-group instruction during the remaining 45 minutes to remediate skills not yet mastered. Whereas students in Tier 1 and Tier 2 spend these 45 minutes in small-group instruction with the regular education teacher (15 minutes) and then are rotated to two different learning activities (30 minutes), students receiving Tier 3 instruction had active, small-group instruction for the duration of the 45-minutes. By strategically using instructor resources in this model, instruction can take place either within the regular education classroom or in a pull-out setting.
Scheduling. Scheduling is a logistical component of providing Tier 2 and Tier 3 services. One solution for schools is to set up a common intervention time, during which all available staff are ready to teach certain intervention groups. Grade- or department-level teams use this time to pool all students and then organize them into appropriate Tier 2, Tier 3, or enrichment groups (Griffin & Hattendorf, 2010; Murakami-Ramalho & Wilcox, 2012). In this model, intervention times are staggered between grade-levels so that a sufficient amount of staff are available during each block. This model is beneficial when school personnel are limited, as pooling the staff and students together can free up staff to teach a small group of students; however, it requires that staff work collaboratively to identify group size and the focus of instruction.
Another scheduling structure used is a pull-out period (Grimaldi & Robertson, 2011; Harn et al, 2007) in which those needing additional support go to another classroom or section of a classroom to receive Tier 2 or Tier 3 support. Students who do not need extra support stay in their respective classrooms and work on independent projects or another subject. This model requires additional staff to teach instructional groups, and students may miss other instruction and content while receiving additional support (Harn et al., 2007).
Scheduling at the secondary level.Scheduling at the secondary level requires slightly different approaches because of electives and various content courses (Burns, 2008; Prewett et al., 2012). Schools can use electives to provide students with intervention time (e.g., students allowed two electives receive one elective and one intervention period). Or, schools may use a block schedule to provide longer intervention periods (e.g., instead of having daily, 45-minute class periods, some schools provide longer class periods of 90 minutes that occur two or three times per week; Prewett et al.). Schools have also rearranged schedules and staff assignments so that students receive core instruction and supplemental support back-to-back by the same teacher (Griffin & Hattendorf, 2010).
Another option is to reduce each class period during the day by a few minutes in order to create an additional class period for Tier 2 or Tier 3. For example, if a school usually has seven time periods, reducing each period by 5 minutes can result in a 35-minute time block, which can be used for enrichment, study hall, or a free period for students not needing additional support. Schools can also offer intervention time before or after school, called extended learning time (ELT). In this situation, the ELT is not mandatory (because it's outside of school hours), but is highly encouraged (Prewett et al., 2012).

Assessment Factors
Three primary assessment differences between Tier 2 and 3 are (1) the use of individual versus group diagnostic information, (2) the frequency of progress monitoring, and (3) the use of a comprehensive assessment framework at Tier 3.
Individual versus group diagnostic information. Many of the same types of assessments are used across Tier 2 and Tier 3 (i.e., universal screening to inform initial tier assignment, progress monitoring and mastery assessments to inform student learning, summative assessments to inform intervention effectiveness, and fidelity measures to determine implementation; Hosp, 2008). However, the level of analysis may differ, depending on the protocol adopted. A protocol guides schools' thinking about who gets which level of support and when they are assigned and modified (Tilly, 2008).

As an analogy, imagine a health clinic that wants to identify the most frequent health concern expressed by its patients. Analyzing initial complaints from patients, the clinic discovers that a good portion of their patients frequently experience cold and flu symptoms. Instead of meeting with each patient separately and developing an individualized plan, the clinic targets those patients' needs all at once by providing a group-oriented intervention (a Tier 2 intervention). The clinic decides to share brochures on how to prevent spreading germs (e.g., washing hands frequently, covering mouth when coughing), passes out free hand sanitizer to those patients and to community venues (e.g., local grocery stores, coffee shops), and provides an on-call nurse to field questions for those individuals who have cold symptoms. In this scenario, the clinic analyzed common areas of need at the group level among its patients needing "Tier 2," without investing resources in analyzing individual patients' complaints.

Frequency of progress monitoring.

1. School staff can obviously increase the amount of progress monitoring to ensure they have at least eight data points in order to make a decision (e.g., collect data at least three more times to obtain at least eight data points).

2. School staff may wish to administer more than one probe during progress-monitoring occasions. Instead of administering one oral reading fluency probe, for example, educators can administer three probes and record the mean or median. When less than weekly monitoring is used, multiple administrations of probes during a progress-monitoring occasion and using the median score provide for a more valid data point (Christ et al., 2012). This can decrease the rate of monitoring required to have sufficient data for accurate decisions from conducting weekly monitoring for several months to conducting weekly monitoring for 3-9 weeks (Christ et al., 2012).

3. School staff can consider the data itself. Guidelines for progress monitoring are not hard and fast rules, because the number of data points needed depends in part on the amount of variability within the data. Specifically, the more variability within the data, the greater the number of data points needed to get a valid picture of the student's growth (Kennedy, 2005). Conversely, lower variability in the data indicates more precision in measurement and, thus, less need for more data points (although it's usually difficult to argue for fewer data points). When evaluating a student's growth rate, an educator should be able to look at the graph and judge, with reasonable confidence, where the next data point will land. If one cannot judge that, then more data are needed until the educator can judge where the next data point will fall with reasonable confidence. Schools could easily encounter situations in which fewer than eight data points provide a clear indication that the intervention is not sufficient for the student and, thus, more data are not needed to make a decision (see Figure 1). To summarize, schools will have to consider intervention time, progress-monitoring schedules, variability within the data, and certain decision deadlines (e.g., end of term or school year) to ensure they have sufficient data to make accurate decisions about student progress.

r-controlled vowels. Accordingly, a focus of decoding lessons in Tier 2 would include r-controlled vowels. This group level of problem analysis can help schools efficiently group larger numbers of students into appropriate levels of supports by pinpointing a common missing skill (or skills) to target during Tier 2.

Figure 1. Illustration of variability within data.

Note: For Student 1, the data indicate that the student's next data point can be predicted with reasonable confidence, whereas for Student 2, more data is needed. Both examples have fewer than eight data points.

Assessment framework.A final difference with assessment between Tier 2 and Tier 3 is the use of a framework to structure the intensity and explicitness of decision making that corresponds with Tier 3 (Christ, 2008; Howell & Nolet, 2000). Whereas Tier 2 assessment is largely at the group-level, Tier 3 assessment is at the individual level. Thus, assessment at Tier 3 requires a much more comprehensive, thorough, and intensive approach. To accomplish this, assessment at Tier 3 is organized within the RIOT/ICEL framework.

RIOT and ICEL are acronyms for the type of assessments and instructional domains to analyze, respectively, when making decisions about individual students' achievement. ICEL includes instruction (how new skills are taught and reinforced), curriculum (what is being taught), environment (where the instruction takes place), and learner (the recipient of the skills being taught). RIOT includes review (reviewing existing data, permanent products, attendance records, lessons plans, etc.) that inform the evaluator about the state of affairs, interviews (structured, semi-structured, and unstructured methods of assessment that involve question-answer formats) observations (directly observing the instructional settings and the student's engagement during learning tasks to examine when and where the problem is most and least likely to occur), and test (the administration of formal and informal tests). The RIOT methods are used to obtain information about ICEL (Christ, 2008; Howell & Nolet, 2000).

RIOT and ICEL are best viewed as an organizing rubric that can guide the specifics of problem analysis (see Table 2).

Table 2: Examples of Sources of Information and Assessment Methods Within the RIOT and ICEL Framework to Support Achievement in Tier 3

diagnostic does not refer to diagnosing a disability; it refers to analyzing the instructional situation and student's skills in order to plan for intervention. Diagnostic assessments are those that assess discrete skills, such as identifying the specific letter patterns a student can and cannot read well or which multiplication tables a student has mastered (Hosp, 2008).

Review

Interview

Observe

Test

Instruction

Examine permanent product, lesson plans to assess prior strategies and instructional demands

Interview educator(s) for philosophy and perception of student issues

Conduct direct observations to document critical elements of practices

Identify antecedents and consequences of behavior

Use checklists, scales, etc. to measure effective practices

Curriculum

Review lesson plans and learning objectives to determine match with student's skills

Analyze curriculum materials to understand scope and sequence, amount of review, etc.

Interview educator(s) for understanding of curriculum, training received, expectations about pacing, etc.

Examine permanent products to determine alignment with objectives

Observe clarity of objectives and student's completion of them

Assess difficulty of materials compared to student's instructional level

Environment

Review lesson plans on behavioral expectations; school rules and policies to understand climate; and seating charts to determine distractions

Interview educator(s) to assess rules and routines

Talk with students to describe climate, rules, etc.

Observe school and classroom climate and interactions among staff and students

Compare student's performance between different settings to assess impact of environment

Learner

Review records to assess previous history and learning, attendance

Examine permanent products to assess response to previous instruction

Interview student to describe perception of problem, coping methods, etc.

Observe target skills and behavior

Use a variety of tests to assess student's skill level and behavior

Returning to the health clinic analogy, at Tier 3, the clinic would focus on one particular patient. Imagine that one patient has a recurring cough and the typical "first line" of treatment (the Tier 2 example described above) did not work. From there, the clinic may draw blood to pinpoint a more aggressive approach. The clinic may also conduct an interview with the patient, asking questions about the patient's day-to-day activities, and observe the patient taking deep breaths. The results of such an evaluation would inform the doctors about the individualized course of action to take. In our case, the patient with a recurring cough had a bacterial infection. Low and behold, a round of intense antibiotics has gotten this patient back to full health. With RTI, the goal is similar: to get students back to full educational health.
Note: The term educator is used to refer to all relevant personnel who work with the student. Adapted from Christ, 2008 and Howell & Nolet, 2000 to depict Tier 3 implementation of RIOT/ICEL.

Depending on the hypothesis to test and the intensity of student need, an evaluation may only involve a few "cells" or several of the cells; the more severe the problem, the more areas to be assessed using the framework. The purpose of ICEL is to collect information that has high instructional relevance and pertains to controllable factors (Christ, 2008; Howell & Nolet, 2000). Because the student receiving instruction has not benefited from Tier 1 or Tier 2, much more time is spent analyzing the instructional environment to identify ways to correct the problem compared to students receiving Tier 2. This is not to say that certain instructional domains or cells in the RIOT/ICEL rubric are ignored at Tier 2, but the comprehensive and individualized assessment within RIOT/ICEL at Tier 3 reflects the increase in need and resources from Tier 2 to Tier 3. Additionally, the use of RIOT/ICEL clarifies the level of expertise needed to conduct assessment and make data-based decisions at this level. For example, educators using RIOT/ICEL will need training on how to use instructional observation tools (which fall under the observe and instruction cells) or how to assess the scope and sequence of a curriculum ( curriculum cells).

Conclusion

As schools implement RTI and establish MTSS, they will need to make decisions about Tier 2 and Tier 3 that include the frequency of progress monitoring, the size of instructional groups, the frequency and duration of support, where such instructional time will be provided, and who will provide that support. To help schools understand the differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3, variances between those tiers were elucidated in this manuscript. Based on the literature, the primary means for intensifying instruction between Tier 2 and Tier 3 are (a) the amount of instructional time and size of the group receiving instruction offered at each tier, (b) the increase in the nature and frequency of progress monitoring at Tier 3, (c) the use of individualized assessment (instead of group-level assessment) at Tier 3, (d) the use of the RIOT/ICEL framework at Tier 3, and (d) manipulations in a set of key alterable variables that can be used to intensify instruction within or across tiers. Educators seeking to implement schoolwide prevention models in order to maximize resource allocation and support all students in achieving academic standards may be able to use these recommendations from the literature to improve implementation of RTI.

References

Baker, S. K., Fien, H., & Baker, D. L. (2010). Robust reading instruction in the early grades: Conceptual and practical issues in the integration and evaluation of Tier 1 and Tier 2 instructional supports.Bollman, K. A., Silberglitt, B., & Gibbons, K. A. (2007). The St. Croix River Education District model: Incorporating systems-level organization and multi-tiered problem-solving process for intervention delivery. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Brown-Chidsey, R., Bronaugh, L., & McGraw, K. (2009). Chard, D., Harn, B. (2008). Project CIRCUITS: Center for Improving Reading Competence Using Intensive Treatments Schoolwide. In C. Greenwood, T. Kratochwill, & M. Clements (Eds.), Christ, T. J., Zopluoglu, C., Long, J. D., & Monaghen, B. D. (2012). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Quality of progress monitoring outcomes. Fletcher, J. M., & Lyon, G. R. (1998). Reading: A research-based approach. In W. M. Evers (Ed.), Griffin, J., & Hattendorf, R. (2010). Successful RTI implementation in middle schools. Haager, D., Klinger, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Mellard, D., McKnight, M., & Jordan, J. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional intensity.National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). (2005). Pyle, N., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Redmediating reading difficulties in a response to intervention model with secondary students. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J. S., & Murray, G. (2012). White, R. B., Polly, D., & Audette, R. H. (2012). A case analysis of an elementary school's implementation of response to intervention. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(9), 1-20.Response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 319-330). New York, NY: Guilford. RTI in the classroom: Guidelines and recipes for success. New York, NY: Guilford. Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools (pp. 70-83). New York, NY: Guilford.Exceptional Children, 78, 356-373. What's gone wrong in America's classrooms (pp. 49-90). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. Perspective on Language and Literacy, 36(2), 30-34. Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention. Baltimore, MD: Single-case design for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 217-225. Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author.Psychology in the Schools, 49, 273-284. doi: 10.1002/pits.21593Intensive interventions for students strugging in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26, 73-90. doi:10.1080/02568543.2011.632067

Brookes.

Back To Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Distinguishing Between Tier 2 and Tier 3 Instruction in Order to Support Implementation of RTI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
RTINetwork.org guides educators and families in the effective implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) as a means to improve educational outcomes for all students.

# data[].attributes.headline
Effective Instruction for MS Students with Reading Difficulties

# data[].attributes.subject
Effective Instruction for MS Students with Reading Difficulties

# data[].attributes.body
Manyak, Patrick C., et al. “Morphological Analysis Instruction in the Elementary Grades: Which Morphemes to Teach and How to Teach Them.” The Reading Teacher, vol. 72, no. 3, 2 Apr. 2018, pp. 289–300, 10.1002/trtr.1713.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Share This:

By Louise Spear-Swerling, PhD

Recently the topic of Structured Literacy teaching has sparked considerable interest. Educators and parents often have questions about this approach:

What does it involve?

How is it different from the ways that children are usually taught to read?

Why is it effective for children with dyslexia and other learning difficulties?

Here is an explanation of what structured literacy means and why schools should use it.
What Is Structured Literacy?
Structured literacy (SL) approaches emphasize highly explicit and systematic teaching of all important components of literacy. These components include both foundational skills (e.g., decoding, spelling) and higher-level literacy skills (e.g., reading comprehension, written expression). SL also emphasizes oral language abilities essential to literacy development, including phonemic awareness, sensitivity to speech sounds in oral language, and the ability to manipulate those sounds.

Explicit teaching means that teachers clearly explain and model key skills; they do not expect children to infer these skills only from exposure. Systematic means that there is a well-organized sequence of instruction, with important prerequisite skills taught before more advanced skills. For instance, children master decoding and spelling simpler consonant-vowel-consonant words (e.g., tap) with short vowel sounds before learning more complex short-vowel words (e.g., stamp or tapped) with consonant blends or affixes.

Explicit, systematic teaching requires teacher-led instruction. Teacher-led instruction also enables educators to provide prompt, targeted feedback in response to children's mistakes, another characteristic of SL. For example, suppose that children are practicing reading words with short vowel sounds and consonant blends (e.g., stamp) aloud, and a child misreads stamp as stump. Rather than just telling the child the word, the teacher might point to the vowel to draw the child's attention to it. If that cue did not help, the teacher would provide additional feedback focused on the child's specific error (e.g., "short sound for a is pronounced /ă/ ").

...the emphasis is on patterns rather than specific words. This is because the teacher is trying to foster a decoding (and encoding) process or strategy-instead of teaching children to memorize individual words by overall visual appearance.

Structured literacy approaches use books and other instructional materials that lend themselves to this kind of teaching. Educators teach from a sequence of phonics materials proceeding from use of simpler to more complex patterns. Children read books containing the phonics word patterns they have been taught. Reading of texts and phonics instruction are coordinated so that as children's decoding skills develop, they are able to read increasingly complex texts. Similarly, spelling is coordinated with decoding, so that each reinforces the other.

Here is an example of coordination of decoding and spelling. Suppose that beginning decoders are learning to decode simple consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words such as tap, win, or fit. Their spelling instruction would employ similar CVC word patterns, such as nag, sip, and hat. Notice that the emphasis is on patterns rather than specific words. This is because the teacher is trying to foster a decoding (and encoding) process or strategy-instead of teaching children to memorize individual words by overall visual appearance.

Figure 1 provides one example of a structured literacy activity for decoding and spelling, a phoneme-grapheme mapping task. The teacher dictates a chain of patterned words for children to spell in a grid, one word at a time, with one phoneme (speech sound) per box. (For decoding, the teacher can write the words and have children decode them.) The chain involves a variety of single-phoneme changes in words, not just changes in the first phoneme (spelling) or grapheme (decoding).

Words in the chain are carefully chosen. All are phonetically regular and involve only letter-sound (grapheme-phoneme) relationships children have been taught. For example, in the second row of the grid, tar would not be an appropriate choice to follow tap, because tar contains a vowel- r pattern ( ar) with a different vowel sound that children have not been taught at this early stage.

This SL activity and other similar activities promote careful attention to all the letters in a word-and all the phonemes they represent. They help children to grasp the alphabetic principle-the idea that reading involves a code in which sounds in spoken words map onto letters (graphemes) in printed words-as well as to develop strong phonemic awareness, decoding, and spelling skills.

They help children to grasp the alphabetic principle-the idea that reading involves a code in which sounds in spoken words map onto letters (graphemes) in printed words-as well as to develop strong phonemic awareness, decoding, and spelling skills.

A number of instructional programs and approaches have the features of SL. There is not one "best" SL approach for all children with dyslexia or other learning problems. Still, some instructional approaches and materials are simply incompatible with SL. Unfortunately, many of these are widely used in schools.
How Is Literacy Usually Taught?
Literacy instruction in many schools is not highly explicit or systematic. Important foundational skills (e.g., phonemic awareness and decoding) often receive limited emphasis, even for beginners or struggling decoders (Moats, 2017).

Literacy instruction in many schools is not highly explicit or systematic. Important foundational skills (e.g., phonemic awareness and decoding) often receive limited emphasis, even for beginners or struggling decoders (Moats, 2017).

Typical literacy instruction frequently uses loosely structured types of approaches, such as "reader's workshop" or "writer's workshop." Considerable classroom time is spent having children work independently on reading and writing tasks of their own choosing. Teachers do supervise this work and spend time "conferencing" with individual children. However, the way that instruction is organized means that time for teacher-led, explicit instruction is minimal.

Another key problem is that commonly used instructional materials do not lend themselves to explicit, systematic teaching of important foundational components of literacy. These problems may undermine the effectiveness even of a highly capable teacher.

For example, many schools do not provide teachers with a systematic phonics program and accompanying sets of words, texts, and materials. It is very difficult to teach phonics well, especially to large groups of children or those who struggle, without appropriate instructional materials.

Many schools do not provide teachers with a systematic phonics program and accompanying sets of words, texts, and materials. It is very difficult to teach phonics well, especially to large groups of children or those who struggle, without appropriate instructional materials.

Instead, teachers may be told to post "word walls" in the classroom; these "word walls" often contain common words that vary greatly in spelling patterns and pronunciation. (See Figure 2.) Some words (e.g., are, again) are irregular (i.e., exceptions to phonics generalizations). Other words are regular, but involve a wide range of patterns, including some difficult ones for beginners (e.g., two-syllable words like better). These kinds of materials do not help children understand the predictability of phonics patterns in words. Instead, they encourage memorization of whole words, a strategy that will not help children learn to read well in the long run.
More About Phonics in Typical Literacy Instruction
A frequent response from schools using typical literacy practices is, "But we do teach phonics!" This is generally true. However, in addition to limited emphasis and lack of explicitness, there are other problems with phonics instruction in many schools.

Research over the past couple of decades has suggested that, although any phonics is better than no phonics at all, certain types of phonics approaches are more effective than others. Specifically, an initial phoneme-grapheme level approach-that is characteristic of structured literacy-is more effective than a larger-unit phonics approach such as onset-rime, analytic phonics, or word families. (See Brady, 2011, for a review.) Typical literacy instruction often favors a larger unit approach to phonics.

Following are examples of how different phonics approaches might teach children to decode an unfamiliar word such as stack:

In a word families approach, children would learn to decode stack by comparing it to a known word such as back.

In an onset-rime approach, children would learn the sound for two parts of the word, the onset (st→/st/) and the rime (-ack→/ăk/). They would then blend the two parts to form the word (/st/) →/ăk/)→/stack/).

In a phoneme-grapheme level approach, children would learn sounds for the graphemes that represent each phoneme (s→/s/ t→/t/ a→/ă/and ck→/k/), then how to blend all four parts into a whole word (/s/ /t//ă/ /k/ →/stack/.

Research over the past couple of decades has suggested that, although any phonics is better than no phonics at all, certain types of phonics approaches are more effective than others. Specifically, an initial phoneme-grapheme level approach-that is characteristic of structured literacy-is more effective than a larger-unit phonics approach such as onset-rime, analytic phonics, or word families. (See Brady, 2011, for a review.) Typical literacy instruction often favors a larger unit approach to phonics.

Why is an initial phoneme-grapheme level phonics approach generally preferable to other phonics approaches? One reason may be that the phoneme-grapheme approach promotes closer attention to spelling (grapheme) and speech sound (phoneme) sequences in words than do other phonics approaches. Careful attention to letter sequences in words is fundamental for developing good decoding skills. Also, this approach generally includes explicit teaching of phoneme segmentation and blending, important phonemic awareness skills-foundational skills for both spelling and decoding.

In a phoneme-grapheme level approach, children would eventually learn to attend to larger patterns in words, including common orthographic patterns, such as graphemes (e.g., ar, ee, au, igh) and morphemes (e.g., common roots/base elements, prefixes, and suffixes). Some very common morphemes (e.g., ​-ing, ​-ed​ [​​indicating tense​]​) often would be taught relatively early. However, an emphasis on larger units mostly comes later, as children advance to more complex words, rather than at the very beginning of phonics teaching. Furthermore, all of these elements-phonemes, graphemes, and morphemes-would be taught in an explicit, systematic way.

In addition to basic phonics instruction, children need to practice applying their phonics skills while reading texts (Foorman et al., 2016). While their decoding is still developing-and particularly for children who struggle with decoding-oral reading of texts with teacher guidance and feedback is essential. Texts should include many words that children can decode. Otherwise, children may just guess at words.

In addition to basic phonics instruction, children need to practice applying their phonics skills while reading texts (Foorman et al., 2016). While their decoding is still developing-and particularly for children who struggle with decoding-oral reading of texts with teacher guidance and feedback is essential.

Unfortunately, in typical literacy instruction, children often read leveled or predictable texts. These texts use many words that poor decoders cannot read, with pictures that usually encourage guessing.

For instance, a predictable text about a child getting ready to go to school in the morning might have sentences such as William found his lunch, William found his crayons, and William found his backpack, with accompanying pictures of William getting his lunch, crayons, and backpack. With words spelled with varied and relatively complex phonics patterns, and pictures that enable guessing, this type of text does not encourage children to look carefully at the letters in words to decode them-and the letters and their sequence are what make one word different from another.

Teacher feedback to children's decoding errors also matters. This feedback should emphasize attention to the print and application of decoding skills, as would occur as part of a structured literacy approach. However, many teachers are trained to believe that small errors such as reading a for the or this for that can be ignored, because they do not greatly alter meaning (Spear-Swerling, 2018). Nevertheless, beyond the earliest grades, good readers decode with a very high degree of accuracy and do not make frequent errors of this type (e.g., Daane, Campbell, Grigg, Goodman & Oranje, 2005).

Are there children who learn to read well with typical literacy practices? Certainly. However, the typical literacy practices outlined in this section are not nearly as effective for children with dyslexia and other literacy difficulties as are structured literacy practices (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2018; Foorman et al., 2016; International Dyslexia Association, 2017).
Why Is Structured Literacy Effective?
First, SL explicitly and effectively addresses foundational literacy skills, a core need of children with dyslexia as well as many other struggling students. Also, in all components of literacy, SL emphasizes teaching that is clear, systematic, and unambiguous to the learner-all important qualities for students experiencing difficulty.

Finally, SL instruction can be very engaging to struggling students. Explicit teaching has been criticized as "drill and kill" that dulls interest and creativity, with typical literacy practices presented as inherently more engaging to children. Little research supports this view (Archer & Hughes, 2011).

Reading children's literature with beautiful pictures or extended opportunities to write for pleasure can indeed be motivating-but not for students who cannot decode or write well enough to enjoy them. Helping children to succeed at literacy is a key way to motivate and engage them, as well as to prepare them for ongoing, higher-level literacy learning.

Reading children's literature with beautiful pictures or extended opportunities to write for pleasure can indeed be motivating-but not for students who cannot decode or write well enough to enjoy them. Helping children to succeed at literacy is a key way to motivate and engage them, as well as to prepare them for ongoing, higher-level literacy learning.
Moving Forward
Structured literacy approaches are much more successful than many typical literacy practices for meeting the needs of children with dyslexia and other literacy problems. SL prioritizes teacher-led, explicit instruction in all important components of literacy. Initial phonics instruction uses a phoneme-grapheme (encoding) and grapheme-phoneme (decoding) level approach. Texts and other materials are well coordinated with the phonics program.

If educators are prepared to implement this kind of instruction, and are given appropriate instructional materials, they can reach a much wider range of children than with typical literacy practices. Virtually all teachers want to be effective with their students. Let's give them the knowledge and tools to do so.
References
Archer, A., & Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford.

Brady, S. (2011). Efficacy of phonics teaching for reading outcomes: Indications from post-NRP research. In S. Brady, D. Braze, & C. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 69-96). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005). F ourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 Special Study of Oral Reading (NCES 2006-469). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2018). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J.,...Wagner, R. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

International Dyslexia Association. (2017). Effective reading instruction for students with dyslexia (fact sheet). Retrieved fromhttps://dyslexiaida.org/effective-reading-instruction/

Moats, L. C. (2017). Can prevailing approaches to reading instruction accomplish the goals of RTI? Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 43, 15-22.

Spear-Swerling, L. (2018). Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51, 201-211.

Louise Spear-Swerling, Ph.D., is Professor Emerita in the Department of Special Education at Southern Connecticut State University. She has prepared both general and special educators to teach literacy for many years. Dr. Spear-Swerling helped to write IDA's Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading. Her most recent book, published by Brookes, is The Power of RTI and Reading Profiles: A Blueprint for Solving Reading Problems.
Copyright © 2019 International Dyslexia Association (IDA). Opinions expressed in The Examiner and/or via links do not necessarily reflect those of IDA. We encourage sharing of Examiner articles. If portions are cited, please make appropriate reference. Articles may not be reprinted for the purpose of resale. Permission to republish this article is available from info@dyslexia.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's Why Schools Should Use Structured Literacy - International Dyslexia Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently the topic of Structured Literacy teaching has sparked considerable interest. Educators and parents often have questions about this approach:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brady, S. (2011). Efficacy of phonics teaching for reading outcomes: Implications from Post-NRP research. In S. Brady, D. Braze, & C. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading (pp. 69-96), London: Psychology Press.

Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Taylor, W. P., Barth, A. E., & Vaughn, S. (2014). An experimental evaluation of Guided Reading and explicit interventions for primary-grade students at-risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(3), 268-293.

Ehri, L., Nunes, R. S., Stahl, S., & Willows, D. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393-447.

Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov

Kilpatrick, D. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. (Eds.). (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore, MD, Paul H. Brookes.

National Early Literacy Panel (NELP). (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

National Reading Panel. (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. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child and Human Development.

Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can't, and what can be done about it. New York: Basic Books.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Structured Literacy Instruction: The Basics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Structured Literacy prepares students to decode words in an explicit and systematic manner. This approach not only helps students with dyslexia, but there is substantial evidence that it is effective for all readers. Get the basics on the six elements of Structured Literacy and how each element is taught.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For a downloadable PDF click here. Summer 2016
By Carolyn D. Cowen

IDA infographics help make complex information easy to digest, remember, and share and are made for a wide audience-those new to dyslexia and related literacy/learning issues as well as the experts. Please share our infographics as well as our Fact Sheets to raise awareness about dyslexia and to help support the policy and practice changes needed to bring effective instruction (particularly in reading) to every child with dyslexia in every classroom across the nation.
Author's Note: You may need to zoom in to read small text.
Carolyn D. Cowen, Ed.M., is the Social Media Editor/Strategist for the International Dyslexia Association's Examiner. She also serves on the Board of Trustees for the Newgrange School, Ann Robinowitz Education Center, and Laurel School and on the Board of Directors for the Research Institute for Learning and Development. Carolyn is especially interested in creative ways nonprofits and movements can "power the mission with the message." Follow her on Twitter .

More infographics!

Good News! Most Reading Difficulties Can Be Resolved or Greatly Diminished (April 2016)

How Widespread Is Dyslexia? (February 2016)
Copyright © 2016 International Dyslexia Association (IDA). We encourage sharing of Examiner articles. If portions are cited, please make appropriate reference. Articles may not be reprinted for the purpose of resale. Permission to republish this article is available from info@interdys.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is Structured Literacy? - International Dyslexia Association