# data[].attributes.body
M.Ed. - Character Education

Post-Grad. Cert. - Early Literacy Development

25+ years PK-G2 classroom teacher

Literacy Coach, Mentor Program Coordinator

Finds joy in: word study, creating caring classrooms, reigniting teacher’s joy, eating ice cream, swimming and travel

miles@erinkentconsulting.com

linkedin.com/in/milesmadison/

# data[].attributes.body
Goals for the week

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
John Carroll (1963/1989) proposed an innovative model of academic learning. According to Carroll, learning was a function of five variables: student aptitude, opportunity to learn, perseverance, quality of teaching, and ability to understand.

It wasn't the list of variables that was so provocative, but how Carroll defined each.

He operationalized all those in terms of instructional time.

For instance, aptitude - then usually a score on an IQ test - was, for Carroll, a matter of the how much time was needed to learn something. A young Einstein may be able to master a K-12 physics curriculum in 42 minutes, while it might take Tim Shanahan 42 years!

Opportunity referred to the amount of instructional time schools provided. If teachers devoted 100 hours to physics instruction, Einstein would have it made given his aptitude, while I might be better advised to become a reading teacher.

Even if schools allotted 42 years to physics, I still might not make it. What are the chances I'd sit still for all those laws of motion, electrons, and quarks? Perseverance, the time students are willing to be taught, figures in learning as well.

Even quality is a matter of time in this scheme. If the quality of teaching is low, then kids will need relatively more teaching to be successful.

No one has come up with ingenious ways to measure those time-based variables. However, the point it made about instructional time was invaluable.

In the 1970-1980s, researchers following Carroll's lead explored time and its relationship to academic achievement, including in reading (e.g., Fisher, Berliner, Filby, Marliabe, Cahen, & Dishaw, 1981).

They learned a lot about instructional time. As a result, educational scientists now have a different conception of instructional time and how it should be considered in research studies.

In my opinion, reading educators don't think enough about time and its importance.

Studies have, again and again, demonstrated the power of amount of instruction in determining student learning (Gay, Sonnenschein, Sun, & Baker, 2021; Sonnenschein, Stapleton, & Benson, 2010; Walberg, Fraser, & Welch, 1986).
RELATED: "It Works" and Other Myths of the Science of Reading Era
Here are 7 key ideas about instructional time that every reading educator should know.
1. There's a difference between allotted time and academic learning time.
When scholars first looked at the amount of teaching, they were surprised to discover that there was not much connection.

That's when they started distinguishing allotted time from what academic learning time (ALT). ALT refers to the amount of time students are engaged in academic tasks likely to lead to learning (Fisher, et al., 1981).

Observational studies reported big differences in ALT (Smith, Lee, & Newman, 2001). Sometimes as much as 100%!

Ms. Jones may provide 90 minutes a day of ALT, while Ms. Smith's kids only get 45.

Year after year, the Jones' kids test out higher than the Smith kids, and Ms. Smith concludes, "Yep, the principal always gives me the lowest kids."

Scheduling 90 or 120 minutes of literacy instruction doesn't mean kids get that much actual teaching.

Some teachers struggle with classroom management, or they may be pushed into grouping schemes they can't handle. Big mistake.

Those kinds of things are time robbers. They prevent allotted time from being translated into ALT.

This can play out a couple of different ways. The obvious one has to do with unruliness, misbehavior, noisiness. Those problems threaten the learning of everyone.

But mismanagement is not always an issue of poor discipline. Some kids lose out to inattention, daydreaming, and obeying but not engaging... the kids who sit politely and quietly but who fail to engage with the lesson. The page turners who don't read.
2. Time is a value, not a variable.
Allocated time is not the important issue, ALT is!

When researchers began looking at instructional time, they treated it as a variable. It was routinely included in lists of factors that influence learning (e.g., ability, motivation, quantity of instruction, quality of instruction, classroom climate, home environment, peer group, mass media exposure).

However, that isn't the way scientists have learned to deal with time.

An example here may help.

We know that iron rusts when the metal molecules bond with the moisture in air. But scientists used to think that it was time that caused rust.

Modern scientists blanch at the thought of that now. For them, time can never be a causative factor, only a measure of such factors. With rust, oxidation (that bonding of molecules) is the cause and the time the iron is exposed to humidity, is a measure of the amount of oxidation exposure.

In education, time itself shouldn't be the issue. No, it's the kind of teaching, the kind of educational environment, or the kind of curriculum that are influencing learning. Time is a valuable way to estimate how much exposure kids are getting to those kinds of teaching and kinds curriculum.

Unfortunately, we tend to say things like, "phonics works," or "research supports comprehension strategies."
3. Think components, not overall time.
What we should be saying is, "kids benefited from 30 minutes of daily phonics instruction for a school year," or "we had measurable comprehension improvement from 8 weeks of strategy teaching."

Time should be seen as dosage. Too often we're satisfied that teachers are teaching writing or teaching phonics. But we should be asking, "Are they teaching enough of those things?"

Principals often proudly tell me that their teachers are required to teach reading/ language arts for 2 hours per day. That's not nothing, but it's not enough.

I think the lack of specific attention to time is why many teachers neglect certain aspects of reading, while overdoing others.

I've visited kindergarten classes with no phonemic awareness instruction, and third grade classes without writing (since their goal is higher reading scores). I have vivid memories of a second-grade class with an overwhelming 90 minutes per day of phonics and spelling. I'm often asked if having the kids read a paragraph for fluency practice is enough (no, I don't think so).

None of that makes any sense.
4. Aim at learning goals not instructional activities.
In Chicago, we overcame that problem by portioning the literacy instruction time among word learning, text reading fluency, reading comprehension, and writing. That meant kids got a lot of attention to all the key components of reading development.

Making sure that enough time is accorded to each of those curricular components that research has identified as making a difference in reading achievement is not micromanaging.

What we found was that when teachers knew they were required to spend considerable time on fluency instruction or vocabulary, they got very interested in how best to teach those things. It's easy enough to hide your weaknesses in a 90-120-minute block if no one is paying attention to how those minutes are being divided up. But when you find out you have 30 minutes of fluency instruction to provide, how to accomplish that becomes a much more important question to a teacher.

Some time-based instructional schemes prescribe specific daily activities: student reading time, small group instruction time, writing, teacher read alouds, ABC Reading Program), etc.
5. Rate and time are not the same thing.
Those schemes help teachers to fill their days.

But filling up a day's schedule and curating a powerful set of learning experiences are not the same thing.

Organize your instructional time around what you are trying to accomplish, rather than on certain activities. If you have set aside time to teach kids to bring their prior knowledge to bear on the text that they are reading, then your minutes of reading comprehension this week should be focused on that. The texts and activities that you choose should be aimed at accomplishing that goal.

Focus on increasing kids' vocabulary knowledge, not on teacher read alouds. You may decide to structure a teacher read aloud in a way that will help address that vocabulary knowledge goal, but there are other effective approaches to that too. When it comes to time, keep eyes on the learning prize, not the activity that might be used to address it.

Time has to do with the numbers of minutes or hours that we devote to a subject. Rate is more bound up in what happens within that time allotment.
6. Not all learning time is equivalent.
For instance, research suggests that the number of interactions that take place between students and teachers (like how many questions they get to answer) makes a difference in learning (Allen, Gregory, Mikami, Lun, Hamre, & Pianta, 2013; Folmer-Annevelink, Doolaard, Mascareño, & Bosker, 2010). Often the amount of interaction is limited. The teacher asks a few questions and calls on a couple kids to answer them. No one must think about the information because they aren't likely to be called upon.

That suggests a useful way of evaluating classroom instruction. How many opportunities do kids have to respond in an hour? The traditional teacher might end up with a very low rate of response - asking few questions, calling on few students. In another classroom, the teacher might provide slates and all students are expected to respond at least in writing to every question.

In decoding lessons, I'm often concerned about how many words kids get to segment, or sound out, or spell. Some teachers move those lessons along better, getting everyone to do those kinds of things multiple times in a lesson.
7. Time and Tier 2 success.
And what about the amount of writing that occurs in a writing lesson or the amount of reading in a comprehension lesson? (How many words are written or read in the time provided?)

We want substantial amounts of time devoted to key aspects of literacy learning. But these time allotments should be replete with reasonably high rates of action and response.

Too often teachers assume that all activities common to language arts lessons are equally valuable. That's not the case. Some activities have higher payoffs - in terms of learning - than do others.

Some examples: studies of free or independent reading in which kids pick the texts and read on their own with little teacher involvement provide learning opportunities. However, studies show that the payoffs from using time in that way is markedly lower than when engaged in instructional activities with more teacher input (e.g., text selection, purpose, monitoring, feedback, direct instruction) (Shanahan, 2022).

Or, think about a phonics lesson. There is likely to be more learning payoff from a highly interactive lesson that provides opportunities to hear sounds matched to letters and words, and to sound out words with teacher guidance than would accrue from having students completing worksheets quietly at their desks. Kids need to learn to connect phonology (sounds) with orthography (spellings) and that is best done with audible lessons.
READ MORE: Shanahan On Literacy Blog References
I understand that at times teachers need time fillers, but instructional planning should always be a quest for what kind of lesson is most likely to foster the learning that we're aiming for.

Some kids have trouble learning. They just don't make the same progress as the other kids.

That's why we have the so-called Tier 2 programs; additional opportunities for kids to catch up and keep up.

Tier 2 programs should focus on important reading skills that kids might lag in (that means having instruction available for supporting both the decoding and language gaps that might occur).

Tier 2 programs should provide enhanced learning opportunities - focused, purposeful, specific, well-presented lessons with minimal of distractions and minimal need for adjustments for student heterogeneity.

Tier 2 programs - and here is the time issue - should provide additional instruction, not replacement instruction. Pulling kids out of reading lessons, to get other reading lessons down the hall is unlikely to increase learning. Tier 2 gives kids a chance for a double dose of instruction, but that means that schools need to schedule Tier 2 teaching thoughtfully so that it adds to the teaching the children receive.

If you want to raise reading achievement, take a careful look at the amount of time allotted for reading, how that time is divided among key learning goals, how engaged children are in that time, and the amount of actual reading, writing, and interaction that is taking place. I think you might be sadly surprised at what you see. We can do better.

Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student achievement with the Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Secondary. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 76-98.

Carroll, J. B. (1989). The Carroll Model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher, 18( 1), 26-31.

Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (1981). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. Journal of Classroom Instruction, 17(1), 2-15.

Folmer-Annevelink, E., Doolaard, S., Mascareño, M., & Bosker, R. J. (2010). Class size effects on the number and types of student-teacher interactions in primary classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 45(2), 30-38.

Gay, B., Sonnenschein, S., Sun, S., & Baker, L. (2021). Poverty, parent involvement, and children's reading skills: Testing the compensatory effect of the amount of classroom reading instruction. Early Education and Development, 32(7), 981-993. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1829292

Shanahan, T. (2022, February 12).

Smith, J. B., Lee, V. E., & Newmann, F. M. (2001). Instruction and achievement in Chicago elementary schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Sonnenschein, S., Stapleton, L. M., & Benson, A. (2010). The relation between the type and amount of instruction and growth in children's reading competencies. American Educational Research Journal, 47( 2), 358-389. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209349215

Walberg, H. J., Fraser, B. J., & Welch, W. W. (1986). A test of a model of educational productivity among senior high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 79(3), 133-139. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1986.1088566

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amount of Reading Instruction | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Shanahan blog explains the importance of the amount of reading instruction, time on task, and amount of interaction in the effective teaching of reading. Read more here

# data[].attributes.body
Example of how to interpret Acadience data and create small groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sample G1/G2: Using data to plan small groups

# data[].attributes.body
From Burkins and Yates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Teacher Friendly Guide to Reading Research.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Schedule Reading Instruction | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This blog entry explains why it is important for teachers to have outcome oriented scheduling rather than activity oriented scheduling. Explains how to provide sufficient amounts of instruction in decoding, vocabulary, fluency, reading comprehension, and writing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We have a literacy crisis in this country. Last year's NAEP scores found that more than one third of fourth grade students can't read at a basic level, and that rate climbs even higher for students of color, those with learning differences, and those who grow up in low-income households. This dismal data has nothing to do with the students and families, and everything to do with inequities in access to effective literacy instruction. But there is good news: Decades of research has resulted in a rich, robust understanding of how children learn to read. So what does this research say? Inspired by a conversation at a recent Barksdale Reading Institute Lunch & Literacy forum, researcher Dr. Reid Lyon developed a clear, concise summary of the research on how children learn to read. Here we share Dr. Lyon's "Ten Maxims," originally published by - Dr. Heather Peske Reading Universe. These maxims underlie NCTQ's own work to advocate for the science of reading in teacher preparation. By increasing understanding and adoption of scientifically based reading instruction, together we can address the literacy crisis head-on, reversing historical patterns of inequity and changing the lives of millions of our children.

Ten maxims: What we've learned so far about how children learn to read

By Dr. Reid Lyon

Over the last 50 years, there's been a vast outpouring of research about reading development, drawing on insights from neuroscientists, psychologists, linguists, speech pathologists, educators and other experts. I'm sometimes asked to summarize, in plain language, what we've learned so far. These ten maxims represent my best attempt at doing that.

This may seem like a fool's errand, because no set of maxims can fully convey the scope or the nuance of thousands of studies. I hope nevertheless that these maxims might be useful in crystallizing some of the most essential findings. In collaboration with some outstanding researchers and practitioners, I've compiled here a selective list of studies that underlie each of the ten maxims. The research behind the maxims addresses a wide range of individual differences in reading development, reading difficulties and reading instruction. Taken as a whole, the studies encompass children identified as having dyslexia and other learning disabilities as well as children who struggle with reading as a result of inadequate instruction. Many of the studies also include proficient readers.

Because these maxims are very broad, there is of course more to say about specific subpopulations of students with distinct strengths and needs. I encourage advocates for these students to formulate additional maxims that are not adequately covered by these first ten. Any additions should be in clear, consumer-friendly language and supported by cited studies that report relevant empirical findings.

The overarching message is that learning to read is a complex process involving multiple abilities, skills, and knowledge. Each is essential but none is sufficient on its own.

With that as prologue, here are my ten maxims:

1. Almost all children learn to speak naturally; reading and writing must be taught.

2. Literacy begins at birth. It is rooted in early social interactions and experiences that include regular exposure to oral language and print. Strong roots tend to produce stronger readers.

3. All good readers are good decoders. Decoding should be taught until children can accurately and independently read new words. Decoding depends on phonemic awareness: a child's ability to identify individual speech sounds. Decoding is the on-ramp for word recognition.

4. Fluent readers can instantly and accurately recognize most words in a text. They can read with expression and at an appropriate rate for their age. Reading fluency requires comprehension AND it supports comprehension.

5. Comprehension-the goal of reading-draws on multiple skills and strengths, including a solid foundation of vocabulary and background knowledge.

6. One size does not fit all: use student data to differentiate your instruction.

7. Direct, systematic instruction helps students develop the skills they need to become strong readers. Indirect, three-cueing instruction is unpredictable in its impact on word reading and leaves too much to chance.

8. These maxims apply to English Learners/Emergent Bilinguals, who often need extra support to bolster their oral language as they learn to read and write in a new language.

9. We should support students who speak languages or dialects other than General American English at home, by honoring their home language and by giving them expanded opportunities to engage with General American English text.

10. To become good readers and writers, students need to integrate many skills that are built over time.

This piece originated with the Barksdale Reading Institute's Lunch & Literacy forum and originally appeared on the Reading Universe website. Reading Universe is a joint project of the Barksdale Reading Institute, WETA/Reading Rockets, and First Book that provides free resources for educators and families.

About the guest author:

Dr. Reid Lyon, a neuroscientist and specialist in learning disorders, joined the faculty of Communication Science and Disorders at Northwestern University in 1980 where he also directed the neuropsychology laboratory. In 1983 Dr. Lyon was recruited by the Stern Center for Language and Learning in Burlington, Vermont where he served as the director of research. He also served as a clinical associate professor of neurology at the University of Vermont Medical School. From 1992 to 2005, Dr. Lyon served as a research neuropsychologist and the chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch of the NICHD at the National Institutes of Health; in this role he developed and oversaw research programs in cognitive neuroscience, learning and reading development and disorders, behavioral pediatrics, cognitive and affective development, School Readiness, and the Spanish to English Reading Research program. He designed, developed and directed the 44-site NICHD Reading Research Network. After leaving the NIH, Dr. Lyon held distinguished scientist and distinguished professorships at the University of Texas, Dallas (neuroscience) and Southern Methodist University (educational leadership).

Dr. Lyon is the author and co-author of over 130 peer reviewed journal articles, books, and book chapters addressing developmental neuroscience, learning and reading disorders/dyslexia, and the translation of science into practice and policy. He also co-authored the definition of dyslexia used at the NIH and worldwide. Dr. Lyon received the NIH Director's Award twice. Once for his contributions to the neuroscience of learning and learning disorders. He also received the Vietnam Veterans of America Excellence in The Sciences Award for contributions to educating veterans about the neuroscience of Combat PTSD in 2013. Dr. Lyon, a former paratrooper and combat veteran, received the Bronze Star, the Combat Infantryman Badge among other combat awards during his 15th month tour in Vietnam including the 1968 Tet Offensive.

Additional contributors to this piece include: Jane Ashby, Louise Dechovitz, Linda Diamond, Jan Hasbrouck, Kari Kurto, and Julie Washington. With appreciation to Kelly Butler, Claude Goldenberg, and Noel Gunther.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ten maxims: What we've learned so far about how children learn to read by Dr. Reid Lyon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Together we can address the literacy crisis head-on, reversing historical patterns of inequity and changing the lives of millions of our children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Literacy Consultants & Consulting Services | Erin Kent Consulting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About the Community | Erin Kent Consulting (EKC)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A few special gifts for signing up now: a strategy call with Erin Kent or an EKC Senior Strategist to get started using the EKC Community to support your current literacy initiatives; and 5 free spots in our live, virtual winter courses ($1495 value!)

# data[].attributes.body
Lots of Resources available on this website! You may have to register...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Six Shifts Where Science of Reading Meets Balanced Literacy. We provide resources, professional development, and literacy audits for busy literacy educators like you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Literacy Consultants & Consulting Services | Erin Kent Consulting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Literacy Consultants & Consulting Services | Erin Kent Consulting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EKC provides literacy consultants, consulting services, and literacy professional learning for schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
G4/G5 SAMPLE Using Data to plan Small Groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feedback Reading Response Journals - G3-5 GAA Onsite Sep. 2024

# data[].attributes.body
Protocol for Analyzing Data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reading Comprehension - G3-5 GAA Onsite Sep. 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reading Comprehension - G3-5 GAA Onsite Sep. 2024 (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reading Comprehension - G3-5 GAA Onsite Sep. 2024 (2)

# data[].attributes.headline
Cognitive Science Informed Teaching - Writing and Comprehension with Natalie Wexler

# data[].attributes.subject
Cognitive Science Informed Teaching - Writing and Comprehension with Natalie Wexler

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
S9 E8: Cognitive science-informed teaching, with Natalie Wexler

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Podcast-Folge · Science of Reading: The Podcast · 15.01.2025 · 39 Min.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From July 22, 2022

The Writing Revolution authors, Judith Hochman and Natalie Wexler, share a 'revolutionary' approach to writing. The best part: It begins at the sentence level AND content knowledge drives the rigor. Moreover, there is an overlap in reading, writing, and critical thinking.

What are the principles of The Writing Revolution? There are six:

1. Students need explicit instruction in writing, beginning in the early elementary grades.

2. Sentences are the building blocks of all writing.

3. When embedded in the content of the curriculum, writing instruction is a powerful teaching tool.

4. The content of the curriculum drives the rigor of the writing activities.

5. Grammar is best taught in the context of student writing.

6. The two most important phases of the writing process are planning and revising.

The Writing Revolution, Not for Profit

The Writing Revolution, The Atlantic, October 2012

Writing and cognitive load theory, Natalie Wexler

We answer your questions about teaching reading in The Literacy 50-A Q&A Handbook for Teachers: Real-World Answers to Questions About Reading That Keep You Up at NightGrab free resources and episode alerts! Sign up for our email list at literacypodcast.comJoin our community on Facebook, and follow us on Instagram, Facebook, & Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
[Listen Again] The Writing Revolution with Judith Hochman and Natalie Wexler

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From July 22, 2022 The Writing Revolution authors, Judith Hochman and Natalie Wexler, share a 'revolutionary' approach to writing. The best part: It begins at

# data[].attributes.headline
7 Teaching Principles for Effective Writing Instruction

# data[].attributes.subject
7 Teaching Principles for Effective Writing Instruction

# data[].attributes.headline
I Do, We Do, Y'all Do, You Do - Principles of Writing Instruction

# data[].attributes.subject
I Do, We Do, Y'all Do, You Do - Principles of Writing Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TWR_ Sentence Level Strategies_ All K-2 Templates.pptx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TWR_ Revision Strategies- All K-2 Templates.pptx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TWR_ SPO & SPO Scaffolds- All K-2 Templates.pptx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
think SRSD (self-regulated strategy development)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SRSD (Self-regulated strategy development) PD for schools, led by teachers, coaches & school leaders who all saw ELA proficiency gains

# data[].attributes.headline
Writing Rope Guidelines for Instruction - Scope and Sequence

# data[].attributes.subject
Writing Rope Guidelines for Instruction - Scope and Sequence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Science of Writing SUNFLOWER - GAA KG-G5 Onsite Feb. 2025 (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Science of Writing SUNFLOWER - GAA KG-G5 Onsite Feb. 2025 (3)