# data[].attributes.headline
Group Questions - Responses Appreciated :)

# data[].attributes.subject
Group Questions - Responses Appreciated :)

# data[].attributes.body
How do you share this data discussed AFTER the meeting. Is it posted in a data room? a follow up email sent?

Do teachers keep binders of their personal data, or do they move forward and assume the meeting was enough?

# data[].attributes.body
Feel free to use these slides to share with the teachers at your sites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Login to access and create your next design.

# data[].attributes.body
denise.toler@fldoe.org

352-613-0433

# data[].attributes.headline
IES Practice Guide: Improving Reading Comprehension in Grades K-3 (Recommendation 1)

# data[].attributes.subject
IES Practice Guide: Improving Reading Comprehension in Grades K-3 (Recommendation 1)

# data[].attributes.body
Access the full guide here WWC | Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Students Take Charge: Reciprocal Teaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reciprocal Teaching: Why, How, & Examples

# data[].attributes.headline
Reciprocal Teaching - Article and Resources

# data[].attributes.subject
Reciprocal Teaching - Article and Resources

# data[].attributes.body
This brief article outlines the explicit and systematic nature of reciprocal teaching, explains the critical components, and provides printable teacher resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Joan Baker, M.Ed., and Lisa M. Emerson, M.Ed., M.Sc.

May/June 2014

There is a general agreement that the goal of reading is to be able to understand printed text. Reading comprehension instruction is beneficial for all students, especially those with learning disabilities. Although assessment of reading comprehension is common within literacy classes through high school, unfortunately teaching reading comprehension is not. Surprisingly, several studies have documented that reading comprehension strategy instruction accounts for only 16% of the literacy curriculum in grades K-3 (Pilonieta & Medina, 2009). Similarly, in special education settings, explicit instruction in reading comprehension skills is rare, and the questions that teachers ask are mostly factual (Klingner, Urbach, Golos, Brownell, & Menon, 2010).

The interventions with the highest effect size for reading comprehension among students with learning disabilities encourage students to monitor their understanding before, during, and after reading. Such strategies include making predictions, clarifying words/concepts, summarizing, and questioning (Klingner et al., 2010). According to Hattie (2009), reciprocal teaching is among the most powerful instructional practices in terms of achievement outcomes for students with disabilities due to its combination of strategy and direct instruction methods.

Reciprocal teaching is a multicomponent approach that combines four strategies into one cohesive structure of increasing comprehension of text: predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing (Takala, 2006). This approach helps teachers to explicitly scaffold learning to help students become more metacognitive about their reading and learning. Further, it helps students become more active, reflective, and strategic readers. Reciprocal teaching can be successfully implemented within both general education and special education classrooms. Direct instruction procedures and reciprocal teaching formats are effective within inclusion settings for all learners (Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007).

Direct instruction of reciprocal teaching includes teacher modeling of each component, guided practice, and formative feedback to students. Teachers have also incorporated a picture walk and visualization (see Table 1) to make the learning sequence mirror how effective readers approach reading for comprehension. Once this sequence has been established, the teacher gradually releases the responsibility for predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing to the group or groups of students. Peer support and structured student dialogue have also been shown to be effective scaffolds for students with learning disabilities.

Direct, explicit, and systematic instruction supports the learning of complex material for students with disabilities (see Table 1). Teachers' strategic use of task analysis and scaffolding with students has been found to be more effective than traditional methods (Gajria et al., 2007).

Table 1
Explicit and Systematic Instructional Sequence for Reciprocal Teaching

Ask Questions
Ask questions about things that happened in the text or that you find interesting.

We do this after reading a portion of the text because it helps us better understand what we read.

Ask questions using the words what, when, where, why, and how.

Adapted from Pilonieta and Medina (2009).
Critical Components of Reciprocal Teaching
As noted previously, reciprocal teaching engages students in reading and has been shown to increase comprehension through four basic components: predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing. Predicting sets the purpose for reading (Stricklin, 2011). Before reading, predicting allows students to make an assumption about the text based on the cover, title, illustrations, and their prior knowledge. During reading, students anticipate what will come next by using text structure, content, illustrations, and prior knowledge. Clarifying helps students connect to the text as they search a passage for unfamiliar vocabulary words, concepts, or text structures. Within the reciprocal teaching process, students are taught a variety of reading strategies for clarification such as rereading, using decoding skills, and looking within the sentence to extract meaning. Students are also encouraged to use dictionaries and other reference resources to illuminate unknowns within a text. Questioning promotes interaction, as students pose questions about the text they are reading to their peers. Engagement in questioning with peers can better equip students to arrive at possible solutions to questions, find relevant information, work cooperatively in groups, and monitor their own comprehension. Students become much more involved in the text and reading when they are posing and answering questions themselves, rather than answering the teacher's questions. Finally, summarizing allows readers to recall important details within a text by synthesizing thoughts orally and/or in written form. Recalling important information and concepts within a text can increase metacognition (Stricklin, 2011).
Assessment of Reciprocal Teaching
The impact of reciprocal teaching strategies on student comprehension may be measured in several ways. For example, teachers can utilize a reciprocal teaching checklist that outlines skills within each of the components of predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing to be observed in order to determine whether a student demonstrates novice, basic, proficient, or exemplary performance of each skill. A four-door chart is another tool that can serve as a formative assessment of student understanding of the reciprocal teaching components. The chart has four doors labeled with each of the reciprocal teaching strategies. Students can open these doors and write brief responses behind each one (Oczkus, 2005). Furthermore, diagnostic assessments help determine whether a student has internalized the strategies for comprehending a variety of text structures and can isolate types of comprehension skills with which a student may struggle. Finally, performance-based assessments utilize a rubric to determine the extent of the student's ability to use the component strategies of predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing. Rubrics allow students to set goals for increasing their proficiency as well as monitor their progress in the reciprocal reading process.
Reciprocal Teaching Manipulatives and Supports
Visual, verbal, and hands-on tools may be utilized while engaging in each of the components of reciprocal reading. Advanced organizers such as charts, graphic organizers, thinking maps, and bookmarks with reminders of the four components are all examples of visual tools (detailed information provided below). Sentence starters assist students new to the reciprocal teaching process by encouraging them to verbalize or write down their thinking. Partner sharing, line-up summaries, and response cards are all examples of verbal discussion strategies that get students talking about their thinking (Stricklin, 2011). Finally, props such as puppets, costumes, or objects are considered hands-on motivating tools for use throughout the reciprocal teaching process, especially in the younger grades. Hands-on tools can assist students in connecting to each part of the process. For example, a crystal ball or snow globe can represent predicting much like a fortune-teller might do. A magnifying glass could stand for investigating unfamiliar words and concepts in the clarifying process. Use of a toy microphone suggests verbalizing questions about the text, and use of a belt or large rubber band as a visual tool indicates summarizing of information, or holding important information together, and can be motivating to students.

The reciprocal teaching manipulatives and supports listed below are examples of teaching and learning tools that will assist students in more independently applying its components. The supports address various learning styles.

Reciprocal Teaching Pyramid
The reciprocal teaching pyramid is a visual reminder of the roles and responsibilities of each member of the group. It also includes sentence stems to support students' dialogue about the text.

Reciprocal Teaching Cue Cards The cue cards can be used as you teach each role to the students. After the teacher has modeled the expectations for a specific role, the students will have an opportunity for guided practice with the corresponding cue card. The teacher gradually adds more roles and fades support until groups become more independent.

Reciprocal Teaching Graphic Organizer
The graphic organizer provides a structure for students to record their learning and gives the teacher an opportunity to collect and analyze the group's responses as well as give feedback to individual students.

Reciprocal Cube
The reciprocal cube is a game format that helps students practice the skills that are required for independent application of reciprocal teaching. The students work in small groups, taking turns rolling the cube and demonstrating the skills represented on it.

Reciprocal Teaching Checklist
The reciprocal teaching checklist is designed to assist with formative assessment. Thus, teachers can use the checklist to guide their instructional practices and communicate to students about their progress towards comprehension goals.

In conclusion, reciprocal teaching helps to reduce the cognitive load on students with disabilities by explicitly teaching the critical aspects of comprehending text. Further, use of reciprocal teaching requires the gradual release of responsibility to the students and scaffolding of supports (Hattie, 2009). As a result of this approach, teachers will eventually see their students as independent and reflective readers having attained higher-level comprehension skills.
Resources: Cooperative Learning in Inclusive Classrooms

For more information about active engagement and reciprocal teaching, order the following T/TAC W&M Considerations Packets by visiting http://education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/resources/considerations/index.php:

Explicit Instruction for Implicit Meaning: Strategies for Teaching Inferential Reading Comprehension

Techniques for Active Learning

Read: "Cooperative Learning: Students Who Work Together, Learn Together" in the May/June 2013 issue of Link Lines to meet the various learning needs of students in inclusive classes using reciprocal teaching as a cooperative learning strategy.

For additional resources on reciprocal teaching, visit

Check out the following reciprocal teaching activities and lesson plans at the T/TAC Library:

Kagan, S. Cooperative Learning. Call number CL14

Stone, J. Cooperative Learning: Reading Activities. Call number CL16.b

Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210-225.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Klingner, J. K., Urbach, J., Golos, D., Brownell, M., & Menon, S. (2010). Teaching reading in the 21 st century: A glimpse at how special education teachers promote reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 59-74.

Oczkus, L. D. (2005). Reciprocal teaching at work: Powerful strategies and lessons for improving reading comprehension, grades 2-6 [DVD]. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pilonieta, P., & Medina, A. L. (2009). Reciprocal teaching for the primary grades: "We can do it, too!" The Reading Teacher, 63(2), 120-129.

Stricklin, K. (2011). Hands-on reciprocal teaching: A comprehension technique. The Reading Teacher, 64(8), 620-625.

Takala, M. (2006). The effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension in mainstream and special education. The Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(5), 559-576.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reciprocal Teaching: Seeing is Believing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Joan Baker, M.Ed., and Lisa M. Emerson, M.Ed., M.Sc. May/June 2014 There is a general agreement that the goal of reading is to be able to understand printed text. Reading comprehension instruction is beneficial for all students, especially those with learning disabilities.

# data[].attributes.headline
High-Leverage Thinking Moves (Shifting the Balance 3-5)

# data[].attributes.subject
High-Leverage Thinking Moves (Shifting the Balance 3-5)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Strategic Six Thinking Moves - Shifting the Balance 3-5  Shift 2 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Login to access and create your next design.

# data[].attributes.headline
Shanahan on Literacy Blog - What should morphology instruction look like?

# data[].attributes.subject
Shanahan on Literacy Blog - What should morphology instruction look like?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Are there any resources that provide a list of morphemes to teach at each K-5 grade level? I have been looking for a definitive list of morphemes that is organized by grade level like the Fry sight word list. I often come across research about how L1 and L2 students acquire morphemes, but I am looking for a list that represents the morphemes that students will most likely see in print at each K-5 grade level. Does anything like that exist? Thank you for your time. Shanahan response:
The short answer to this question is, "No, I don't know of such a list."

But when have I ever been satisfied with the short answer to anything?

Let's make sure we're all in agreement as to what constitutes a morpheme? Basically, a morpheme is the "smallest grammatical unit." It isn't the same thing as a word, and yet many words are morphemes. The distinction turns on whether the unit (the morpheme or word) can stand on its own. Words have to have that kind of independence, while morphemes don't require it.

Thus, bags, trucked, running, and redirect are all words in the English language while bag, s, truck, ed, run, ing, re, and direct are all morphemes. Each morphemic unit carries meaning, but sometimes morphemes can do that independently (bag, truck, run, direct), and sometimes they need to be combined with other morphemes to be considered a word (s, ed, ing, re).

I admitted ignorance on this issue, and I've tried to turn that ignorance to your advantage. I contacted Jeffrey and Peter Bowers. Both are outstanding scholars (Jeff at the University of Bristol in the UK, and Peter at WordWorks Literacy Centre, in Ontario) who are particularly knowledgeable about teaching morphology to improve literacy. They've both published widely on the issue, and both have chided me when they felt I wasn't paying sufficient attention to how words work morphologically. These days I know no one better able to provide you with a thoughtful answer to your question, and boy was I right! I apologize for the poor renditions of the Word Matrix and the Word Sums. I'll be working with my webmaster to get the real graphics in, but in the meantime you can go to the Word Works website to see them in their full glory. http://www.wordworkskingston.com/WordWorks/Home.html
Word Matrix:
A map of a word family Here is Peter Bower's response (with my light editing):
Word Sums: reveal underlying structure of any complex word (a word with more than just a base)

"I have no knowledge of such a list, but I wouldn't recommend one anyway.

"My recommendation based on theory not direct research evidence - is that the main value comes from teaching all or many members of a morphological family at one time with the matrix and word sums (see the attached figure illustrating a matrix and word sum). In the younger grades I start with free bases [those morphemes that stand alone as words], but once that is established, I have no trouble introducing bound bases [the units that can't stand alone]. This relates to the research we cite about the value of studying meaningfully related items at one time rather than disconnected items.

"Instead of a "scope and sequence" of morphemes to teach, what I recommend is starting with words in the children's vocabulary, analyzing such words to find their bases, then looking for other members of that family.

"The point is not that there is a "scope and sequence" of morphemes to teach. Rather there is a kind of a "scope" of orthographic concepts that we want students to learn, and teachers can address those concepts based on whatever words are central to the readings they are introducing to the students.

"A brief list of those concepts that should be taught would include:

Every word is a base or a base with something else (another base or affix)

Bases and affixes (morphemes) are the meaningful building blocks that construct words.

We can analyze complex words into constituent morphemes with word sums and show their interrelationship with a matrix.

English spelling prioritizes consistent spelling of morphemes over consistent pronunciation of morphemes. (This is why we refer to morphemes by their spelling not their pronunciation. The base of the word action is not referred to by the pronunciation of the wordact. Instead it is referred to by its spelling. The base "a - c - t". This is the same as the fact that we don't refer to the <-ed> suffix by one or all of its three pronunciation, we call it by it's spelling "e-d suffix.")

Thus, we need to understand grapheme-phoneme correspondences from within the context of morphological families. (e.g. we learn the phonology of the grapheme by studying morphological families).

There are reliable conventions for the three suffixing conventions.

Studying and understanding the suffixing conventions is not primarily about improving spelling accuracy, it is about being able to analyze hypotheses about connections between words. We can test the hypothesis that "imagine" has a base "image" only if we know vowel suffixes replace final, non-syllabic "e" (image/ + ine -> imagine).

The "structure and meaning test": To determine that two words share a base, we need evidence from both structure (word sum) and meaning (etymology). So with the earlier example of words related to "play" (play, playing, playful, replay, playhouse), we can prove all of those words can be analyzed with word sums with coherent affixes and bases. But we can also show that they all go back to an Old English rootplegan, plegian for "frolic, move rapidly". However, the word "display" which can be analyzed structurally turns outnot to be related. It does not belong in the morphological family with the others because it goes back to a Latin rootplic(ere) for "fold". So to "display" is to "unfold".

"If we are going to teach children how their writing system works, we need to teach them the interrelation of morphology, phonology, and etymology. As we have pointed out, this is why Structured Word Inquiry (SWI) is not about "adding" morphological instruction to phonics instruction - its about teaching how the system works. This is why I argue that SWI teaches grapheme-phoneme correspondences more explicitly and accurately than phonics. Phonics instruction (under the definition of associations of pronunciations and letters without reference to morphology or etymology) cannot explain the grapheme-phoneme correspondences in countless words like does or rough or every or homophones, and so on. So many people miss the absolute detail into orthographic phonology that comes with SWI.

"Here are some videos to illustrate my point:

Gr. 2 teacher showing investigations from his class Grade 2 morphology video

Investigating grapheme-phoneme correspondences in a Gr. 1 class - with the context of morphological word sums Grade 1 morphology video

A kindergarten lesson I taught introducing the word sum and matrix that touches on grapheme-phoneme correspondences like the pronunciation of the <-s> suffix for /z/ and /s/ Kindergarten morphology video

"It's as simple as starting with the "known" and then expanding from that. Even if kids know all the words in a morphological family (e.g. play, playing, playful, replay, playhouse) the lesson is not about new vocabulary, but learning how word structure links words. That concept can then be applied anywhere.

"The other thing I keep in mind when choosing morphological families to investigate is the orthographic concepts a family has to offer. If I've established the fact that words that share a base share a spelling and a meaning connection, then I can introduce a base like with words like actor, acting, react, and action as a way to introduce the fact that the pronunciation of morpheme might change but keep the spelling. In that way we learn the phonology of t is not the "t sound", but that the grapheme can write/t/ when that is the appropriate sound. I've attached an example of a lesson I've used for that before.

"I also draw on the <-ed> suffix from early on to highlight this same concept that morphemes do not have pronunciations until they are in a word. The pronunciation of a word like is another useful one to get rid of this idea of a "t sound" since this very common pronunciation of a very common suffix is what is typically thought of the "t sound," but their ain't no /t/!

"And then you also encounter words that give rise to the need to teach all the suffixing changes.
Shanahan again:
"These are concepts teachers need to learn and they can bring into work with their class as they investigate words."

I don't disagree with Peter on any of this, except I'm not as dismissive of the kind of list that you are requesting. I don't see it as mutually exclusive from the curriculum goals that he specified or contradictory of the kind of instruction he described.

Many teachers, when referring to morphology or "structural analysis", actually are talking about affixes alone, and not the bases. If that is the case here, there are some lists like that which present the most common prefixes and suffixes from textbooks in grades 3-9 (White, Sowell, & Yanagihara, 1989). You can easily find those lists on line and you could definitely make use of those lists to make sure that you are hitting all the notes if you do the word sums and matrixes that Peter recommends.

Otherwise, I haven't been able to come up with a graded list of bases for you to use. But I have passed your letter along to my friends at MetaMetrics (the Lexile people) and have asked if they could produce such a list from their language corpus of more than 1 billion words. Stay tuned!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Morphology Instruction in Reading | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This blog explores the newest ways of teaching children to make sense of word meaning through morphological analysis. Unlike past approaches, this one focuses on younger students--and not just older ones.

# data[].attributes.headline
Structured Word Inquiry Podcasts and Printables

# data[].attributes.subject
Structured Word Inquiry Podcasts and Printables

# data[].attributes.body
This book provides a getting-started guide for teachers to build foundational knowledge of the language and structure of this strategy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eight Ways to Help Kids Read Complex Text _ Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Copy of R.1.3 Perspective and Point of View