# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 9.7K: Identify and describe the components of fluency (accuracy, rate, prosody) and explain how they develop to support the proficient reading of connected text.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fluency is the ability to read text with accuracy, automaticity, and appropriate expression at a conversational rate.

# data[].attributes.headline
(7.3P) Explicit Teaching of Segmenting and Blending

# data[].attributes.subject
(7.3P) Explicit Teaching of Segmenting and Blending

# data[].attributes.body
Phonological Awareness Practice Competency 7.3P: Align phoneme awareness instruction to the content and goals of the reading and spelling lesson to support students' transfer of skills.

This Reading Universe resource includes a classroom video example of instruction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explicitly Teach Phoneme Segmentation and Blending

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to explicitly teach syllable awareness, including introducing and defining the concept. Includes specific resources, examples, and tips.

# data[].attributes.body
Phonological Awareness Knowledge Competency 7.5K: Identify, pronounce, classify, and compare the consonant and vowel phonemes in English to include coarticulation effects and language variations, and explain how this knowledge supports learning for native speakers of English and ELs/MLs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Teach Articulation: Sound Features and Similarities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to teach students about articulation. Includes specific resources, examples, and tips.

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.1P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students grapheme-phoneme correspondences.

Links to FCRR student activities are included at the bottom of routine.

# data[].attributes.headline
(8.1P) Teaching Grapheme-Phoneme Correspondences to Students with Dyslexia

# data[].attributes.subject
(8.1P) Teaching Grapheme-Phoneme Correspondences to Students with Dyslexia

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.1P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students grapheme-phoneme correspondences.

This skills explainer is specifically for students with dyslexia or other word-learning based reading difficulties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Linda Farrell: What's that letter?

Reese: 'Y'

Linda Farrell: This is 'y', that's a 'v'.

Reese: /v/

Linda Farrell: (She points to the different letters that are typed on a piece of paper). Can you say 'v'? Okay. Look down at the letter and say 'v', point to it and say 'v'.

Reese: 'V'

Linda Farrell: What's that letter?

Reese: 'V'

Linda Farrell: Point to it and say 'v'.

Reese: 'V'

Linda Farrell: And that's that letter?

Reese: 'Z'

Linda Farrell: Okay.

Reese: They kind of ... so when you put it this way, it kind of looks like an 'n.'

Linda Farrell: It does kind of look like an 'n'. Yeah. It was very interesting working with Reese because he pointed out to me, very articulately, how 'v' and 'z' looks like an 'n' and 'v' and 'y' and they all ... it was exactly the letters that he was getting confused about and he could even tell us as a kindergartner why they were confusing. Okay, here we go. [Ms. Farrell shows Reese a card with a 'v' on it.]

Reese: 'Y'

Linda Farrell: You're telling me that's a 'y', and I'm going to tell you that's a 'v'.

Reese: 'V'

Linda Farrell: So can you say 'v'?

Reese: 'V'

Linda Farrell: What's at the bottom of the 'v'? A point? What's at the bottom of the 'v'?

Reese: Point ...

Linda Farrell: Okay ...

Reese: It's kind of, if you turn it this way and there's a line, it kind of looks like it would look like an 'a'.

Linda Farrell: It would!

Reese: It looks like a triangle and you put it this way in the hands.

Linda Farrell: Okay, but what letter is that? Is it ... ?

Reese: 'Y'

Linda Farrell: Okay, this ... is this 'a' or 'v'?

Reese: 'Y'

Linda Farrell: 'Y'? Oh, my gosh! I have to show you something. 'Y' looks like this. Okay. When I first started working with Reese, I was just trying to get him to know 'v' because my assessment had told me 'v' was confusing. I don't work on all of the confusing letters. I work on one or two confusing letters at a time. I work on one letter if he just can't remember the name, and when I first started working with Reese, I thought that he could not remember the name of 'v'. So, I get a stack of index cards. Maybe I get 12, maybe I get 14, maybe I get eight. Half of those will be the letter that we're working on. One letter. The other half will be letters that he's very confident with, so he doesn't have to think about those, so that I go, what's the name of this letter? What's the name of this letter? As I did that, it was real easy for him to say, 'v', 'v', 'v'. Let's do 'v'.

Reese: 'V'

Linda Farrell: What's the name of that letter?

Reese: 'V'

Linda Farrell: What's at the bottom of the 'v'?

Reese: Point ...

Linda Farrell: You got it. Say 'v'.

Reese: 'V'

Linda Farrell: Okay, what's that letter? [She points to several letters.]

Reese: 'S', 'v', 'e', 'v', 'c', 'b', 't', 'b', 'x'

Linda Farrell: Let's try these one more time. You think you can go through 'em again?

Reese: There's a lot of 'v's. [Linda laughs.]

Narrator: Once Ms. Ferrell saw that Reese knew the name of the letter 'v', then she worked on helping Reese discriminate between the letters 'v' and 'y'.

Linda Farrell: My job is to figure out a way to make them not confusing. For him, they all looked like they were the same shape, so I have to think, okay ... As I was working with him, I saw that he confused 'v' and 'y'. He'd already told me, oh, they both have these and they look, this has a point here and a point here. So my job is to get him to look at the letter and give him a way to verbalize the difference between the shapes of the letters. And I had never done this before with 'v' and 'y', but I looked and I said, well, 'v' has a point at the bottom and 'y' doesn't have a point at the bottom. This goes through my mind. 'Y' doesn't have a point at the bottom ... what's at the bottom is a line. Okay, so I'll make that difference. This is a 'v' ...

Reese: And 'y'

Linda Farrell: You got it. Now, there's a line at the bottom of 'y'. What's at the bottom of 'y'?

Reese: Line ...

Linda Farrell: A line. What's at the bottom of 'v'?

Reese: Point ...

Linda Farrell: Okay, say 'v' has a point.

Reese: 'V' has a point.

Linda Farrell: 'V'

Reese: 'V'

Linda Farrell: Say 'y' has a line.

Reese: 'Y' has a line.

Linda Farrell: 'Y'

Reese: 'Y'

Linda Farrell: Okay. Now point to the point and say 'v' has a point. 'V'.

Reese: 'V' has a point. 'V'.

Linda Farrell: Say, 'y' has a line.

Reese: 'Y' has a line. Line.

Linda Farrell: Say 'y' has a line. 'Y'.

Reese: 'Y' has a line. 'Y'.

Linda Farrell: Got to point to the line.

Reese: 'Y' has a line. 'Y'. 'V' has a point. 'V'.

Linda Farrell: Okay. Now we're going to ... every time I show you a letter, you have to say that and then you have to say it. Okay? You ready? Okay, here we go.

Reese: 'V' has a point. 'V'. 'V' has a point. 'V'. 'V has a point. 'V'. 'Y' has a line. 'Y'. 'Y' 'has a line. 'Y'. 'Y' has a line. 'Y' has a line. 'Y'.

Linda Farrell: Okay, now I want you to try saying them without saying 'v' has a point, 'v'. Just say the name of the letter, go slow. Okay?

Reese: Okay. I might feel quicker and quicker. 'Y'.

Linda Farrell: Okay. Now you have to look down and point and tell me.

Reese: 'Y'

Linda Farrell: What does 'y' have?

Reese: A line.

Linda Farrell: A line. What does 'v' ...

Reese: 'V'

Linda Farrell: It is! [Linda and Reese laugh.] I started in this lesson by just getting him to know 'v', but that wasn't going to work. He still wanted to call it a 'y' sometimes, so I needed to set up the contrast. And you saw that it worked as long as he said 'v' has a point, 'y' has a line, 'v' has a point, 'v' ... 'y' has a line, 'y'. I stopped the scaffolding too quickly because I went back and he looked at it and he just saw two lines and he went, 'y,' We need to get ... whenever we do a scaffold where we're comparing two letters that look similar and we are saying this one has a point at the bottom, this one has a line. He has to do that enough where it is automatic for him to say it and know that letter and he has to look at it ... because what we want him to do is, subliminally, when he stops saying it, being, looking at that and thinking it, and then eventually he doesn't have to go through the thinking 'v' has a point, it just automatically becomes 'v'. Two high fives!

Reese: I missed one ...

Linda Farrell: Let's do another one then! Once he got good at 'y' and 'v', just those two contrasting, then I would put three 'y's, three 'v's and six letters that he already knows so that he would have to think. We're making it just incrementally more difficult for him to have to remember until he just automatically looks at that litter and it's a 'v' and that one's a 'y', and it does happen. Sometimes it happens with practice 25 times. Sometimes it happens with practice 250 times, and sometimes it's 1,000 times, but it will happen. Two high fives. That was really, really good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Students with Learning Disabilities, Including Dyslexia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Linda Farrell: What's that letter? Reese: 'Y' Linda Farrell: This is 'y', that's a 'v'. Reese: /v/ Linda Farrell: (She points to the different letters that are typed on a piece of paper). Can you say 'v'? Okay. Look down at the letter and say 'v', point to it and say 'v'.

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.2P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines (e.g., blending routines, segmenting routines) to teach all students to decode and encode one-syllable words comprised of common syllable types (e.g., closed, open, silent-e, vowel-r, and vowel teams).

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.2P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines (e.g., blending routines, segmenting routines) to teach all students to decode and encode one-syllable words comprised of common syllable types (e.g., closed, open, silent-e, vowel-r, and vowel teams).

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.2P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines (e.g., blending routines, segmenting routines) to teach all students to decode and encode one-syllable words comprised of common syllable types (e.g., closed, open, silent-e, vowel-r, and vowel teams).

# data[].attributes.headline
(8.3P) Decoding Irregularly Spelled Words

# data[].attributes.subject
(8.3P) Decoding Irregularly Spelled Words

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.3P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students to decode and encode temporarily and permanently irregular words.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"A sight word is a word that is instantly and effortlessly recalled from memory, regardless of whether it is phonically regular or irregular. A 'sight-word vocabulary' refers to the pool of words a student can effortlessly recognize."

- David A. Kilpatrick, Ph.D.

"Children vary in the amount of practice that is required for fluency and automaticity in reading to occur. Some youngsters can read a word only once to recognize it again with greater speed; others need 20 or more exposures. The average child needs between four and 14 exposures to automatize the recognition of a new word."

- G. Reid Lyon, Ph.D. on Reading Rockets

Dolch Word List by Phonics Spelling Pattern

The Dolch Word list is a set of 300 frequently used English words, many of which are decodable. Here they are organized by phonics pattern.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Overview of Irregularly Spelled High-Frequency Words

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to teach Irregularly Spelled High-Frequency Words, when to teach the skill, how to build fluency, how to assess student learning & more....

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.4P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students to decode and encode two-syllable and multisyllabic words (e.g., syllable patterns, common affixes, spelling patterns, pronunciation, word meanings, word relationships e.g., synonyms, antonyms, multiple meanings).

# data[].attributes.headline
(8.4P) Identify base words and suffixes to read multisyllable words

# data[].attributes.subject
(8.4P) Identify base words and suffixes to read multisyllable words

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.4P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students to decode and encode two-syllable and multisyllabic words (e.g., syllable patterns, common affixes, spelling patterns, pronunciation, word meanings, word relationships e.g., synonyms, antonyms, multiple meanings).

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.5P: Use a decodable text reading routine to teach all students to accurately apply taught phonics skills to support the reading of decodable texts.

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 9.1P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to support the development of students' word reading automaticity skills for irregular and regular words.

Links to FCRR student activities are included at the bottom of routine.

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.2P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines (e.g., blending routines, segmenting routines) to teach all students to decode and encode one-syllable words comprised of common syllable types (e.g., closed, open, silent-e, vowel-r, and vowel teams)

Links to FCRR student activities are included at the bottom of routine.

# data[].attributes.headline
(9.4P) Reading Text with Appropriate Phrasing and Proper Expression

# data[].attributes.subject
(9.4P) Reading Text with Appropriate Phrasing and Proper Expression

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 9.4P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to promote the development of students’ oral reading fluency, with consideration for improving accuracy, rate, prosody, and combinations thereof. (Also supports 9.2P and 9.3P)

Links to FCRR student activities are included at the bottom of routine.

# data[].attributes.body
Instructional Routines for Phonological Awareness are organized by skill and include teaching Isolation, Identification, Blending, Segmenting, Addition, Deletion, and Substitution at the syllable, intra-syllable and phoneme levels. The affiliated competency number is listed at the beginning of the name of the routine.

Routines include those developed by the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) and Reading Universe and are used with permission.

# data[].attributes.body
Phonological Awareness Practice Competency 7.1P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students to detect, identify, and manipulate elements of spoken language, with an emphasis on phonemes as indicated by data on student instructional needs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to apply the gradual release of responsibility model to teaching Syllable Awareness using different examples.

# data[].attributes.body
Phonological Awareness Practice Competency 7.1P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students to detect, identify, and manipulate elements of spoken language, with an emphasis on phonemes as indicated by data on student instructional needs.

Links to FCRR student activities are included at the bottom of routine.

# data[].attributes.body
Phonological Awareness Practice Competency 7.1P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students to detect, identify, and manipulate elements of spoken language, with an emphasis on phonemes as indicated by data on student instructional needs.

This resource includes classroom videos examples of instruction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Princess Watts-Blount: Your first word is train. Repeat.

Students: Train.

Princess Watts-Blount: All right. Let's tap it.

Students: /t/, /r/, / ā/ /n/.

Princess Watts-Blount: All right. Now do it with your pop-it.

Students: /t/, /r/, / ā/ /n/.

Princess Watts-Blount: All right. Can somebody give me the sounds in train? Yes.

Student: /t/, /r/, / ā/ /n/.

Princess Watts-Blount: How many phonemes?

Students: Four.

Princess Watts-Blount: Four. /t/, /r/, / ā/ /n/.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Overview of Phoneme Segmentation and Blending

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to teach Phoneme Segmentation and Blending, when to teach the skill, how to build fluency, how to assess student learning & more. Includes...

# data[].attributes.body
Phonological Awareness Practice Competency 7.1P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students to detect, identify, and manipulate elements of spoken language, with an emphasis on phonemes as indicated by data on student instructional needs.

Links to FCRR student activities are included at the bottom of the routine

# data[].attributes.body
Phonological Practice Competency 7.1P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students to detect, identify, and manipulate elements of spoken language, with an emphasis on phonemes as indicated by data on student instructional needs.

Links to FCRR student activities are included at the bottom of routine

# data[].attributes.body
Authored by Sharon Vaughn and others, this article describes four research-based grouping practices for students with LD in both general ed and special ed settings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Allington, R. L. (1980). Poor readers don't get to read much in reading groups. Language Arts, 57(8), 873-875.

Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1991). Grouping students for reading instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. II (pp. 88 5-910). New York: Longman.

Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 4-16.

Calfee, R., & Brown, R. (1979). Grouping students for instruction. In D. L. Duke (Ed.), Class-room management: Seventy-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 144-182). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Carnine, D. (1997). Bridging the research- to-practice gap. Exceptional Children, 63(4), 513-52 1.

Collins, J. (1997, October 2 7). How Johnny should read. Time, 2 1.

Come, B., & Fredericks, A. D. (1995). Family literacy in urban schools: Meeting the needs of at-risk children. The Reading Teacber, 48(7), 566-571.

Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C. R., Whorton, D., Carta, J.J., & Hall, R. U. (1986). Classwide peer tutoring. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 5 3 5- 542.

Elbaum, B. E., Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1997). Urban middleelementary students' perceptions of grouping formats for reading instruction. Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 475-500.

Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (2000). A meta-analytic review of the effect of instructional grouping format on the reading outcomes of students with disabilities. In. R. Gersten, E. Schiller, J. S. Schumm, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Issues and researcb in special education (pp.105-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (199 1). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading "posse." Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 123-138.

Flood, J., Lapp, D., Flood, S., & Nagel, G. (1992). Am I allowed to group? Using flexible patterns for effective instruction. The Reading Teacher, 45(8), 608-616.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P G., & Simmons, D. C., (1997). Peerassisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Education Research journal, 34(l), 17 4-2 06.

Gambrell, L. B., Wilson, R. M. & Gantt, W. N. (198 1). Classroom observations of task-attending behaviors of good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Research, 74(6), 400-404.

Gelzheiser, L. M., & Meyers, J. (1991). Reading instruction by classroom, remedial, and resource room teachers. Journal of Special Education, 24, 512-526.

Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(5), 466-476.

Goldenberg, C. (1993). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through discussion. The Reading Teacher, 46(4), 316-326.

Good, T. L., & Stipek, D. J. (1983). Individual differences in the classroom: A psychological perspective. In G. D. Fenstermacher & J. 1. Goodlad (Eds.), Individual differences and the common curriculum. Eighty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Pan I (pp. 9-43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R.V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 371-383.

Hiebert, E. H. (1983). An. examination of ability grouping for reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 2 3 1-2 5 5.

Hunter, D. (1978). Student on-task behavior during second grade reading group meetings (Doctoral dissertation, University of MissouriColumbia, 197 8). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 48 3 8A.

Jenkins, J. R., Mayhall, W. F., Pschka, C. M., & Jenkins, J. M. (1974). Comparing small group and tutorial instruction in resource rooms. Exceptional Children, 40, 245-2 5 1.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of fifty-four children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 43 7-447.

Juel, C. (199 1). Cross-age tutoring between student-athletes and at-risk children. The Reading Teacher, 45, 178-186.

Kirk, S. A., Kirk, W. D., & Minskoff, E. H. (198 5). Phonic remedial reading lessons. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Cotten, P., & Forgan, J. W. (1998). Inclusion or pull-out: Which do students prefer? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(2), 148-158.

Labo, L. D., & Teale, W. H. (1990). Cross-age reading: A strategy for helping poor readers. The Reading Teacher, 43(6), 362-369.

Lerner, J. W. (1997). Learning disabilities. Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Lloyd, J. (1980). Direct instruction: Effects on oral and written language comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 70-76.

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d'Appolonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 42 3 -45 8.

Lyon, G. R. (1995). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10,S121-SI26.

Maheady, L. (1997). Preparing teachers for instructing multiple ability groups. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20(4), 3 2 2-3 3 9.

Mathes, P. G., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). The efficacy of peer tutoring in reading for students with mild disabilities: A best-evidence synthesis. School Psychology Review, 23(l), 59-80.

McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., Haager, D., & Lee, 0. (1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60(3), 249-261.

McTighe, J., & Lyman, F. T. (1988). Cueing thinking in the classroom: The promise of theory-embedded tools. Educational Leadership, 45(7), 18-24.

Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1997). Instructional grouping for reading: Teachers' views. Remedial and Special Education, 18(6), 347-356.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1995). NAEP 1994 reading. A first look-Findings from the national assessment of educational progress (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

O'Sullivan, P. J., Ysseldyke, J. E., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (1990). Mildly handicapped elementary students' opportunity to learn during reading instruction in mainstream and special education settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 131-46.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). The reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-17 5.

Polloway, E. A., Cronin, M. E., & Patton, J. R. (1986). The efficacy of group versus one-to-one instruction: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 7(l), 22-30.

Radencich, M. C., & McKay, L. J. (1995). Flexible grouping for literacy in the elementary grades. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Rosenholtz, S. J., & Wilson, B. (1980). The effect of classroom structure on shared perceptions of ability. American Education Research Journal, 17, 75-82.

Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), 18-27.

Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Gordon, J., & Rothlein, L. (1994). General education teachers' beliefs, skills, and practices in planning for mainstreamed students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 2 2 -3 7.

Schumn, J. S., Vaughn, S., & Sobol, M. C. (1997). "Are they getting it?": How to monitor student understanding in inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32(3), 168-17 1.

Simmons, D., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P., & Hodge, J. (1995). Teacher-directed reading instruction in the mainstream: A call for instructional reform. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 11, 19-36.

S lavin, R. E. (198 3). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Making chapter I make a difference. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 110-119.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1989). What works for students at risk: A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4-13.

Thorkildsen, T. A. (1993). Those who can, tutor: High-ability students' conceptions of fair ways to organize learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(l), 182-190.

Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., Wotruba, J. W., & Algozzine, B. (1993). Instruction in special education classrooms under varying student- teacher ratios. The Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 305-320.

United States Department of Education. (1997). Nineteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Vaughn, S., Moody, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64(2), 211- 226.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Klingner, J. K., & Saumell, L. (1995). Students' views of instructional practices: Implications for inclusion. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18(3), 2 3 6-248.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Niarhos, F. J., & Gordon, J. (1993). Students' perceptions of two hypothetical teachers' instructional adaptations for low achievers. Elementary Scbool Journal, 94(l), 87-103.

Walberg, H. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 19-27.

Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 178-200.

Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. (1990). Mainstream experiences for learning disabled students (Project MELD): Preliminary report. Exceptional Children, 57, 176-185.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grouping Students Who Struggle With Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are a variety of grouping formats that are effective for teaching reading to students with learning disabilities: whole class, small group, pairs, and one-on-one. Learn more about the research and implications for practice for using each format in the general education classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 9.4P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to promote the development of students’ oral reading fluency, with consideration for improving accuracy, rate, prosody, and combinations thereof.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Council for Exceptional Children, the Division for Learning Disabilities (DLD) and the Division for Research (DR). Fluency Instruction.

Dowhower, S. (1989) Repeated reading: Research into practice. The Reading Teacher, 42(7), 502-507.

Hudson, R.F., Lane, H.B., & Pullen, P.C. (2005). Reading Fluency Assessment and Instruction: What, Why, and How?. The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714.

Johns, J. & Berglund, R. (2002). Fluency: Question, answers, evidence-based strategies. Dubuque, IO: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Kuhn, M. (2004). Helping students become accurate, expressive readers: Fluency instruction for small groups. The Reading Teacher, 58(4), 338-344.

Lee, J., & Yoon, S. Y. (2017). The Effects of Repeated Reading on Reading Fluency for Students With Reading Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(2), 213-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415605194

Murray, B. (1999). Two Methods for Developing Fluency.

Rasinski, T. (2003) The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York, NY: Scholastic Professional Books.

Samuels, S. J. (2002). Reading fluency: It's development and assessment. In Farstrup, A. & Samuels, S. (Ed.). What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 166-183). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.

Samuels, S. J. (1997). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 50(5), 376-381.

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and Comprehension Gains as a Result of Repeated Reading: A Meta-Analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250040801

Vaca, R. & Vaca, J. (1999). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum, 6th edition. New York, NY: Logman.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Timed repeated readings are an instructional practice for monitoring students' fluency development. Repeated readings, under timed conditions, of familiar instructional level text can increase students' reading speed which can improve comprehension.

# data[].attributes.body
Instructional Routines for Reading Fluency are organized by skill and include teaching Regular and Irregular Word Reading for Automaticity, Reading with Phrasing and Expression, and Reading Text Orally with appropriate Rate, Accuracy and Expression.

Routines include those developed by the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) and Reading Rockets

# data[].attributes.body
Instructional Routines for Phonics and Word Identification are organized by skill and include teaching Grapheme-Phoneme Correspondences, Blending and Segmenting Word with 3 Phonemes, Decoding One-Syllable Words with Common Syllable Patterns, Decoding Irregular Words, Decoding Two-Syllable and Multisyllable Regularly Spelled Words, and Identifying Affixes and Bases to Decode Multisyllable Words.

Routines include those developed by the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) and Reading Universe

# data[].attributes.body
Instructional Routines for Spelling and Written Expression are organized by skill and include teaching Encoding One-Syllable Words with Common Syllable Patterns, Encoding Irregular Words, Encoding Two-Syllable and Multisyllable Regularly Spelled Words, Identifying Affixes and Bases to Encode Multisyllable Words and Constructing Simple Sentences.

Routines include those developed by the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) and Reading Universe

# data[].attributes.body
From the authors: This 2024 edition of this guide presents a more teacher-friendly organization, discusses the importance of teaching phoneme deletion, describes how to respond to dialect differences in pronunciation, and includes

unified lesson routines for teaching blending, segmenting, and deletion. The guide uses what we currently know from scientific research, teacher experiences, and observations in clinical teaching settings to make suggestions about how to teach phonemic awareness in a few minutes each day. Adopting these practices will help K-1 students, English language learners, and older struggling readers develop the phonemic awareness skills that are fundamental for reading and spelling.

The authors of this document are educators and researchers who bring decades of experience in

communicating developments in the science of reading, phonological awareness instruction, reading instruction, and assessment.

Co-authored by Jane Ashby, Meghan Martin, Marion McBride, Shira Naftel, Ellen O'Brien, Lucy Hart Paulson, Louisa Cook Moats

Originally released in 2022, updated in 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching PA in 2024_A Guide for Educators

# data[].attributes.headline
(7.2P and 7.5K) Resource Hub: Teaching Articulation

# data[].attributes.subject
(7.2P and 7.5K) Resource Hub: Teaching Articulation

# data[].attributes.body
Phonological Awareness Knowledge Competency 7.5K: Identify, pronounce, classify, and compare the consonant and vowel phonemes in English to include coarticulation effects and language variations, and explain how this knowledge supports learning for native speakers of English and ELs/MLs.

Phonological Awareness Practice Competency 7.2P: Make explicit comparisons between the phonological systems of English and the phonological systems of ELs/MLs home language and/or the phonological systems of dialects that differ from GAE (e.g., AAE), when possible, with special emphasis on those phonemes that are not present in L1.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here you’ll find all of the resources and activities recommended by Reading Universe for teaching Articulation Skill Explainer.

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.2P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines (e.g., blending routines, segmenting routines) to teach all students to decode and encode one-syllable words comprised of common syllable types (e.g., closed, open, silent-e, vowel-r, and vowel teams)

Links to FCRR student activities are included at the bottom of routine.

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.2P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines (e.g., blending routines, segmenting routines) to teach all students to decode and encode one-syllable words comprised of common syllable types (e.g., closed, open, silent-e, vowel-r, and vowel teams)

Links to FCRR student activities are included at the bottom of routine.

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.2P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines (e.g., blending routines, segmenting routines) to teach all students to decode and encode one-syllable words comprised of common syllable types (e.g., closed, open, silent-e, vowel-r, and vowel teams)

Links to FCRR student activities are included at the bottom of routine.

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 8.4P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students to decode and encode two-syllable and multisyllabic words (e.g., syllable patterns, common affixes, spelling patterns, pronunciation, word meanings, word relationships e.g., synonyms, antonyms, multiple meanings).

Links to FCRR student practice activities are at the bottom of the routine.

# data[].attributes.body
Affiliated with Structured Literacy and Dyslexia Competency 12.5P: Use evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach sentence composition (e.g., sentence frames, sentence combining, sentence expansion, sentence elaboration).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explicitly Teach Writing a Simple Sentence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to apply the gradual release of responsibility model to teaching Writing a Simple Sentence Skill Explainer using different examples.