# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Copy of DIBELS Interventions Oral Fluency Building (Beginning Readers) Small Group Planner

# data[].attributes.body
Please open this, we will be referencing throughout the session.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Sound Wall materials provided here align with the UFLI Foundations lessons. Included in the UFLI Sound Wall set are the following:

phoneme cards with mouth pictures to represent the articulatory gesture associated with each phoneme,

labels for the sound wall displays, including the place and manner of articulation for consonants, and

grapheme cards that can be added to the sound wall one at a time, as the grapheme-phoneme correspondences are taught.

We have also provided printable version of the Individual Sound wall charts. You may choose to glue them into a file folder for each student or print them front/back to laminate. These may also be enlarged and printed as posters if your classroom space does not allow for the full UFLI Sound Wall displays.
Individual Sound Wall: Consonants Individual Sound Wall: Vowels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Printable Resources | UF Literacy Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Sound Wall materials provided here align with the UFLI Foundations lessons. Included in the UFLI Sound Wall set are the following: phoneme cards with mouth pictures to represent the articulatory gesture associated with each phoneme, labels for the sound wall displays, including the place and manner of articulation for consonants, and grapheme cards that can be added to the sound wall one at a time, as the grapheme-phoneme correspondences are taught.

# data[].attributes.headline
Phonics Application Word Study Small Group

# data[].attributes.subject
Phonics Application Word Study Small Group

# data[].attributes.body
Not necessary for most!

# data[].attributes.body
1. Screen for reading problems and monitor progress (using same measures as mononlingual peers, should also assess in home language—see ideas below)

2. Provide intensive small group reading interventions

3. Provide extensive and varied vocabulary instruction

4. Develop academic English

5. Schedule regular peer-assisted learning opportunities

# data[].attributes.body
"These criterion-related validity studies are particularly important because another set of studies has investigated whether English learners can attain rates of reading growth comparable with those of their monolingual peers. These studies have demonstrated that English learners can learn to read in English at the same rate as their peers in the primary grades (K-2)."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA Publications.

Arab-Moghaddam, N., & Sénéchal, M. (2001). Orthographic and phonological processing skills in reading and spelling in Persian/English bilinguals. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 140-147.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

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

Baker, S. (2006, March). English language learners and reading first: Some preliminary evidence of effectiveness. Paper presented at the CORE Literacy Leadership Summit, San Francisco, CA.

Baker, S., Gersten, R., Haager, D., & Dingle, M. (2006). Teaching practice and the reading growth of first-grade English learners: Validation of an observation instrument. Elementary School Journal, 107, 199-219.

Baker, S. K., & Good, R. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement for English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A validation study with second-grade students. School Psychology Review, 24, 561-578.

Bialystok, E., & Herman, J. (1999). Does bilingualism matter for early literacy? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 35-44.

Chiappe, P., Glaeser, B., & Ferko, D. (2007). Speech perception, vocabulary and the development of reading skills in English among Korean- and English-speaking children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 154-166.

Chiappe, P., & Siegel, L. S. (1999). Phonological awareness and reading acquisition in English- and Punjabi-speaking Canadian children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 20-28.

Chiappe, P., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). A longitudinal study of reading development of Canadian children from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Elementary School Journal, 107, 135-152.

Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Gottardo, A. (2002). Reading-related skills in kindergartners from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 95-116.

Chiappe, P., Siegel, L., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 369-400.

Cisero, C. A., & Royer, J. M. (1995). The development and cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 275-303.

Dominguez de Ramirez, R., & Shapiro, E. S. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and the evaluation of reading skills of Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35, 356-369.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners' cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65, 145-190.

Geva, E., & Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z. (2006). Reading efficiency in native English-speaking and English-as-a-second-language children: The role of oral proficiency and underlying cognitive-linguistic processes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 31-57.

Geva, E., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Schuster, B. (2000). Part IV: Reading and foreign language learning: Understanding individual differences in word recognition skills of ESL children. Annals of Dyslexia, 50, 121-154.

Gottardo, A. (2002). The relationship between language and reading skills in bilingual Spanish-English speakers. Topics in Language Disorders, 22, 46-70.

Hsia, S. (1992). Developmental knowledge of inter- and intraword boundries: Evidence from American and Mandarin Chinese speaking beginning readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 341-372.

Lafrance, A., & Gottardo, A. (2005). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills and reading in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 559-578.

Leafstedt, J. M., Richards, C. R., & Gerber, M. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit phonological-awareness instruction for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 19, 252-261.

Lesaux, N., & Siegel, L. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1005-1019.

Limbos, M. (2006). Early identification of second language students at risk for reading disability. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66 (10-A), 3566A.

Limbos, M., & Geva, E. (2001). Accuracy of teacher assessments of second-language students at risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 136-151.

Manis, F. R., Lindsey, K. A., & Bailey, C. E. (2004). Development of reading in grades K-2 in Spanish-speaking English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 214-224.

Miller, J. F., Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A., Iglesias, A., Fabiano, L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 30-43.

Mumtaz, S., & Humphreys, G. W. (2001). The effects of bilingualism on learning to read English: Evidence from the contrast between Urdu-English bilingual and English monolingual children. Journal of Research in Reading, 24, 113-134.

Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246-256.

Quiroga, T., Lemos-Britton, Z., Mostafapour, E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2002). Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL first graders: Research into practice. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 85-111.

Swanson, H. L., Sáez, L., & Gerber, M. (2004). Do phonological and executive processes in English learners at risk for reading disabilities in grade 1 predict performance in grade 2? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 225-238.

Townsend, D., Lee, E., & Chiappe, P. (2006). English or Spanish? The efficacy of assessing Latino/a children in Spanish for risk of reading disabilities. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Verhoeven, L. (1990). Acquisition of reading in a second language. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 90-114.

Verhoeven, L. T. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 313-330.

Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003). Spelling acquisition of novel English phonemes in Chinese children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 325-348.

Wiley, H. I., & Deno, S. L. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207-214.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Studies show that screening English language learners for abilities in phonological processing, letter knowledge, and word and text reading will help identify those who are progressing well and/or who require additional instructional support.

# data[].attributes.body
Please read one of the above articles and then use this frame to discuss and document your thinking.

# data[].attributes.headline
DIBELS Administration and Scoring Guide 

# data[].attributes.subject
DIBELS Administration and Scoring Guide 

# data[].attributes.body
You can click on the table of contents to go directly to the section you are looking for.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PASB Lower School DIBELS (What, Why, HOW) Sept 25

# data[].attributes.headline
Jan Hasbrouck: Fluency + ORF and its connection to Comprehension

# data[].attributes.subject
Jan Hasbrouck: Fluency + ORF and its connection to Comprehension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fluency; Key to Comprehension with Dr. Jan Hasbrouck

# data[].attributes.headline
What’s problematic about using leveled reading assessments?

# data[].attributes.subject
What’s problematic about using leveled reading assessments?

# data[].attributes.headline
PreK/K - Embedding Phonological Awareness 

# data[].attributes.subject
PreK/K - Embedding Phonological Awareness 

# data[].attributes.headline
Planning For Word Study Across Literacy Blocks

# data[].attributes.subject
Planning For Word Study Across Literacy Blocks

# data[].attributes.headline
Portuguese Speech and Language Development

# data[].attributes.subject
Portuguese Speech and Language Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Portuguese Speech and Language Development | Bilinguistics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here is Portuguese speech and language development information for SLPs evaluating or providing therapy to children who speak Portuguese.

# data[].attributes.headline
Science of Reading in Portuguese (EKC Community) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Science of Reading in Portuguese (EKC Community) 

# data[].attributes.body
https://community.erinkentconsulting.com/c/science-of-reading-o-que-ganhamos-como-professores-de-lingua-portuguesa/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Login to Erin Kent Consulting community via email or SSO today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Tips for Creating Elementary Literacy Stations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With a little advance planning and clear expectations, stations can become your—and your students’—favorite activity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do Learning Centers and Seatwork Improve Reading Achievement

# data[].attributes.subject
Do Learning Centers and Seatwork Improve Reading Achievement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am an elementary literacy coach. A trend I am seeing in our K-2 classrooms are center activities not aligned to measurable outcomes. My question is, in a room of 24 first graders, when the teacher is pulling a small group to deliver targeted instruction, what does research say is best for what the other students to be doing? I'm struggling to find a model that we can confidently start driving towards. I am often asked about what the "other students" should be doing while teachers meet with small groups. I refer to What Works Clearinghouse studies to see gains for different programs and approaches. I can't find anything that quantifies students' reading improvement for independent reading vs. a computer program. For example, teachers will tell me they "put" students on a computer program daily for 20 minutes while they work with a small group because the teacher likes the program and thinks it is effective. Some of these programs do show decent gains on the studies on What Works Clearinghouse, yet I'm not a fan of computer-assisted reading programs. I struggle to respond to that because I can't find research support that refutes it over gains from independent reading. Can you help me to explain to teachers the difference or benefit to having students read independently over being put on a computer program if there is one?
Shanahan responds:

Wow! Thanks a lot, ladies.

You've used up my weekend in researching an answer to these questions.

No, I don't mean I've been reading the research on seatwork (okay, I did a bit of that).

But there are an amazing number of websites that promise they can teach you how to say, "I don't know" and still sound intelligent.

Unfortunately, they counsel that the dummy who doesn't know should offer to research the question.

My problem is that I've researched it and still don't know the answer. (Do I still sound intelligent?)

There isn't much research on this topic.

But go to Amazon, type in "learning centers," and an plethora of books pops up. They are all great-apparently; their blurbs describe them as "effective" and say they "really work." (What they work at is not clear from the blurbs.)

There are some studies on seatwork, particularly in mathematics. This neglect is surprising given the vast amounts of classroom time devoted to seatwork. One study found that kids spend as much as 70% of their instructional time on their own, which varied by subject area (Fisher, et al., 1978); and more recent studies have produced similar results (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005; Vaughn, et al., 2002).

The studies that do exist tend to evaluate the effectiveness of seatwork, rather than pointing out successful seatwork routines that increase learning.

For example, back in the 1980s Paul Sindelar and his colleagues tested different amounts of direct teacher guidance and seatwork activities. They devoted 25%, 50%, and 75% of the time to teacher-led instruction and found that the more time with the teacher the better the kids did at learning math. And, the opposite-the more seatwork, the less learning.

Is it a good idea to have kids spending so much time working away from the teacher?

According to the studies, no.

Studies report that kids are less likely to be engaged in learning when working on their own (Cohen, 1994; Cowen, 2016; Gump, 1967; Kouno, 1970); and amount of seatwork has been found to be negatively related to learning (Seifert & Beck, 1984).

One study even reported that the best readers did reasonably well with seatwork and other independent activities, but lower readers learned substantially less from such activities (Connor, Morrison, & Petrella, 2004). They needed the teacher time.

The remaining research on seatwork focuses less on what kinds of assignments, centers, or programs lead to the most learning, and more to how teachers might manage seatwork better so that the kids won't be as disruptive. In other words, their goal is identifying which routines keep kids busiest, not which ones teach best.

What these studies are all saying is that seatwork should be thought of not as a productive part of the school day, but as a necessary evil.

When it comes to academics, kids simply don't learn that much on their own-except perhaps for the ones who are really good learners anyway-in which case, seatwork could be characterized as an effective way to make sure the lower kids don't catch up!

The second questioner above hoped that I could point out research showing that independent reading was better than computer work. I know of no studies that make that comparison, but generally independent reading tends to have a pretty small impact on reading achievement. Seatwork studies suggest that the more learning comes when kids are interacting with others; not working by themselves-even when that self-time might be reading on their own.

It is possible that there are benefits to working with digital programs, since they provide some interaction (and some do have supporting research). However, even the best of those programs tend to require lots of teacher involvement if they are to make a learning difference-though that isn't always how they are used in classrooms.

I do like the idea of having kids read during their downtime, but I would link this closely with their reading instruction. Thus, I might have the kids reading something silently prior to coming to group, so that they are ready to discuss; or I might have kids follow up their reading with me, by practicing fluency with a partner (which can help if the texts are hard enough and the kids stay on task). And, either of these activities could involve a social studies or science book, not just the "reading books," which might take advantage of some of the slack time in those classes.

Research is very supportive of cooperative learning groups, so you might have some luck combining that with project learning activities, but cooperative learning requires some real knowledge. You'd have to study up on that if you wanted to really be successful.

Writing is another activity that can fill such space. Perhaps doing a writing lesson prior to meeting with reading groups, and then having kids working on their compositions while you work with groups would be useful (again, as long as they stay on task).

Overall, my message would be to minimize this kind of independent work, seatwork, center time, or on-one's-own computer assignments. It's better for the kids to work with the teacher and to work with each other.

Brush up your skills in working with larger groups including how to maximize student-to-student and student-teacher interactions and choral or every-student-responds responses.

Seatwork is like homework; it is best focused on applying what students already have learned.

When you do meet with small groups, try staggering the schedules-talking with one while the other reads, then moving to the other group to interact with them, while the first group is annotating. Or, if you meet with groups in a particular order, always give yourself 5-10 minutes between groups to interact with the kids who have been doing seatwork on their own.

I'd love to tell you that there are terrific research-supported workbooks, seatwork activities, computer programs, stations, or learning centers. There just aren't. Given that practitioners need to be experimental, trying out various routines to evaluate their impact on learning and behavior.

Those books I noted earlier might be a good place to start. But wherever the ideas come from for your seatwork routines, you should be skeptical and data-oriented in evaluating their effectiveness and usefulness, and willing to try lots of alternatives.

Or, I could just say, "That's a really interesting question."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning Centers and Seatwork and Reading Achievement | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teachers are often told to schedule small group instructional time. The idea is that this will force differentiation and higher reading achievement. In reality, it increases repetition and entails the use of lots of approaches not found to help reading achievement.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pre Conventional Reading Small Group Planner

# data[].attributes.subject
Pre Conventional Reading Small Group Planner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pre-Conventional Reader Small Group Planning Guide

# data[].attributes.headline
Small Group : Strategy and Shared Text Planner

# data[].attributes.subject
Small Group : Strategy and Shared Text Planner

# data[].attributes.headline
4 Common Questions About Teaching Reading in Small Groups

# data[].attributes.subject
4 Common Questions About Teaching Reading in Small Groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8.9K views · 94 reactions | Small group instruction is often misunderstood.

When working with instructors who are using Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) there are four questions that come up the most about working in small groups.

📖 Is small group instruction only for certain tiers? 

📖 How should I group students if I’m not using an assessment that assigns levels to students?

📖 What are the other students doing if I’m working with a small group?

📖 What should I use for small group instruction?

I get into my responses in the video, but want to share this key takeaway: Assessment data is crucial for forming skill-based groups, providing flexible service delivery, and differentiating independent work. | Stephanie Stollar Consulting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Small group instruction is often misunderstood.

When working with instructors who are using Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) there are four questions that come up the most about working in...

# data[].attributes.headline
Maximizing Small Group Reading Instruction

# data[].attributes.subject
Maximizing Small Group Reading Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today we'll be talking to a team of authors about a recent article they published on small group instruction, titled Maximizing Small-Group Reading Instruction. We ask and answer important questions about small group instructional time: What is the appeal of small group reading instruction? Why has it been popular? What does the research say? What do we need to know about effective small-group reading instruction? What are some best practices?
Resources
Maximizing Small-Group Reading Instruction (published in The Reading Teacher) Dr. Neena Saha's Reading Research Recap of this research What Should Small Group Instruction Look Like? Tim Shanahan Reinterpreting the development of reading skills Scott Paris Applying New Visions of Reading Development in Today's Classrooms Kay Stahl Text Project with Freddy Hiebert Choice Words: How Our Language Affects Our Children's Learning by Peter JohnstonConnect with us
Facebook and join our Facebook Group Twitter Instagram Visit our website to stay connected with Melissa and Lori!
Helping teachers learn about science of reading, knowledge building, and high quality curriculum.
Connect with us
Facebook and join our Facebook Group Twitter Instagram Don't miss an episode! Sign up for FREE bonus resources and episode alerts at LiteracyPodcast.com
Helping teachers learn about science of reading, knowledge building, and high quality curriculum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
ep. 143: maximizing small group reading instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‎Melissa and Lori Love Literacy ™: Ep. 143: Maximizing Small Group Reading Instruction on Apple Podcasts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today we'll be talking to a team of authors about a recent article they published on small group instruction, titled Maximizing Small-Group Reading Instruction. We ask and answer important questions about small group instructional time: What is the appeal of small group reading instruction? Why has...

# data[].attributes.headline
Language Comprehension Small Group Ideas

# data[].attributes.subject
Language Comprehension Small Group Ideas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Word Recognition Beyond UFLI (Small Group Instruction) PASB Feb 26

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
G3 Sample Read Aloud Planner - Cece Loves Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PASB Lower School April 26 Read Aloud (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PASB Lower School April 26 Read Aloud (3)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PASB Lower School April 26 Read Aloud (4)

# data[].attributes.body
Please write a grade-level reflection below.