# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Equipped for Reading Success book study--Ernesto Ortiz: PAST administration and school leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Download the KFSS

in Kindergarten

with older students who perform well below expectations on the Beginning Decoding Survey or Beginning of Year 1st Grade FSS

as a one-on-one assessment of pre-decoding and early decoding skills, including:

Functional Vocabulary

Phonological/Phonemic Awareness

Letter Knowledge

Decoding

High-Frequency Word Reading

The data collected from these assessments can help you determine whether foundational reading skills are being established at an appropriate pace, pinpoint specific gaps in knowledge, and plan appropriately targeted instruction.

The results of these surveys can be plugged into our Grouping Matrix™, a free, web-based system that enables you to group students according to the type and depth of their decoding difficulties.

1st Grade Foundational Skills Surveys
Download the 1FSS

as a one-on-one assessment of 1st grade foundational literacy skills, including:

Simple and complex single-syllable words (with short vowels, digraphs, blends, closed syllables, and various long vowel spellings)

Decodable two-syllable words

Optional assessments for sight words, letter-sound knowledge, and letter name knowledge

The results of these surveys can be plugged into our Grouping Matrix™, a free, web-based system that enables you to group students according to the type and depth of their decoding difficulties. The Grouping Matrix can help determine what type of basic literacy instruction will prepare each student to meet the foundational skills expectations for the end of 1st grade.

2nd-12th Diagnostic Decoding Surveys Download the DDS

in 2nd grade through 12th grade

The Beginning Decoding Survey assesses a student's ability to read:

Simple and complex single-syllable words (with short vowels, digraphs, blends, and closed syllables in real and nonsense words)

Select sight words

The Advanced Decoding Survey assesses a student's ability to read:

Complex single-syllable words (with short, long, r-controlled, and variant vowels and complex consonant constructions like trigraphs and 3-sound blends in real and nonsense words)

Decodable two- and three-syllable words (real and nonsense)

The results of these surveys can be plugged into our Grouping Matrix™, a free, web-based system that enables you to group students according to the type and depth of their decoding difficulties.

Response to Intervention (RTI) & the Survey - Assessments and RtI>>

The Phonological/Phonemic Awareness Survey is a complimentary assessment that is commonly used in Kindergarten and 1st grade, but it is also useful for assessing older students who perform well below expectations on basic decoding assessments. It is a one-on-one assessment of phonological awareness skills, including blending word parts, and phonemic awareness skills, including matching, identifying, blending, and segmenting phonemes in words. The data collected from this assessment can help determine the type of basic literacy instruction that will equip students with the knowledge they need for basic decoding.
Download the PAS

The Letter Knowledge Survey is a complimentary assessment that is commonly used in Kindergarten and 1st grade, but it is also useful for assessing older students who perform well below expectations on basic decoding assessments. It is a one-on-one assessment of letter knowledge, including letter sounds and letter names (both lowercase and uppercase). The data collected from this assessment can help determine the type of basic literacy instruction that will equip students with the knowledge they need for basic decoding.
Download the LPDS

The Sight Word Survey has five separate assessments for Pre-Primer, Primer, 1st, 2nd & 3rd Grade. These assessments are used to determine how well a student reads high-frequency words. Sight words are words that occur so frequently in printed text that it is most efficient for children to learn to read them automatically, by "sight," rather than by decoding or sounding them out. The words on these assessments were selected from the Dolch 220 list of high-frequency words, and the words have been leveled.(e.g., Pre-Primer, Primer, etc.) using the same Dolch list.
Download the SWS

The Advanced Decoding Survey Plus is a quick way to determine if older students have mastered the decoding skills they should have learned in grade K, 1, 2, and 3. Those using it as a screener can use it anytime after the middle of 3rd grade.If using it as a screener, you can administer it to your entire student population or to a select group of students whom you suspect may have a decoding deficit. Designed with upper elementary and adolescents in mind, Really Great Reading has three sets of lessons: HD Word , Boost , and Blitz . Additionally, for those who need additional practice and repetitions, we have HD Word Plus and Phonics Boost Plus that extend the learning for students participating in HD Word , Boost , and Blitz instruction.

Download the ADS Plus
Diagnostic Instructional Videos

Really Great Reading offers a family of complimentary diagnostic decoding assessments to help educators understand their students' word-level reading skills. In 5 to 7 minutes per student, discover whether decoding deficits are inhibiting your students' ability to read. Download complimentary copies above and watch the following informational and instructional videos:

The Grouping Matrix Live Assess Feature

As you assess, automatically add your students' scores to the Grouping Matrix.

Click here to learn how to use the Grouping Matrix's Live Assess feature>>

What is the Grouping Matrix? It is our complimentary, web-based, password-protected, secure student data management interface. It enables you to group students (K-12) according to the type and depth of their decoding difficulties using data from grade-level Oral Reading Fluency passages (such as DIBELS, AIMSWeb, Six Minute Solutions, Read Naturally, EasyCBM) and our complimentary diagnostic assessments.

Pervasiveness of the Problem

Many students experience undiagnosed decoding (or word-level) difficulties that hamper their academic achievement. Just how pervasive are decoding deficits among adolescent readers?

Beginning Decoding Survey

Really Great Reading's Free Diagnostic Decoding Surveys enable quick one-on-one assessment of phonics skills. The Beginning Decoding Survey assesses a students' ability to read high-frequency words and single-syllable words with short vowels, digraphs, and blends.

Advanced Decoding Survey

The Advanced Decoding Survey assesses how well students read unfamiliar single-syllable decodable words with more advanced vowels such as long, r-controlled, and other variant vowel patterns. It also assesses a student's ability to read unfamiliar and familiar multisyllabic words.

Decoding Survey Overview

Many students struggle with reading because they don't understand sound-letter relationships and the rules that guide pronunciation. They skip and guess at words. Students with decoding issues often have comprehension and fluency problems. They underachieve in school. Our decoding surveys help educators pinpoint the cause of students' struggles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
row][oneThird][/oneThird][twoThird] Complimentary Reading Assessments (K-12)In just 5-7 minutes, Really Great Reading's complimentary diagnostic decoding assessments answer these key questions: Which students are struggling with decoding? What types of words are they struggling with? What is the source of the underlying confusion?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the Schoolwide Model, the Instruction component consists of three critical elements:

These three elements can be modified to meet the needs of each student:

Instructional Programs

The first part of the Instruction component is "Programs", specifically, the adoption and implementation of research-based reading programs that support the full range of learners. The critical elements related to Instructional Programs are:

A core instructional program of validated efficacy adopted and implemented schoolwide

Supplemental and intervention programs to support core program

Programs and materials emphasize big ideas

Programs implemented with high fidelity

A core instructional program of validated efficacy adopted and implemented schoolwide
A core program is the "base" reading program designed to provide instruction on the essential areas of reading for the majority of students schoolwide. In general, the core program should enable 80% or more of students to attain schoolwide reading goals.

An effective, scientifically-based core program is essential. Without an effective core program implemented consistently across classrooms and grades, a school's ability to teach all students to read is seriously diminished.
Supplemental and intervention programs to support core program
Core Program: Programs and materials designed to enable 80% or more of students to attain schoolwide reading goals.

Supplemental Program: Programs and materials designed to support the core program by addressing specific skill areas such as phonemic awareness or reading fluency.

Intervention Program: Programs and materials designed to provide intensive support for students performing below grade level.
One size does not fit all. It is important to have a continuum of instructional programs that can meet the needs of each student. Understanding the Purpose of Different Programs
The core reading program is a school's primary reading program and is designed to meet the needs of most students. Supplemental programs support the core program. Intervention programs are intensive programs designed to meet the needs of "each" or individuals who need additional intensive reading instruction.

The core, supplemental, and intervention programs have to work together to support each other and student learning.

Programs are tools that are implemented by teachers to ensure that children learn enough on time.
Programs implemented with high fidelity
To optimize program effectiveness:

Implement the program everyday with fidelity

(i.e., the way it was written)

Deliver the instruction clearly, consistently, and explicitly

(e.g., model skills and strategies)

Provide scaffolded support to students

(e.g., give extra support to students who need it)

Provide opportunities for practice with corrective feedback

(e.g., maximize engagement and individualize feedback)

Instructional Time

The second element of the Instruction component is "Time". It is critical that schools ensure adequate, prioritized, and protected time for reading instruction and practice.

Schoolwide plan established to allocate sufficient reading time and coordinate resources

Additional time allocated for students not making adequate progress (supplemental & intervention programs)

Reading time prioritized and protected from interruption

In the Schoolwide Model, instructional time is referred to as "Triple A" (AAA) time.

Allocated Time: Time allocated to reading instruction

Actual Time: Time actually spent in reading instruction and practice

Academic Learning Time: Time children are engaged in tasks in which they can be highly successful

Triple A time is best conceptualized as three concentric circles. A large, outer circle would represent the total amount of time allocated to reading instruction. For example, if your school uses a 90-minute reading block, 90 minutes is the allocated time for reading instruction. Next, a school must consider how much of that allocated time is actually spent in reading instruction and practice (middle circle). Sometimes the actual time does not match the allocated time, but our goal should always be to maximize the actual amount of time spent in reading instruction and practice. The most important element of instructional time is what is referred to as academic learning time (inner circle), which is the amount of time children are engaged in tasks in which they can be highly successful. These are times in which children are being taught at their instructional level, are being provided many opportunities to respond and practice, and are getting many opportunities to receive corrective feedback. In the best of worlds, academic learning time would equal allocated time.

The table below shows an example of how instructional time could be allocated across second grade classrooms. This example is just one possibility of many effective solutions, but this table illustrates:

sufficient protected time for reading instruction

consistent scheduling coordinated across classrooms

alignment and integration of core, supplemental, and intervention programs

additional time allocated for students not making adequate progress (supplemental & intervention programs)

Program

Time Allocation

Core Program

90 minutes, five days per week for all students

Supplemental fluency program

15 minutes, three days per week for all students

Intervention phonics program 1

30 minutes, three days per week for students needing some extra support

Intervention phonics program 2

30 minutes, five days per week for students needing intensive support

Instructional Grouping

The third part of the Instruction component is "Grouping". Effective, thoughtful, and creative use of grouping practices increases the effectiveness of reading instruction. The critical elements related to Instructional Grouping are:

Differentiated instruction aligned with student needs

Creative and flexible grouping used to maximize performance

Differentiated instruction aligned with student needs

Students are grouped based on assessment results

Specified supplemental and intervention programs are implemented depending on student needs and profiles

Creative and flexible grouping used to maximize performance Grouping Options

Students: Within class, across class, across grade

Size: Whole class, small group, one-on-one

Organization: Teacher led, peer tutoring, cooperative learning

Location: In classroom, outside of classroom

Groups are constantly reorganized based on progress monitoring data

Instructional Adjustments

A key component of providing differentiated and individualized reading instruction that meets the needs of each student is making ongoing instructional adjustments based on assessment data.

Instructional programs, grouping, and time are adjusted and intensified according to learner performance and needs, making instruction more responsive to learner performance.

There are many types of instructional adjustments that can be made along a number of dimensions. The chart below lists some options for instructional components than be adjusted in response to instruction.
NEXT: Professional Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the Schoolwide Model, the Instruction component consists of three critical elements: These three elements can be modified to meet the needs of each student: The first part of the Instruction component is "Programs", specifically, the adoption and implementation of research-based reading programs that support the full range of learners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reading requires multiple parts of the brain to work rapidly and in tandem. As a result, more than one form of instruction is required to build and connect all the processes that make up this essential skill.
The neuroscientist David Eagleman (2011) recently wrote that the brain's cells are "connected to one another in a network of such staggering complexity that it bankrupts human language and necessitates new strains of mathematics. . . . There are as many connections in a single cubic centimeter of brain tissues as there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy" (p. 1). It is the capacity to make these mind-reeling numbers of connections that allows our brain to go beyond its original functions to form a completely new circuit for reading (see research summarized in Wolf, 2016). A new circuit was necessary because reading is neither natural nor innate; rather, it is an unnatural cultural invention that has been scarcely 6,000 years in existence. On any "evolutionary clock," reading's history occupies little more than the proverbial tick before midnight.

The lack of a blueprint for reading circuitry means that its formation is subject to considerable variation, based on the reader's specific language requirements and learning environments. A large, fundamental mistake - with many unfortunate consequences for children, teachers, and parents around the world - is the assumption that reading is natural to human beings and that it will simply emerge "whole cloth" like language when the child is ready. That is not the case; most of us must be taught the basic principles of this unnatural cultural invention.

Happily, the brain comes well prepared to learn a great many unnatural things because of its basic design. The best-known design principle, neuroplasticity, underlies just about everything interesting about reading - from forming a new circuit by connecting older parts, to recycling existing neurons, to adding new and elaborated branches to the reading circuit over time. Plasticity also underlies why the reading-brain circuit is inherently malleable and influenced by key environmental factors: specifically what it reads, how it reads, and how it is formed.

A large, fundamental mistake is the assumption that reading is natural to human beings and that it will simply emerge "whole cloth" like language when the child is ready.

The second principle invokes the contributions of psychologist Donald Hebb (1949/2002), who helped conceptualize how cells form working groups that enable them to specialize in particular functions. These specialist groups build the networks that allow us to see the smallest features of letters and process them in milliseconds.

More specifically, and equally important, cell specialization enables each working group of neurons to become automatic in its specific region and to become virtually automatic in its connections to the other groups or networks in the reading circuit. In other words, for reading to occur, there must be sonic-speed automaticity for neuronal networks at the local level (such as within the visual cortex), which, in turn, allows for equally rapid connections across entire structural expanses of the brain (e.g., connecting visual regions to language regions).

In essence, the combination of these three principles forms a reading circuit that operates something like a circus, with three large overlapping rings (representing vision, language, and cognition), connected to two smaller rings (representing motor and affective functions), all of which are overseen by an "executive center" that handles attention, memory, hypothesis generating, and decision making. It incorporates input from two hemispheres, four lobes in each hemisphere (frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital), and all five layers of the brain (from the uppermost telencephalon and adjacent diencephalon below it to the middle layers of the mesencephalon to the lower levels of the metencephalon and myelencephalon). Anyone who still believes the archaic canard that we use only a tiny portion of our brains hasn't yet become aware of what we do when we read.
The many reading brains
When children step through the kindergarten door, they come in all sizes, abilities, languages, dialects, and cultures - all of which have influenced brain formation. The school's first job is to figure out who is ready to learn, who is not, and what to do about it. From the very first day, the schools must be able to assess what is needed for those children who did not receive a quality preschool experience and may well be behind in language development and other precursors of reading. From the second day, teachers need to know whether children who have had a high-quality preschool experience have different strengths and weaknesses that will require specific emphases before they are more formally taught to read. Everyone involved in what happens next needs to be aware of some important new research as well as some well-established older research, neither of which is sufficiently known or implemented in many schools.

An exciting new study could change business as usual in the first two days of school. My former Ph.D. students Ola Ozernov-Palchik and Elizabeth Norton, along with John Gabrieli and his colleagues at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT and Nadine Gaab at Boston Children's Hospital, recently finished one of the largest reading prediction studies ever conducted (Ozernov-Palchik et al., 2016). These are the kind of studies that help us predict who will go on to do well in important subjects such as reading and math and why, and who will need to be followed carefully.

Our group studied well over a thousand kindergarten children from every economic circumstance and from all over New England. Six developmental profiles emerged that can help teachers and parents understand what each group needs and how each group best learns to read. Two of the profiles comprise children who are either average or very much above average and will need only good instruction to excel. Another group has difficulty with letters and sounds and may well come from environments where there is little exposure to the alphabet or the English language. We can redress these issues fairly straightforwardly. Some children in this group, however, may have rarer visual-based difficulties that need further testing.

Three of the profiles comprise children who we know will go on to be diagnosed with some form of reading disability or dyslexia. There are few discoveries more important to those of us who study dyslexia than to be able to predict it before the child has to endure ignominious, daily public failures before peers, parents, and teachers. Indeed, there is little more destructive for a six-year-old child than to suddenly think that he or she is dumb because everyone else can read but him or her, whether the reason is biological or environmental or in some cases both.

By assessing struggling young readers early on, we can prevent some of the emotional detritus that often characterizes their reading experiences. In the process, we can save society large sums of money by preventing the need for some prison beds and by preserving the spirit of children with dyslexia, who can then go on to become some of our most creative members and successful entrepreneurs (Wolf, 2007). The critical point here is that we are now on the threshold of being able to predict highly specific reading trajectories of young children before they ever begin to read. Such information in the hands of trained teachers could prevent some reading problems, ameliorate others, and deliver intensive early intervention for the children most at risk for dyslexia. Nothing in reading acquisition is more important than beginning systematic, targeted intervention as early as possible.

This research helps all children, not just those with more obvious learning challenges. The prediction battery also demonstrates the tremendous developmental variability at this age among the largest group of the more typically developing children. Some children, particularly boys, show no obvious areas of weakness in their profile but are simply not yet ready to learn to read. Understanding this group requires more in-depth evaluation (to ensure that there are no underlying weaknesses) and also more reasonable expectations for our children than is sometimes the case. Too many schools have school administrators who are under such pressure for their children to do well in later grades on the publicly recorded state tests that they pressure their teachers to push reading acquisition earlier and earlier in the kindergarten curriculum.

The Johns Hopkins pediatric neurologist Martha Denckla vehemently argues that we may be causing as many impediments to reading as preventing them by our push to get every child reading before they leave kindergarten (personal correspondence, 2015). The British reading researcher Usha Goswami (2003) reinforced this conclusion in a study of reading practices in Europe. She found that in the countries that introduced reading later, reading developed with fewer problems for the children. In other words, European children who began instruction in what we would consider 1st grade acquired reading more easily than those who began a year earlier.

Fears about 3rd-grade state test results should never dictate decisions about when whole kindergarten classes receive instruction for reading.

These results are, to be sure, confounded, because there is more orthographic regularity in the languages of the countries that introduce reading a year later than we do. Nevertheless, there are sound physiological and behavioral reasons why some children are simply developmentally not ready in kindergarten (Wolf, 2007). The bottom line is that fears about 3rd-grade state test results should never dictate decisions about when whole kindergarten classes receive instruction for reading. Some children are pushed to read too hard too soon, before they are developmentally ready. Some children read well before they end kindergarten or even enter it. Others are sent to 1st grade to receive the intervention du jour in their school that is inappropriate for their specific learning profiles. Perceptive, well-trained teachers, excellent prediction tools, and better-targeted, evidence-grounded interventions are our best defense against any of these all-too-common errors that derail children's development.

Knowing how to introduce all children with their many differences to the reading life today requires as complex a set of knowledge bases as any engineer or rocket scientist is ever called upon to use. Today's teachers need to be prepared with new knowledge, particularly about the reading brain and its implications for how we teach teachers and children. As Stanislas Dehaene (2009) emphasized, what we know about the reading-brain circuit can enrich the development of teachers' understanding, especially concerning the merits of different forms of reading instruction. It may ultimately bridge one of the most intransigent debates about methods of teaching, the so-called Reading Wars.
The debate that should never have been
By and large, 20th-century educators were trained within two strikingly different approaches to the teaching of reading. In the approach called phonics, reading instruction begins with children understanding the basic elements underlying the alphabetic principle: that words consist of sounds or phonemes and that these sounds correspond to letters in the alphabet, with rules that are to be learned as the entry to reading. Teaching is explicit, and the emphasis moves from a foundation in English phonemes and letters to systematic rules about connecting letters to sounds and about decoding different types of words.

In the approach called whole language, learning is to be implicit: The rules of decoding are to be inferred or figured out by the child, with little to no explicit instruction in decoding or emphasis on the phonemes in English. The emphasis centers on engagement in stories, authentic literature, word meanings, and the imagination of the child to the exclusion of phonic principles. Indeed, some earlier professors of education erroneously labeled phonics methods "drill and kill" and characterized teachers of phonics approaches as less progressive and child-centered.

Both approaches came to be favored by very fine teachers, many of whom maintain to this day a loyal, sometimes even zealous, belief in the methods they were originally trained in. That each of these approaches ever came to exclude the emphases of the other is one of the great unfortunate errors of the 20th century. Unfortunately, it continues. Even though there is a movement toward "balanced reading," the too-frequent reality is a thinly veiled variation of the whole-language approach with a cursory, unsystematic nod to phonics principles. This is understandable but lamentable.

Extensive, federally funded research studies unambiguously support the importance of children's learning to read through the explicit teaching of the basic principles of decoding (McCardle & Chhabra, 2004; Miller, Cutting, & McCardle, 2013; Miller, McCardle, & Long, 2014; Pugh & McCardle, 2009). While clearly supporting phonics principles, however, these results should never mean neglecting engagement with literature.

The problem is that neither evidence from science nor the experience of being unable to teach many children to reach functional literacy levels has proven sufficient to persuade many teachers who are bound by their allegiance to whole-language methods. In one of the best new overviews of research on reading, Mark Seidenberg (2017) memorably described these methods as "theoretical zombies that cannot be stopped by conventional weapons such as empirical disconfirmation, leaving them free to roam the educational landscape" (p. 271). Such a situation is a double waste: It wastes the unquestionably idealistic intentions of the whole-language teacher, and it thwarts learning to read for many children, especially those with reading or learning differences or dual language needs.

That said, neither Seidenberg nor I would ever take one minute away from the whole-language teacher's time spent on bringing words, stories, and a life of reading enjoyment to children, as long as they do not preclude a systematic, informed approach to learning the phonemes of the language, the alphabetic principle, and decoding rules. From a cognitive neuroscience perspective, the repetition fostered in the latter approach provides children with the multiple exposures they need to learn and consolidate the rules for letters and their corresponding sounds and increase their knowledge of words, stories, and literature. Repetition fosters the growth of high-quality representations from phonemes and graphemes (letters) to word meanings and grammatical forms. As a very old teacher once said, "Most times, the lower rungs of a ladder are the best ones for learning to climb. I always hate to ask a child to jump to the top rung without them." All of the rungs are important if we are to prepare children to become fluent readers who use both their imagination and their analytical capacities.

Furthermore, knowledge about the reading brain can help teachers of every method see what rungs in the ladder may be missing in how they teach children. The reading circuit activates everything it knows. So should our teaching during the entire 5- to 10-year age period. Within such a perspective, teachers of children from 5 to 10 years of age would give ample, explicit attention to every component of the reading circuit: from phonemes and their connections to letters; to the meanings and functions of words and morphemes (e.g., the smallest units of meaning) in sentences, to an immersion in stories that require ever more sophisticated deep-reading processes, and to the daily elicitation of the children's own thoughts and imagination in speaking and writing.

Knowing how to introduce all children with their many differences to the reading life today requires as complex a set of knowledge bases as any engineer or rocket scientist is ever called upon to use.

In such a way, nothing relating to cognition, perception, language, affect, and the motor regions is neglected. Learning the meanings and grammatical uses of words in increasingly complex sentences is important in 1st and 3rd grades. Learning about new letter patterns that always reappear and help us figure out the meanings of words is important in both 1st grade and 4th grade. Over time - by the 3rd and 4th grades - these lower-level, basic circuit components need to be so practiced and automatic that children can turn their attention to ever more sophisticated comprehension processes, beginning with expanding their background knowledge and ending with the elicitation of their insights and reflections.

This is the basis of fluency and the best way of acquiring it (Katzir et al., 2006; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). Fluency is not simply about the speed of decoding, an assumption that has led to the common but insufficient practice of having children reread a passage over and over again. Think back to the circus image: Each ring has to be fast enough in and of itself so that it can pass its information forward to the other rings. Only when each of the rings is fast enough to work in tandem with the other rings can time be allocated to comprehending what is read and having feelings about it, too.

We now have extensive evidence that an approach to reading that emphasizes all of these parts of the reading circuit benefits many children. A decade of randomized treatment-control studies (Lovett et al., 2017; Morris et al., 2012; Wolf et al., 2012) demonstrates that when the major components in the reading circuit are explicitly emphasized - the earlier the better - children become more proficient readers, even when they begin with significant challenges like dyslexia.

Further, as illuminated by new work published in English by Melissa Orkin, in Hebrew by Tami Katzir, and in Italian by Daniela Traficante, fluent reading involves knowing not only how words work but also how they make us feel. Empathy and perspective taking are part of the complex fabric of feelings and thoughts, whose convergence propels greater understanding.
Completing the circuit
Emphases on the multiple aspects of words are not only critical for fluent, proficient reading in the two-thirds of our children in the United States who are failing to achieve proficiency, they are the bridge that connects the decoding of words to deep-reading processes. Rereading the same stories and sentences over and over again is helpful practice for gaining speed on a particular text, but it will never prepare children to connect concepts, feelings, and personal reflections. Deep reading is always about connection: connecting what we know to what we read, what we read to what we feel, what we feel to what we think, and how we think to how we live out our lives in a connected world.

Stories are one of humanity's most powerful vehicles for making lasting connections to people we will never meet. To feel like Charlotte about Wilbur's plight in Charlotte's Web, to identify with Martin Luther King Jr. in Martin's Big Words: The Life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or with Ruby Bridges in Through My Eyes prepares children to empathize both with their neighbors and with people around the world or across the proverbial railroad tracks. Think about the ways you have been changed by fictional characters such as Celie in The Color Purple and Hamlet in Shakespeare's play and the real lives of people such as Eleanor Roosevelt in her autobiography and James Baldwin in I Am Not Your Negro. Whatever our age, we can be changed by the lives of others if we learn to connect the whole of the reading circuit with our moral imagination.
References
Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. New York, NY: Viking.

Eagleman, D. (2011). Incognito: The secret lives of the brain. New York, NY: Viking.

Goswami, U. (2003). How to beat dyslexia. The Psychologist, 16 (9), 462-465.

Hebb, D. (1949/2002). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. Mahweh, NJ: Psychology Press.

Katzir, T., Kim, Y., Wolf, M., O'Brien, B., Lovett, M., & Morris, R. (2006). Reading fluency: The whole is more than the parts. Annals of Dyslexia, 56 (1), 51-82.

Lovett, M.W., Frijters, J.C., Wolf, M., Steinbach, K.A., Sevick, R.A., Morris, R.D. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 (7), 889-914.

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

Miller, B., Cutting, L.E., McCardle, P. (Eds.).(2013). Unraveling reading comprehension: Behavioral, neurobiological, and genetic components. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Miller, B., McCardle, P., & Long, R. (Eds.).(2014). Teaching reading and writing: Improving instruction and student achievement. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Morris, R.D., Lovett, M.W., & Wolf, M., Sevcik, R.A., Steinbach, K.A., Frijters, J.C., & Shapiro, M.B. (2012). Multiple-component remediation for developmental reading disabilities: IQ, socioeconomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45 (2), 99-127.

Ozernov-Palchik, O.E., Norton, E.S., Sideridis, G., Beach, S.D., Wolf, M., Gabrieli, J., & Gaab, N. (2016). Longitudinal stability of pre-reading skill profiles of kindergarten children: Implications for early screening and theories of reading. Developmental Science, 20 (5), 1-18.

Pugh, K. & McCardle, P. (Eds.).(2009). How children learn to read: Current issues and new directions in the integration of cognition, neurobiology, and genetics of reading and dyslexia research and practice. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

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

Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Wolf, M. (2016). A neuroscientist's tale of words. In Tales of literacy for the 21st century. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Wolf, M. & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (3), 211-238.

Wolf, M., Ullman-Shade, C., & Gottwald, S. (2012). The emerging, evolving reading brain in a digital culture: Implications for new readers, children with reading difficulties, and children without schools. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 11 (3), 230-240.

Note: Adapted from Reader Come Home: The Fate of the Reading Brain in a Digital World (New York, NY: HarperCollins). Copyright © 2018 by Maryanne Wolf. Reprinted here with permission from Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.

Citation: Wolf, M. (2018). The science and poetry in learning (and teaching) to read. Phi Delta Kappan, 100 (4), 13-17.

For more on reading in the digital age, listen to Maryanne Wolf's interview with Research Minutes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The science and poetry in learning (and teaching) to read - kappanonline.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reading requires multiple parts of the brain to work rapidly and in tandem. As a result, more than one form of instruction is required to build and connect all the processes that make up this essential skill.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What am I Advocating For? Stuctured Literacy vs  Balanced Literacy   SD 480p

# data[].attributes.body
William Van Cleave

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Van Cleave - Morphology Matters: Using Bases & Affixes to Develop Vocabulary in Students of All Ages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rethinking Guided Reading Sharing Best Practice Perth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The International Dyslexia Association Ontario Branch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Structured Literacy instruction - The International Dyslexia Association Ontario Branch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People with dyslexia can learn to read through explicit, systematic instruction in the structure of the English language.

# data[].attributes.body
IDA Ontario

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The International Dyslexia Association Ontario Branch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Structured Literacy instruction - The International Dyslexia Association Ontario Branch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People with dyslexia can learn to read through explicit, systematic instruction in the structure of the English language.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Below is a formula that shows how the 90+ minute reading block can be divided. The 90+ minute reading block should include three elements: teacher-led skill groups, independent student centers, and whole group instruction. If you have more than 90 minutes to devote to reading instruction, additional time should first be added to the amount of time you spend with the small groups. Any remaining available time can then be allocated to whole group instruction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Below is a formula that shows how the 90+ minute reading block can be divided. The 90+ minute reading block should include three elements: teacher-led skill groups, independent student centers, and whole group instruction. If you have more than 90 minutes to devote to reading instruction, additional time should first be added to the amount of time you spend with the small groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Example of the 90 Minute Reading Block

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research shows that students need at least 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction each day to become strong readers, and that this instruction must be systematic, explicit, scaffolded, and differentiated across the classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The International Dyslexia Association Ontario Branch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Decodable books and text passages are an important part of a structured literacy approach to reading instruction. Decodable books and text contain words made of letter-sounds, and spelling and morphological patterns (e.g. prefixes & suffixes) that a student has been explicitly taught. In order to make the text more readable, a small number of high-frequency words that have more difficult or unexpected spellings, such as 'the', 'my', 'was' are also used. As a student learns new parts of the alphabetic code the vocabulary used in the text expands to include the newly learned 'graphemes' and 'morphemes.'

For instance, structured literacy programmes often start by teaching

5 short vowel sounds (e.g. /ă/ in 'cat'),

most common consonant letter-sounds and

consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) syllable type (e.g. 'cat', 'pig', 'run').

At this stage, decodable text provided for reading practice would only include those letter-sounds and CVC patterns, such as " The rat bit the pig. The bad rat hid in the tin can. The pig bit the cat". Words like 'any', or 'water' would not be included because they include other pronunciations of the letter <a> that have not been taught yet. This is usually followed by words that include digraphs (eg. <sh>, <ch>, <th>) and consonant blends, such as , and some common suffixes (<-s>, <-es>, <-ing>, <-ed>). The consonant blends are often very challenging for students with dyslexia and require lots of reading practice which decodable books can offer.

It is important that the decodable text closely matches the sequence of instruction in letter-sounds, morphemes, phonetically irregular words, syllable types and spelling patterns that are taught throughout a structured literacy program, especially for struggling readers.

Decodable readers vs. leveled readers

Decodable text is quite different from 'leveled readers' which are used by many reading programs. With leveled readers, children are taught to rely on cues in the text or accompanying pictures to guess unknown words, and/or memorise a list of the most common words found in print. Often predictable and repetitive sentences are used to help students guess the correct words (e.g. " I get my ruler. I get my pencils. I get my shoes. I get my sweater. I go to school."). Many words in early leveled readers require advanced decoding skills. For example, to successfully decode the word " pencil" a child needs to know that the letter <c> represents the /s/ sound when it comes before the letters <e>, <i> or <y>. And in the word ' school', the <ch> grapheme represents /k/.

When to use decodable text/books

Using decodable text in the earlier stages of literacy instruction ensures that a student has the skills to read without guessing. They are especially important for students with dyslexia (or any struggling reader) because they provide reading practice using the knowledge of letter-sounds that are taught explicitly in a scaffolded approach. Reading decodable text helps students build fluency and gain confidence as they become proficient with word-level reading. Eventually, when most of the code has been explicitly taught, students will be able to read regular, more authentic texts. Decodable books are only needed until the student has mastered the code; after that, they can read anything!

Where to find decodable books?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Decodable readers and text passages | The International Dyslexia Association Ontario Branch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What are decodable books? Decodable books and text passages are an important part of a structured literacy approach to reading instruction. Decodable books and text contain words made of letter-sounds, and spelling and morphological patterns (e.g. prefixes & suffixes) that a student has been explicitly taught.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this edition, we return to the science of reading: Emina McLean discusses why there are bigger questions around how to teach reading than the polarising 'Reading Wars' would lead us to believe, and Stephanie Le Lievre offers a helpful change management model for embedding a new approach to reading in schools. In our new regular 'Tim Talks' feature, Tim answers a question on cueing systems vs. context analysis, and Stephen Parker delves into sight words, orthographic mapping and phonemic awareness.

With extended lockdowns affecting many students around the world in 2020, Tom Bennett provides some advice on how to get behaviour in schools back on track, while Elizabeth Stone discusses why all children need school. And as we approach the Summer holidays in the Southern hemisphere, James Chapman offers some good news about the fabled 'summer learning loss'.

You can view a digital edition of Nomanis , download a PDF of the whole edition (2mb), or read the individual articles below:

Please share this issue with your friends and colleagues, and we would welcome your feedback.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this edition, we return to the science of reading: Emina McLean discusses why there are bigger questions around how to teach reading than the polarising 'Reading Wars' would lead us to believe, and Stephanie Le Lievre offers a helpful change management model for embedding a new approach to reading in schools.

# data[].attributes.body
sareads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Educators sometimes confuse the following related terms: sight words, high frequency words, decodable words, irregular words. Sight words are words that are instantly recognized and identified without conscious effort. High frequency words are the words most commonly used in the English language. Because high frequency words are essential to learning how to read, teachers should begin to teach some high frequency words as sight words to children in primary grades at the same time children are being taught how to use phonics to decode words. Teachers introduce these words as soon as kindergarten if their students are ready.

Some high frequency words are - they can be "sounded out" using regular phonics concepts (e.g., in, and, had, that, him, did, then, with, down, at, on, can, like). Some high frequency words are - they are not phonetic and must be read as a unique word (e.g., the, was, from, have, of, there, want, you, said, does). When a teacher introduces a new high frequency word, it is helpful to point out to children if it is irregular or if it is decodable using the phonics concepts the children have learned.

At first, high frequency words are the words young students learn to read by sight (e.g., the, what) along with words that are meaningful to each child (e.g., family names, name of their town). Over time, many words that young students read by applying decoding skills eventually become sight words - that is, students learn to read them automatically by sight through the orthographic mapping process.

There is no definitive list of which high frequency words should be taught at which grade level or at which time of year in a grade level. Reading programs typically incorporate some instruction of high frequency words into daily lessons. Teachers can also select words to teach from word lists such as the Fry 100 List (the 100 most common words used in English, ranked in order of frequency, Fry, 1980). See the list at the end of this post.
Instructional Suggestions

Follow a consistent procedure for teaching students to read and spell a high frequency word that is multisensory and includes multiple exposures. For example:

1. Teach new high frequency words before students encounter them in text they are reading.

2. Write the word on the board (or show it on a card) and spell it aloud pointing to each letter. Describe the parts of the word that are regularly spelled and the parts that are not.

3. Students spell and trace the letter in the air (e.g., air writing) to support large muscle memory or on paper using two fingers to support fine muscle memory.

4. Students cover the word and try to picture it in memory, then try to write it from memory.

5. Students repeat steps 3 and 4 several times to develop automaticity to read and spell the word.

Limit the number of words introduced at one time.

Introduce visually similar irregular words, such as where and were or was and saw, in separate lessons to avoid confusion (Carreker, 1996).

For irregular words, help students discover the parts of the word that do not represent their most common sounds. Circle or underline the irregular pattern (e.g., sd, frm) (Carreker, 1996).

Spiral back and review words that have been previously taught.

Resources:

The Really Great Reading Company has a free resource "Heart Word Magic" for helping students learn sight words, especially those that are not decodable (irregular). This resource is a growing collection of 2-minute videos that review information about a sight word such as said, from, and have. They can be used in a virtual teaching situation. Click here to access.

Read the article "A New Model for Teaching High-Frequency Words" (Farrell, Hunter, Osenga) at the Reading Rockets website.

The website SIGHTWORDS offers a collection of instructional resources.

References:

Carreker, S. (1999). Teaching spelling. In J.R. Birsch (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore: Brookes.

Fry, E. (1980.) The new instant word list. The Reading Teacher, 34(3), 284-289

Joan Sedita

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High Frequency Sight Words - Keys to Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Educators sometimes confuse the following related terms: sight words, high frequency words, decodable words, irregular words. Sight words are words that are instantly recognized and identified without conscious effort. High frequency words are the words most commonly used in the English language. Because high frequency words are essential to learning how to read, teachers should [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When my two oldest boys were in swimming lessons, I remember watching them, amused, as they'd literally walk back and forth between the width of the pool while making big swim strokes with their arms. I'd see other kids in the class actually swimming...but my boys? They were walking. They were going through the motions of swimming, without actually swimming.

This is often what we see in classrooms today. Students appear to be reading...some even become quite expert at keeping up the appearance. Their arms are doing their strokes perfectly...but if you look under the water? They're only walking. Let me explain.

I had a student one year who severely struggled in school. By the end of her kindergarten year, she only knew a handful of letters. I remember placing a book in front of her as I administered our state-mandated end-of-year kindergarten test. She vaguely looked at the words on the page and then studied the picture. She looked back down and found the sight word "I." Then she looked at the picture again and said, "I like the dog." She turned the page and continued in the same fashion. She "read" the whole book perfectly. -But she only knew a few letters, and barely any sight words, so did she really read it or was she just an expert guesser? She certainly gave the appearance of reading.

Unfortunately, so many of the reading methods that teachers are taught give students the appearance of reading instead of giving them the skills they need to decode words. We are taught to teach context cues and pictures to figure out words. We are told to play games like, "Guess the Covered Word" and "Be a Mind Reader." We make super cute strategy posters that teach our students to skip over a word and come back to it like "Skippy the Frog" or we say to use your "Eagle Eye" to look for clues in the pictures. We give our brand new readers predictable texts. Once they know the pattern, they can then "read" through that book effortlessly. They are going through the motions, but they are WALKING through that swimming pool. I don't want my students to walk, I want them boldly doing the front crawl and the breaststroke. I want them confidently doing flutter kicks and diving into the deep end.

The reality is that not only are we not giving our students the essential skills they need, we are also creating damaging habits that are hard to break. What happens when students are given harder text where context cues are not as simple and where there are no pictures? What happens when relying on "Skippy Frog" and "Eagle Eye" no longer help? What happens when their expert guessing skills no longer keep them afloat? They drown. They hit 3rd or 4th grade and their lack of skills becomes hugely apparent. The text is more challenging and we then discover that these students can't read.

It's painful to admit this and it's painful to write. I mean, I was "Balanced Literacy's" biggest fan! I happily played "Guess the Covered Word" and similar games in my 2nd grade classroom. I confidently told parents that when their child looked at the picture and guessed the word, that that was a great strategy good readers use. I actively listened to professional development classes on running records and analyzing miscues with an M, S, or V. I eagerly did all these things, because that's how I was taught. Why would I question it? My students appeared to be reading...I didn't realize they were only going through the motions. I never realized that they actually couldn't swim.

Then my own son was diagnosed with dyslexia. Then my lowest student, without knowledge of the alphabetic code, read her end of year text assessment perfectly. I thought about previous students in my classroom who struggled. And I thought about the ones who didn't seem to. And I began to realize...something's not quite right. I've been teaching my students how to walk through a pool. I've been teaching them to wave their arms around like they're swimming. But I haven't looked deep enough. I haven't looked under the water to see if they are actually swimming. I haven't explicitly taught them the skills they need.

As I began researching what helps dyslexics learn, I became angry. Why was I never taught about dyslexia? Why was I never taught about the National Reading Panel (2000)? Why was I never taught about structured literacy? Why was I never taught about explicit, systematic phonics and phonemic awareness? Why wasn't I told that there was a method that would reach ALL learners and not just the top 40%? Why aren't teachers given this vital information? I felt betrayed. I felt misled. Who are the proponents of Balanced Literacy and why are they promoting it? Why is the science of reading being largely ignored?

It takes a lot of courage to take a hard look at your teaching and determine if the way you are teaching is effective for all students. The problem with Balanced Literacy is that students often appear to be reading their leveled text. So, unless a teacher looks deeply, she/he won't realize the child actually cannot decode words.

Fellow teachers, I love and admire you! You work tirelessly and would do anything for your students. Impossible pressures are put upon you, but there you are, day after day, giving it your all! I am constantly learning from and am inspired by teachers all around the world. However, today I am pleading with you! Do not be afraid to look deeply into your reading instruction. Ask the hard questions, carefully analyze the strategies you are teaching, and research the science of reading. Are you teaching your students to swim?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When my two oldest boys were in swimming lessons, I remember watching them, amused, as they'd literally walk back and forth between the width of the pool while making big swim strokes with their arms. I'd see other kids in the class actually swimming...but my boys? They were walking.

# data[].attributes.headline
10 Ways to Improve Tier 1 Reading Instruction

# data[].attributes.subject
10 Ways to Improve Tier 1 Reading Instruction

# data[].attributes.body
Stephanie Stollar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Worried that far too many students have weak reading skills, states are passing new laws that require aspiring teachers-and, increasingly, teachers who are already in the classroom-to master reading instruction that's solidly grounded in research.

In the past three years alone, at least 11 states have enacted laws designed to expand evidence-based reading instruction in grades K-3. Legislative analysts and activists who monitor the issue have noticed a flurry of recent state action on it.

"There is an absolute buzz around the science of reading. There's no question that states are getting on board with this," said Laura Stewart, the director of the Reading League, a group that works to build understanding of what research says about good reading instruction.

The "science of reading" generally refers to the body of research that's piled up over decades on how children learn to read. The National Reading Panel Report, in 2000, articulated what have come to be known as the "big five" essential components of effective reading instruction for young children. The federally funded panel found that most children will become better readers with explicit, systematic phonemic awareness and phonics instruction, as well as instruction in fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension.

See Also: Highlights of New Legislation on the Science of Reading

Those findings have been reaffirmed in so many studies that they're widely considered settled science. But many elementary schools and teacher-preparation programs still favor a balanced-literacy approach, which draws from the "whole language" movement popular in the '90s, and is based on the idea that children learn to read if they're given good books and the right supports and strategies. Some phonics instruction is generally included, but it's not necessarily systematic.

Balanced literacy is increasingly coming under attack, however, as educators notice stubborn reading problems, mirrored in national reading scores. The 2019 National Assessment for Educational Progress showed that 4th and 8th grade students have made no progress in reading in the past decade, and between 2017 and 2019, reading performance actually declined. Barely one-third of those students are proficient readers.

A Sharper Focus

Those results added new urgency to what was already a mushrooming cloud of legislative activity on reading. Passing laws to improve reading is nothing new; many states have ambitious reading-improvement programs enshrined in law, and some don't let 3rd graders move to 4th grade unless they read proficiently. In 2015, the Education Commission of the States found that requiring aspiring teachers to pass a test in reading instruction was an "emerging trend."

But what distinguishes the newer crop of laws in the last few years is their sharpened focus. Many are spelling out the elements of research-proven reading instruction, specifying the big-five components of reading from the National Reading Panel report, or citing other foundational skills known to be important to reading, such as building students' base of content knowledge.

Recent laws also put the entire pipeline of reading instruction directly in their crosshairs, imposing new requirements not only on aspiring teachers but also on district leaders, principals, and classroom teachers. Most target K-3 teachers, but some laws impose new requirements on all K-6 teachers, and some even reach into high school.

States are working together on this new breed of requirements. State superintendents organized a national convening last month, where they brainstormed about how to hold teacher-prep programs accountable for new teachers' competency in reading instruction; how to press for high-quality, research-based curriculum; and how to work with districts to ensure that current teachers are skilled reading teachers.

States are sharing strategies in other ways, too. The Foundation for Excellence in Education, a policy group, drafted model legislation on the science of reading in 2018, and 18 states have requested it, according to foundation spokesman Joe Follick.

A Comprehensive Approach: Arkansas

A recent batch of laws in Arkansas illustrates the comprehensive approach that states are increasingly taking as they codify new expectations for reading instruction. Starting with the 2017 Right to Read Act, which grew out of the state's major literacy campaign, a half-dozen laws there have imposed new requirements on all parts of the state's reading-instruction pipeline.

Colleges of education must teach "scientific reading instruction" and administer a stand-alone reading test on it, and new teachers must pass it to get a license. School districts must provide training in evidence-based reading instruction and can choose one of a dozen "pathways" by which K-6 teachers can demonstrate proficiency, including taking a test or being observed by an administrator trained to evaluate their reading-instruction skill.

Teachers in all other grades and subjects, as well as all administrators, are also affected: They must demonstrate "awareness" of the science of reading. The state must also prepare a list of literacy-curriculum materials that reflect evidence-based reading instruction, and after 2021, districts must buy from that list.

It's a massive lift to comply with all the new laws' requirements, including shepherding all 33,000 of the state's certified teachers through training, said Stacy Smith, Arkansas' assistant commissioner for learning services. The K-6 trainings are moving forward, powered in part by a $1 million annual allotment from the governor's rainy-day fund that helps pay for 45 to 50 literacy specialists around the state, Smith said.

About 75 percent of teacher-candidates passed the most recent reading test, she said, a rate she expects will improve. The other 25 percent can work with provisional licenses for a year while they try again to pass it.

Some of the work is about changing attitudes. When the state's science-based reading push kicked off in 2017, Smith said she encountered no shortage of skepticism.

"For 20 years, all our PD had been whole-language-based, balanced literacy," she said. "[We] spent a lot of time figuring out how to turn that ship around for all these literacy specialists who were supposedly the experts. There were a lot of crossed arms, a lot of tough meetings. But we never wavered. We said, 'Either you're on our ship or you're not.'"

Being on that ship is no simple matter for district leaders, even if they believe in the mission. Bruce Orr, the assistant superintendent in the Arkansas' Lakeside district, chose the face-to-face training route for his 90-plus K-6 teachers, with a skilled observation that unfolds over time, rather than letting them take a test to show proficiency in reading instruction.

To lead that process effectively, Orr joined the six-day training his K-2 teachers took. His principals are taking two-day "assessor academy" training to become observers and evaluators of teachers' reading instruction.

'I Had to Swallow My Pride'

"I was the least knowledgeable person at the table in those sessions," he said. "I had to swallow my pride and just get in there and start learning how kids learn to read."

The district's academic coach, its principals, and assistant principals are now taking their training into classrooms to provide feedback to teachers, Orr said. And he's using his new knowledge on the district's language-arts-curriculum committee, which is choosing new reading materials aligned to evidence-based practices.

Orr worries a little that all his staff members might not meet the proficiency bar when the rubber meets the road. And it's been tough for teachers to find time to accommodate the expanded blocks of reading instruction.

But he sees signs for optimism: Student scores on DIBELS, an early-literacy test, have improved "drastically," Orr said.

He's eager to build on those gains in all his classrooms. As the state's literacy campaign took off three years ago, Orr knew his district had profound academic problems he couldn't pinpoint. Its average ACT scores were high, and its schools routinely got A and B grades from the state. But state test scores showed fewer than 6 in 10 3rd and 4th graders reading proficiently. In middle and high school, it's barely half or less.

His teachers knew there was a problem and were "hungry" for a solution, Orr said. "We didn't have to waste time with them fighting us or saying I don't believe in this."

Tennessee, too, is taking a broad-based approach to tackle reading instruction. Legislation filed Feb. 3, proposed by the department of education and backed by the governor, would provide a free, evidence-based early-literacy curriculum to districts, and they'd be required to use it or show that their own curricula is evidence-based. Districts would also have to use approved curricula designed to build students' content knowledge. All K-3 teachers would be trained in research-based foundational reading instruction, and teacher- and principal-preparation programs would have to teach evidence-based reading instruction.

"If you are in an educator-prep program in the state of Tennessee, you will teach teachers to teach reading in the right way," Commissioner Penny Schwinn said in an interview hours before the bill was filed. A comprehensive approach that touches all parts of the teacher pipeline is necessary, she said. Tackling only teacher prep, or only professional development, results in a "game of Whac-A-Mole" that won't address the roots of students' poor reading skills.

Mississippi Eyes Ed. School Faculty

The roots of many new reading laws trace back to Mississippi, which has emerged as a leader in science-based reading instruction since 2003, when it started requiring colleges of education to teach two courses focused on the key components of good reading instruction. Later, it added more requirements: Teacher-candidates must pass a test in reading science, and elementary schools must certify that their curricula address the key components of reading. The state appropriates $15 million each year to pay for professional development, literacy coaches-the state has 74 this year-and other supports.

Mississippi's work has paid off in ways that have drawn national notice: It was the only state to improve 4th grade reading scores on the 2019 NAEP. Only 21 percent of Mississippi's 4th graders scored "proficient" in reading on NAEP in 2013; by 2019, 32 percent did. Scores on the state's own 3rd grade reading test-which students must pass to move to 4th grade-have risen, too.

Leaders of the science-based-reading movement in Mississippi now have a new target in their sights: the faculty of educator-prep programs. Sparked by studies showing persistent deficiencies in research-based reading instruction in colleges of education, a governor's task force recommended requiring faculty who teach reading instruction to pass a test in the science of reading, said Kelly Butler, the CEO of the Barksdale Reading Institute, which conducted those studies and is a key player in the work to improve reading instruction in Mississippi.

Education school deans have opposed that proposal, so no new rule has been implemented yet, said Kymyona Burk, who oversaw Mississippi's literacy work from 2013 to 2019 and is now the early-literacy policy director for the Foundation for Excellence in Education.

Even as momentum builds for a sharper focus on evidence-based reading instruction, however, support is hardly universal. In schools, some teachers resist moving away from the methods they're used to. One activist in Tennessee said she anticipates pushback from "some board members [who] would die on the hill for balanced literacy."

P. David Pearson, a widely respected literacy expert, is skeptical of the new movement for "evidence-based" reading instruction. Teaching literacy for more than 50 years, he's seen these cycles unfold before.

"With remarkable regularity, every 10 to 12 years, we've had movements to reinfuse phonics and foundational skills into reading," said Pearson, a professor emeritus of education at the University of California, Berkeley.

More Training, More Support, More Coaching

He pointed to Jean Chall's 1967 book, Learning To Read: The Great Debate, which emphasized the importance of decoding skills; a "back to basics" movement in the 1990s in response to whole-language instruction; and the early 2000s, when the National Reading Panel and the No Child Left Behind Act produced a renewed focus on reading skills.

This latest cycle, he said, is based on research citations that rely too heavily on brain imaging and not enough on "careful experimental studies" of which instructional approaches produce achievement results. The new push for reading is "obsessed with decoding" at the expense of other crucial skills, such as the development of children's oral language and knowledge base, and "rich discussions of text with the guidance of a teacher."

Even the most ardent backers of good reading instruction say that while state laws can be powerful levers for change, they're not enough. Passing a 2013 law that required 3rd graders to be proficient readers, was a crucial "wakeup call" in Mississippi, Butler said. Also key was the state department of education's control of state funding to supply training and coaching, she said.

Steven Dykstra, who monitors state action on reading as an adviser for the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction, said that teachers work hard and want the best for their students, but "giving them a little information or dropping a new reading curriculum into their classrooms isn't going to be enough."

"They're going to need more training, more support, more coaching than people ever imagine will be necessary," Dysktra said. "Passing a state law is just a first step. If you're not prepared to take on the rest of it, you're not going to get where you want to go."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
States to Schools: Teach Reading the Right Way

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Worried that far too many students have weak reading skills, states are passing new laws that require aspiring teachers-and, increasingly, teachers who are already in the classroom-to master reading instruction that's solidly grounded in research. In the past three years alone, at least 11 states have enacted laws designed to expand evidence-based reading instruction in grades K-3.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Integrating Models of Assessment and Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A collection of free interventions and resources geared to target each of the 5 components of reading (K-3).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Background and Purpose

The Right to Read Act, amended by the Arkansas Legislature in 2019, requires "curriculum programs that are supported by the science of reading and based on instruction that is explicit, systematic, cumulative, and diagnostic, including without limitation: (1) dyslexia programs that are evidence based and aligned to structured literacy or grounded in the Orton-Gillingham methodology, (2) evidence-based reading intervention programs, and (3) evidence-based reading programs that are grounded in the science of reading." Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-429(f), the Arkansas Division of Elementary and Secondary Education shall identify and create a list of approved materials, resources, and curriculum programs for public school districts and open-enrollment public charter schools that are supported by the science of reading and based on instruction that is explicit, systematic, cumulative, and diagnostic, including dyslexia programs, evidence-based reading intervention programs, etc.

Program Types

Arkansas K-12 Dyslexia Intervention Approved Programs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Division of Elementary and Secondary Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Right to Read Act, amended by the Arkansas Legislature in 2019, requires "curriculum programs that are supported by the science of reading and based on instruction that is explicit, systematic, cumulative, and diagnostic, including without limitation: (1) dyslexia programs that are evidence based and aligned to structured literacy or grounded in the Orton-Gillingham methodology, (2) evidence-based reading intervention programs, and (3) evidence-based reading programs that are grounded in the science of reading."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Approved Programs

The READ Act requires the department to identify quality reading instructional programs and professional development programs for use by local education agencies. This page includes links to providers and programs that have been identified through the 2020 instructional programming review process.

All English core programs have been reviewed and are reflected on the provided list. Spanish instructional programs are currently under review for vendors who submitted digital materials. Vendors were also given the option to defer their review until face to face reviews can be established, most likely this fall.​ As we complete the review process, additional Spanish instructional programs may be posted.​ Stakeholders may request rubrics of reviewed programs. The CDE will share rubrics for programs that have completed the review process. ​

Please email the READ Act Email readact@cde.state.co.us with all rubric requests and questions related to instructional program review.​

Jump to a Section:

Approved for Grades Kindergarten Through Third

Houghton Mifflin- Arriba la Lectura

Arriba la Lectura Summary Coming Soon

Arriba la Lectura Rubric Coming Soon

McGraw Hill- Maravillas 2020

Maravillas Summary Coming Soon

Maravillas Rubric Coming Soon

Spalding - The Writing Road to Reading

Approved for Grades Kindergarten Through Second

Approved for Third Grade

Carnegie Learning - Mondo Bookshop Phonics 1st Edition

Curriculum Associates - iReady

Istation - Istation Early Reading

Istation- Istation Espanol Lectura Temprana

Lexia - Core 5 Reading

Literacy Resources - Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Curriculum

Really Great Reading - Blast

Spalding - The Writing Road to Reading

Wilson - Fundations

Zaner Bloser - The Superkids Foundational Skills Kit

Supplemental Programming - Approved by Specific Grade and Literacy Component

95% Group - Teaching Blending, Phonics Screeners for Intervention, Phonics Chip Kit, Phonics Lesson Library, Multisyllable Routine Cards

95% Group - Phonological Awareness, Screener for Intervention, Phonological Awareness PA Lessons Deluxe Kit

95% Group - Vocabulary Surge: Unleashing the Power of Word Parts (Level A & B)

Cengage - Reach into Phonics Foundations

Istation- Istation Espanol Lectura Temprana

Center for Collaborative Classroom - SIPPS

McGraw Hill - Wonder Works

Really Great Reading - Blast

Valley Speech - Esperanza

Intervention Programming - Approved by Specific Literacy Component

Center on Teaching and Learning- ECRI
Kindergarten, First Grade and Second Grade for Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, Phonics and Word Study, and Text Reading Fluency. This program must be used in combination with Wonders 2017.

*Programs marked with an asterisk must be teacher directed in combination with the online component for approval in the budget planning survey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2020 Advisory List of Instructional Programming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The READ Act requires the department to identify quality reading instructional programs and professional development programs for use by local education agencies. This page includes links to providers and programs that have been identified through the 2020 instructional programming review process. All English core programs have been reviewed and are reflected on the provided list.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Van Cleave - Syntax Matters: The Link Between Sentence Writing & Sentence Comprehending

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Reading Universe is a creation of the Barksdale Reading Institute (BRI), a Mississippi-based philanthropic organization devoted to improving significantly our state's pre-literacy and reading skills.

For almost two decades, BRI has worked in K-3 classrooms with elementary teachers and principals to align early literacy instruction with up to date cognitive and educational science. The Reading Universe was introduced fifteen years ago as a way to illustrate to pre-service teachers how the various skills that are required for proficient reading fit within a larger picture.

The Reading Universe is not a scope and sequence for reading instruction, as every child may not need to be explicitly taught every skill as presented. However, every teacher should be equipped to teach each of the skills presented and in a systematic, explicit, and sequential way. This is our goal for teacher preparation and early literacy instruction in Mississippi.

We welcome your feedback about this site and how it can be more useful to your work in early literacy instruction.

Each block within the Reading Universe grid is a threshold to further examination of the skill. Clicking on a block links you to an explanation of the skill, videos of exemplary instruction, activities and lesson plans, and other high-quality resources courtesy of additional links to reputable partner organizations. To access all of these resources:

Download the Reading Universe grid to help you track where you are at-a-glance.

Go through each box to see the whole repertoire of ready skills and all the tools available.
or

Click on the skill that is most relevant to what you are teaching right now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Reading Universe is a creation of the Barksdale Reading Institute (BRI), a Mississippi-based philanthropic organization devoted to improving significantly our state's pre-literacy and reading skills. For almost two decades, BRI has worked in K-3 classrooms with elementary teachers and principals to align early literacy instruction with up to date cognitive and educational science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Home / Professional Development / Webinars / Evidence-based Writing Instruction: Evidence-based Instruction for Low Achieving Writers Aimed at Multi-Level Writing Systems

$99

Learn instructional strategies, translated from peer reviewed research, that you can use to help writers of all grade levels develop functional writing systems for integrating multiple levels (units) of language: subword, word, syntax, and text.
Includes access to the live webinar-January 8, 2021, 9:00-11:30AM CENTRAL-for one person and Certification Maintenance Hours Administration Fee. Access to recording of webinar included with purchase. Handouts provided at time of webinar.
You might also be interested in this related webinar from Dr. Berninger:
Specific Learning Disabilities (SLDs) are Plural: Not All Language-Based SLDs are the Same

You may also like...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evidence-based Writing Instruction: Evidence-based Instruction for Low Achieving Writers Aimed at Multi-Level Writing Systems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn instructional strategies, translated from peer reviewed research, that you can use to help writers of all grade levels develop functional writing systems for integrating multiple levels (units) of language: subword, word, syntax, and text. Includes access to the live webinar-January 8, 202 ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Really Great Reading's Complimentary Assessments

In just 5-7 minutes, Really Great Reading's complimentary diagnostic decoding assessments answer these key questions: Which students are struggling with decoding? What types of words are they struggling with? What is the source of the underlying confusion? They contain everything you'll need for initial assessment of an unlimited number of students with an explanation of how the data can be added to the Grouping Matrix to group, progress monitor, and plan the type of instruction that will yield the greatest results. Not sure which assessment to use? Download our Recommended Assessment Timeline and Flowcharts>>

Kindergarten Foundational Skills Surveys
Download the KFSS

The Kindergarten Foundational Skills Surveys are a complimentary set of assessments commonly used:

in Kindergarten

with older students who perform well below expectations on the Beginning Decoding Survey or Beginning of Year 1st Grade FSS

as a one-on-one assessment of pre-decoding and early decoding skills, including:

Functional Vocabulary

Phonological/Phonemic Awareness

Letter Knowledge

Decoding

High-Frequency Word Reading

The data collected from these assessments can help you determine whether foundational reading skills are being established at an appropriate pace, pinpoint specific gaps in knowledge, and plan appropriately targeted instruction.

The results of these surveys can be plugged into our Grouping Matrix™, a free, web-based system that enables you to group students according to the type and depth of their decoding difficulties.

1st Grade Foundational Skills Surveys
Download the 1FSS

in 1st grade

with older students who perform well below expectations on theBeginning and Advanced Decoding Surveys

as a one-on-one assessment of 1st grade foundational literacy skills, including:

Simple and complex single-syllable words (with short vowels, digraphs, blends, closed syllables, and various long vowel spellings)

Decodable two-syllable words

Select sight words

Optional assessments for sight words, letter-sound knowledge, and letter name knowledge

Download the DDS

The Diagnostic Decoding Surveys are a complimentary set of assessments that includes the Beginning and Advanced Decoding Surveys and are commonly used:

in 2nd grade through 12th grade

The Beginning Decoding Survey assesses a student's ability to read:

Simple and complex single-syllable words (with short vowels, digraphs, blends, and closed syllables in real and nonsense words)

Select sight words

The Advanced Decoding Survey assesses a student's ability to read:

Complex single-syllable words (with short, long, r-controlled, and variant vowels and complex consonant constructions like trigraphs and 3-sound blends in real and nonsense words)

Decodable two- and three-syllable words (real and nonsense)

The results of these surveys can be plugged into our Grouping Matrix™, a free, web-based system that enables you to group students according to the type and depth of their decoding difficulties.

Response to Intervention (RTI) & the Survey - Assessments and RtI>>

Phonological Awareness Survey
The Phonological/Phonemic Awareness Survey is a complimentary assessment that is commonly used in Kindergarten and 1 st grade, but it is also useful for assessing older students who perform well below expectations on basic decoding assessments. It is a one-on-one assessment of phonological awareness skills, including blending word parts, and phonemic awareness skills, including matching, identifying, blending, and segmenting phonemes in words. The data collected from this assessment can help determine the type of basic literacy instruction that will equip students with the knowledge they need for basic decoding.
Download the PAS

The Letter Knowledge Survey is a complimentary assessment that is commonly used in Kindergarten and 1st grade, but it is also useful for assessing older students who perform well below expectations on basic decoding assessments. It is a one-on-one assessment of letter knowledge, including letter sounds and letter names (both lowercase and uppercase). The data collected from this assessment can help determine the type of basic literacy instruction that will equip students with the knowledge they need for basic decoding.
Download the LPDS

Sight Word Survey

The Sight Word Survey has five separate assessments for Pre-Primer, Primer, 1st, 2nd & 3rd Grade. These assessments are used to determine how well a student reads high-frequency words. Sight words are words that occur so frequently in printed text that it is most efficient for children to learn to read them automatically, by "sight," rather than by decoding or sounding them out. The words on these assessments were selected from the Dolch 220 list of high-frequency words, and the words have been leveled.(e.g., Pre-Primer, Primer, etc.) using the same Dolch list.
Download the SWS

Advanced Decoding Survey Plus

The Advanced Decoding Survey Plus is a quick way to determine if older students have mastered the decoding skills they should have learned in grade K, 1, 2, and 3. Those using it as a screener can use it anytime after the middle of 3rd grade.If using it as a screener, you can administer it to your entire student population or to a select group of students whom you suspect may have a decoding deficit. Designed with upper elementary and adolescents in mind, Really Great Reading has three sets of lessons: HD Word, Boost, and Blitz. Additionally, for those who need additional practice and repetitions, we have HD Word Plus and Phonics Boost Plus that extend the learning for students participating in HD Word, Boost, and Blitz instruction.

Download the ADS Plus
Diagnostic Instructional Videos

Really Great Reading offers a family of complimentary diagnostic decoding assessments to help educators understand their students' word-level reading skills. In 5 to 7 minutes per student, discover whether decoding deficits are inhibiting your students' ability to read. Download complimentary copies above and watch the following informational and instructional videos:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In just 5-7 minutes, Really Great Reading's complimentary diagnostic decoding assessments answer these key questions: Which students are struggling with decoding? What types of words are they struggling with? What is the source of the underlying confusion?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A GUIDE TO READING ADVOCACY, PART 2

(Click here to read Part 3.)
Is my child getting good reading instruction at school?
Families need an answer to this question, because children who don't learn to read well in first and second grade are unlikely to catch up later. And there can be lifelong repercussions.

As one parent said at a school board meeting:

"Again and again, we are hearing that the thing that keeps parents up at night is their children's ability to read. They know if they don't make sure their children can read, there is a potential prison bunk waiting for them."

Too often, schools are late in alerting families to reading problems, and parents like Sonya learn of their child's reading struggles only after their child has fallen multiple years below grade level.

It can be daunting to inquire about reading instruction when you don't have teaching experience, but it's a step all caregivers of primary grade children should feel empowered to take.

What should you ask your child's teacher? What are the signs that your child may not be receiving the instruction needed for later school success? And what should you look for in reading instruction in the primary grades?

Congress commissioned a panel to review 110,000 studies on reading, and in the year 2000, a report was issued that identified five key components of effective reading instruction. Much has been learned in the two decades since the National Reading Panel report, but "the big five" can still provide a framework for effective reading instruction.
The "5 Pillars" of Effective Reading Instruction: A Crash Course

What It Is

Why It's Important for Reading

Phonemic Awareness
... is a type of knowledge.
A person with phonemic awareness understands that our spoken language is composed of individual sounds.
There are roughly 44 spoken sounds in English.

The insight that there are sounds within spoken words helps readers to learn and use letters to represent those sounds.

Beginning and struggling readers should work on these five components of reading every day, but unfortunately that doesn't happen in all classrooms. To know if you need to advocate for improved instruction for your child, you'll need to inquire about the instructional materials used and ask to observe instruction.

What to Ask and What to Look For

We invite you to download or print this PDF and use it to advocate for your child. (Just click on the little double arrow at the upper right of the PDF.)

advocacy Balanced Literacy instructional change resources for families

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is My Child's School Getting Reading Right? What to ask. What to look for.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is my child getting good reading instruction at school? Families need an answer to this question, because children who don't learn to read well in first and second grade are unlikely to catch up later. And there can be lifelong repercussions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Influential literacy expert Lucy Calkins is changing her views

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a major shift, the controversial figure in the fight over how to teach reading now says that beginning readers should focus on sounding out words, according to a document obtained by APM Reports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Teacher Professional Learning | Literacy, Math | MTSS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We hope you enjoy this webinar with Emily Hanford about reading instruction and why it has been so controversial in American education, in particular, why people fight about phonics.

If you'd like assistance in building your team's knowledge of the science of reading and the five essential components of reading instruction, CORE is here to help. Our professional learning courses help educators learn how to support students just learning to read as well as those who have long-term reading difficulties. We also offer workshops, coaching and mentoring to ensure the use of evidence-based instructional practices and the effective implementation of many reading intervention programs.

Take a look at the gains in reading and math achievement other schools and districts have achieved with CORE's on-site and remote workshops and instructional coaching. Contact u s to discuss your school or district's professional learning needs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
{Webinar Download} Beyond the Phonics Fight - Teacher Professional Learning | Literacy, Math | MTSS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We hope you enjoy this webinar with Emily Hanford about reading instruction and why it has been so controversial in American education, in particular, why people fight about phonics. If you'd like assistance in building your team's knowledge of the science of reading and the five essential components of reading instruction, CORE is here to help.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Early reading teachers and researchers are reacting with surprise, frustration, and optimism after the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project, the organization that designs one of the most popular reading programs in the country, outlined a new approach to teaching children how to read.

A document circulated at the group's professional development events, first reported on by APM Reports on Friday, calls for increased focus on ensuring children can recognize the sounds in spoken words and link those sounds to written letters-the foundational skills of reading. And it emphasizes that sounding out words is the best strategy for kids to use to figure out what those words say.

"[P]oring over the work of contemporary reading researchers has led us to believe that aspects of balanced literacy need some 'rebalancing,'" the document reads.

While the document suggests that these ideas about how to teach reading are new and the product of recent studies, they're in fact part of a long-established body of settled science . Decades of cognitive science researchhas shown that providing children with explicit instruction in speech sounds and their correspondence to written letters is the most effective way to make sure they learn how to read words.

But it's significant to see these ideas coming from the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project. The program, founded by Lucy Calkins and housed at Columbia University, has long downplayed the importance of these foundational skills in early reading instruction, and has pushed other, disproven strategies for identifying words.

In a statement to Education Week, Calkins said that the document reflects work they have done with researchers at the Child Mind Institute, a nonprofit that supports children with mental health and learning disorders.

"Those who know us well, know that we are a university-based learning community, and that the knowledge we offer is constantly evolving and expanding. The document reflects my strong belief that children will benefit when people with diverse perspectives and backgrounds sit at the same table and listen carefully to each other," Calkins wrote.

Calkins also noted that the document has been shared at dozens of TCRWP events, including a virtual reunion for teachers this past weekend.

Mixed Signals on Cueing

The Units of Study for Teaching Reading, the TCRWP curriculum for reading instruction in grades K-5, is one of the biggest players in the early reading market. A 2019 Education Week Research Center survey found that 16 percent of K-2 and special education teachers use the Units of Study to teach reading.

But as APM Reports noted, the curriculum has faced increased scrutiny, including from reading researchers. Some states and districts have reconsidered its use.

The curriculum doesn't include systematic, explicit teaching in phonemic awareness or phonics in the early grades, as Education Week has reported. The company started publishing a supplemental phonics program in 2018, but marketing materials for the new units imply that phonics shouldn't play a central role in the early years classroom. "Phonics instruction needs to be lean and efficient," the materials read . "Every minute you spend teaching phonics (or preparing phonics materials to use in your lessons) is less time spent teaching other things."

But it's not only that the materials sideline phonemic awareness and phonics-they also teach reading strategies that can make it harder for students to learn these skills.

Calkins' materials promote a strategy called "three-cueing," which suggests that students can decipher what words say by relying on three different sources of information, or cues. They can look at the letters, using a "visual" cue. But they can also rely on the context or syntax of a sentence to predict which word would fit, the theory goes. Reading researchers and educators say that this can lead to students guessing: making up words based on pictures, or what's happening in the story, rather than reading the words by attending to the letters.

This new document seems to signal a major change in instructional theory from the organization.

It emphasizes the importance of foundational skills, recommending that students in kindergarten and the fall of 1st grade receive daily instruction in phonemic awareness, and saying that all early readers could benefit from frequent phonics practice. It recommends decodable books-those with a high proportion of letter-sound correspondences that students have already learned-be a part of young children's "reading diets." And it suggests regular assessments of phonemic awareness, as problems in that area can indicate reading difficulties.

Especially notable, the document seems to do an about-face on cueing. Students should not be "speculating what the word might say based on the picture," the document reads. Instead, teachers should tell children to "respond to tricky words by first reading through the word, sound-by-sound, (or part by part) and only then , after producing a possible pronunciation, check that what she's produced makes sense given the context," it reads.

The statement on cueing contradicts advice Calkins was giving less than a year ago. In November 2019, Calkins released a statement pushing back on those whom she called , "the phonics-centric people who are calling themselves 'the science of reading.'"

In that statement last year, Calkins said teachers shouldn't encourage students to guess at words. But she did say that students could create a hypothesis based on the context of the sentence.

In a response to Calkins' statement, reading researcher Mark Seidenberg wrote at the time, "Dr. Calkins says she disdains 3-cueing, but the method is right there in her document."

Teachers Need 'Fine-Grained Guidance'

The past couple of years have marked an evolution of publishers' and reading organizations' public positions on reading science and how it should guide instruction, spurred in large part by media coverage of best practice from Emily Hanford of APM Reports, and other outlets, including Education Week.

In July of last year, for example, the International Literacy Association published a brief emphasizing the importance of systematic, explicit phonics instruction, a clear distinction of stance from an organization that has long included members on opposing sides of the "reading wars."

But it's not a given that any of Calkins' or TCRWP's statements will change classroom practice, said Julia Kaufman, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation, who studies how school systems can support high-quality instruction. Past research from RAND has also found that Calkins' materials are widely used in U.S. schools.

"I don't think there's any way that we can expect a shift in [TCRWP's] philosophy and ideas to change anything unless it's documented and really clear to teachers where they need to change," she said.

Curriculum and implementation is complex, Kaufman added: "Teachers need specific and detailed and fine-grained guidance in order to know what they need to do in the classroom."

In their reporting on this recent document, APM Reports noted that educators at a recent TCRWP training received supplemental curriculum materials that encouraged decoding.

The core curriculum, though, still promotes cueing. For example, a strategies chart from a sample 1st grade lesson tells students to "Think about what's happening," "Check the picture," and "Think about what kind of word would fit," as ways to solve hard words.

Unless and until TCRWP puts out a new edition of the Units of Study for Teaching Reading, with detailed teacher guidance that reflects these philosophical shifts, Kaufman said she wouldn't expect to see much change in elementary classrooms.

Some educators were optimistic that TCRWP's new position could lead to more widespread adoption of evidence-based instruction and higher reading achievement. "Lots of changes still to make but this is encouraging!" wrote Erin Beard, a literacy coach, on Twitter.

Others expressed frustration over a move they saw as too little, too late.

"Is she handing out refunds for all the intervention needed for the missed learning opportunity?" LaTonya M. Goffney, the superintendent of Aldine Independent School District, wrote on Twitter . "Our most vulnerable students - black, brown, poor, ELL, & special education students paid the ultimate cost!"

Sharon Contreras, the superintendent of Guilford County schools, noted that any changes would likely come at a cost for districts using Calkins' materials.

"Millions of dollars wasted. Thousands of students cannot read proficiently. Districts spending a small fortune on new curriculum & to retrain teachers. All totally avoidable," she wrote, on Twitter .

Image: Lucy Calkins -Peter Cunningham-File

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lucy Calkins Says Balanced Literacy Needs 'Rebalancing'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Early reading teachers and researchers are reacting with surprise, frustration, and optimism after the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project, the organization that designs one of the most popular reading programs in the country, outlined a new approach to teaching children how to read.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
West Virginia Reading First Explicit Phonics Lessons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Science of Reading for Parents-Big Horn Elementary.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I've written a lot about the problems with three-cueing approaches to teaching reading recently, but given that it's a topic many people remain unfamiliar with, I thought it would be helpful to lay all the major issues out in one place.
Here is how the three-cueing approach (also popularly known as MSV) is supposed to work:
Students memorize a number of common "sight words": short, high-frequency words such as are, can, we, and it. They also learn to focus on beginning letters so that they can use the initial sound in a word to help them identify unfamiliar terms.

The first books they use are repetitive readers that typically include one non-sight word per page/line of text; each page is accompanied by an illustration so that students can learn to use picture cues as well as first letters (and sometimes also last letters) to identify unknown words.

As they progress, children are instructed to ask themselves the following questions when identifying words via cues:

Does the word [I plugged in] make sense?

Does the word sound right?

Does the word look right?"

The use of leveled readers and the focus on "just right" books ensure that the number of unfamiliar words-as well as the number of cues-a child encounters are limited to a manageable level. The idea is that new words learned from context this way will be stored in the child's memory, adding to their "bank" of words and gradually allowing them to read more challenging texts.

In a more extreme version of the theory (based on Ken Goodman's influential but staggeringly wrongheaded assertion that "reading is a psycholinguistic guessing game"), children may not even be expected to memorize non-sight words at all: the assumption is that virtually any unknown term can be figured out from context, and that the goal of reading instruction is effectively to help children become more accurate guessers.

To be fair, some balanced-literacy programs do contain a substantial phonics component. The problem is that although giving children multiple strategies for figuring out unknown words may intuitively seem like a good idea, cueing methods do not complement phonetic reading but rather contradict it by pulling children's attention away from the specific sequence of letters in a word.

This approach also gives children easy options such as looking at pictures and guessing, which are understandably preferable to the hard work of decoding but result in dramatically different skill levels. So while children may identify many words correctly in the short term, giving the illusion of proficiency, they do not build the kind of foundation that will ultimately allow them to read at an advanced level.

To be very clear, there are situations in which the use of context clues is perfectly appropriate. For example, a child who phonetically decodes an irregularly pronounced word such as mosquito may be initially confused and need to use context to figure out what it is. That's fine as long as the textual cues are used to supplement the phonetic process, not to replace it.
The problem occurs when external cues are used as a substitute for phonics in situations where words are decodable, or as an excuse to teach phonics poorly or haphazardly.
So that said, when you look closely at the assumptions on which three-cueing methods are based, things fall apart pretty quickly, and in a very serious way. Here's why:
1) Sound-spelling relationships are not established
As cognitive scientists have known since the 1980s, strong readers are able to identify words effortlessly and efficiently because sound-spelling correspondences are wired together in their brains, allowing for automatic recall. (The formal term for this is orthographic mapping.) Skilled readers have not simply memorized what words look like; rather, their brains have recorded what words look-sound like and turned them into true "sight words" that are recognized immediately, allowing the reader to focus on meaning.

Children who learn to read by associating syllables and sounds need very few exposures to a word to learn it permanently. But in order for this to occur, they must be able to distinguish the individual sounds (phonemes) in a word and relate them to the letters and letter-combinations. The spelling-sound relationship involving all the phonemes in a word is the crucial component missing in the three-cueing approach.

Furthermore, children who focus only on beginning/ending letters when identifying unfamiliar words are unlikely to pay close enough attention to overall spellings to retain them as sight words (in the sense of words whose spellings are learned visually by rote), and thus they may not recognize them in other contexts. The whole point of three-cueing is that cues are used to substitute for sound-spelling relationships. It is illogical to expect that children taught to focus on only some letters in a word will be able to accurately assess whether a word "looks" right.
2) Speed
When it comes to proficient reading, speed is skill. For example, a student reading around 75 words per minute at the end of second grade is spending so much time and effort on word recognition and decoding that they will be unable to absorb the meaning. (In contrast, second graders reading upwards of 140 wpm, the 90th percentile, absorb text much more automatically.) The three-cueing approach, however, turns the process of identifying unfamiliar words into a cumbersome, time-consuming game of guess-and-check as students hunt elsewhere on the page for clues to their meanings and stop to ask them themselves whether they look right, sound right, etc. It's not hard to imagine what happens to reading speed when a child has to stop and go through this process every few sentences.

Yes, students who learn to read phonetically may initially spend a lot of time sounding words out, but in that case, speed is a comparatively easy issue to resolve (even if it is challenging in absolute terms). In contrast, there is no way for three-cueing strategies to result in reading that is both faster and more accurate; a student may learn to plug in words more quickly, but there is a high probability that a number of those words will be wrong.
3) Pictures
Another enormous problem is that the three-cueing approach encourages children to focus on images rather than words-precisely what people who cannot read do. Very young children may come away thinking that words say what they say because of the pictures illustrating them, rather than because they consist of letters written in a particular sequence. Essentially, they may develop a faulty understanding of what reading is.

Furthermore, children who are accustomed to relying on pictures will encounter enormous difficulty when they begin to read books consisting of text alone.
4) Confusion between similar-looking words
When children are taught to focus on first and last letters, they learn that the letters in the middle of a word do not really matter and that it is unnecessary to pay them much attention. As a result, they are likely to confuse words with similar beginnings and endings but different middles. As texts become more challenging, these types of misreadings (e.g., resolve for revolve; differ for defer; inhabitfor inhibit) have a progressively more detrimental effect on comprehension.

Interestingly, focusing on first and last letters is a stage that children typically go through when learning to read phonetically; however, three-cueing methods are essentially designed to keep them stuck there more or less indefinitely.

Alternately, students who "look for little words in big words" may guess based only on letters in the middle of a word and ignore the beginning and end.
5) Multiple words may make sense in context
In many instances, more than one word may make sense in context, and there is no guarantee a child will come up with the right one. For example, if the text reads, "One day, the old man said, 'Let us have some turnip soup'" and a child does not know what a turnip is or has never seen the word, they might guess tomato because it begins with a "t" and the picture accompanying the text shows a man pulling up a plant. (How many kids can identify a tomato plant vs. a turnip plant?!)

Likewise, there is nothing in the three-cueing model to account for plug-ins that aren't correct but also not wrong enough for a child to pick up on the error. For example, consider the sentence "Once during the war Washington decided it would be a good idea if his troops swore allegiance to the United States." Stumbling over allegiance, a student might plug in a simpler, known term like again because it begins with an "a," contains some of the same letters, and makes basic grammatical sense.
6) Misunderstanding context clues
The directive to rely on context clues to figure out unfamiliar words is based on the assumption that students will have correctly read and understood the context clues; however, that is not a reliable assumption. It is entirely possible-even probable-that readers will sometimes have difficulty recognizing, or understanding, more than one word per sentence or section of text. (Thanks to Mark Seidenberg for pointing this out.)

If the cues a student uses to determine an unfamiliar word are themselves faulty, correct identification of the word may be impossible and create a domino effect of misunderstandings.
7) Absence of context clues
Another major problem with three-cueing methods is that they are designed to get early elementary students reading on grade level; there is no apparent thought given to the issues that children taught to read this way may face years down the line.

In the early grades, the use of carefully selected leveled readers can allow teachers to ensure that students only encounter books in which unfamiliar words can be determined from context. In the real world, however, books many contain many challenging words that cannot be identified, or even guessed at, from other elements in the text.

For example, a student who has learned to read by relying on context clues and has poorly developed decoding skills will be at a complete loss when trying to understand, say, a tenth-grade chemistry textbook. There is no way to figure out specialized scientific or technical vocabulary terms such as isotope or oxidization from context unless one is already very familiar with them.

Likewise, a history book may be filled with references to proper names (including places) that are impenetrable to a student who cannot decode.

If teachers do not engage in direct instruction, students may not hear these words spoken aloud either and thus miss out on the opportunity to make the connection between speech and writing.
8) The self-monitoring problem
As a general rule, young children lack the metacognitive skills-that is, ability to think about their thinking-to monitor their own reading consistently and effectively. With guidance, they may be able to recognize their errors; when they are working independently (or in pairs), however, they may not be aware of them.

Even if they can think about the meaning, readers who do not have a strong sense of how written English works may not notice that a word they have plugged in is illogical. In extreme cases, they may even plug in the wrong part of speech without noticing a problem.
9) Limited vocabulary development
Research has shown that unlike children taught phonetically, first-graders taught via non-phonetic methods do not produce either nonsense words or real-but-unknown words when trying to read unfamiliar terms. Instead, children taught non-phonetically plug in only words that are already part of their vocabulary.

If a student cannot even recognize that a particular sequence of letters represents an unknown word, not only do they miss out on the opportunity to acquire new vocabulary, but they do not even have the chance to learn what they do not know. This is in turn makes self-monitoring even more difficult.
10) Eyes roaming around the page
The ability to read well, and at an appropriate speed, depends in large part on a reader's ability to absorb entire lines of text, sequentially from left to right, whereas three-cueing methods encourage students to repeatedly move their eyes around the page. A student may read the first letter or two in a word, then immediately shift their eyes to a picture, or to another part of the sentence or paragraph.

Children who learn to read this way may develop difficulty reading words in a normal left-to-right sequence; instead, their eyes may dart erratically around the page, preventing them from obtaining a coherent understanding of a text.

This is not a problem that goes away on its own-in fact, I first got interested in how reading gets taught after observing it repeatedly in high-school aged students. As readings become more challenging and clues less obvious or absent, students who are unable to identify unfamiliar terms may scan the page randomly in a search for clues or stare into space in an attempt to pull an option from the recesses of their mind.

At a certain point, it morphs from a conscious process into an automatic reaction, and once that happens, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to remedy-even with intensive intervention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Reasons the Three-Cueing system (MSV) Is Ineffective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I've written a lot about the problems with three-cueing approaches to teaching reading recently, but given that it's a topic many people remain unfamiliar with, I thought it would be helpful to lay all the major issues out in one place.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is My Kid Learning How to Read? Part 2: Our Friend “Ur”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The act of reading and decoding text is a complex feat of the human brain. Mass literacy is a recent phenomenon, but so much of a person's chances for academic and professional success depend on their ability to read.

But millions of Americans struggle to read and it's often because they have dyslexia. An estimated five to 20 percent of kids are dyslexic but some don't realize it. These students' dyslexia go unnoticed and they struggle in school with feelings of inadequacy. Others fight to get basic services required by federal law. There are countless stories of dyslexic students who feel frustrated by their struggles with reading and act out in schools. It's so important for parents, educators and students to understand the signs of dyslexia and find ways to help.

That's why we published the MindShift Guide to Understanding Dyslexia. Reporter Holly Korbey has written extensively on dyslexia for MindShift and she's created this guide to help deepen your understanding. It's readily available as a 41-page PDF that's easy to print and make notes in the margins.

In this guide, you'll learn about:

How to recognize dyslexia in children, including multilingual English Language Learners

Teaching techniques for educators

Helpful technology aids

How parents can prepare for an Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting

How adults with dyslexia managed their education experience

Click on this link for a printable PDF of the MindShift Guide to Understanding Dyslexia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The MindShift Guide to Understanding Dyslexia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The act of reading and decoding text is a complex feat of the human brain. Mass literacy is a recent phenomenon, but so much of a person's chances for academic and professional success depend on their ability to read. But millions of Americans struggle to read and it's often because they have dyslexia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grammatical Concepts of English for PDF Printable.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grammatical Concepts of English: Suggested Order of Intervention (Ebbels & Owen Van Horne 2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Informed SLP: Speech Language Pathology Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever asked the following?

"I know that I still need to work on grammar with older kids with DLD to ensure academic success, but what rationale should I have for selecting targets?"

"How do I decide what order to tackle the many areas of grammar that need support?"

"Is there any evidence to help me decide whether I should work on passives or relative clauses or adverbial clauses first? They all seem important-and hard!"
​

We're (finally!) ready with some answers. So enjoy:

SLPs posing questions like this are rightly worried about maximizing academic and functional outcomes for children with DLD in the face of limited evidence to guide target selection for grammatical goals once children reach school-age. As far as we are aware, no systematic studies have yet been completed that show which order of intervention is most effective, no matter how you measure efficacy (most likely to lead to the greatest immediate progress, most likely to lead to the greatest gains through generalization (e.g., Rvachew & Nowak, 2001; Owen Van Horne, Fey, & Curran, 2017)).
​

Evidence can be inferred WITHIN an area but not ACROSS areas

​Within any given area (e.g., Questions), there is typically some preliminary evidence to suggest that some things should be learned before others (e.g., Y/N questions before Wh- questions), but across areas (e.g., Questions vs. Conjoining), there is rarely a clear ordering and two reasonable people (including the authors of this blogpost!) might disagree. Indeed, the same SLP might make different decisions for different children as they consider the impact of each child's specific difficulties with comprehension or production on their functioning in the classroom, playground, at home or when interacting with the wider community. This depends not only on the child's profile but also on the topic areas being covered in that child's class currently and the structures needed to interact successfully with others.

​ Well, now what? Guessing time? No-because even though the evidence is limited, there's still plenty of reason to predict that some things logically could or should be taught before others.

And because we know clinicians need some strategies now, we've shared our best guess at a likely order of treatment within each of several syntactic domains ( main clause structure, noun phrases, negation, questions, adverbials, conjoining, agreement, tense/aspect, complement clauses, passives, relative clauses) in the tables available here:

The first tab of the spreadsheet provides an overview of all the areas covered within each domain of morpho-syntax. If you hover your cursor over an item, you will see a pop-up note with a definition and/or example of that structure. Each column on the first tab then has its own tab (also linked from the column headings), which provides the same order with more details, including more examples of each structure type, any prerequisite structures, and notes about things to consider. In principle, an SLP could start at the top of any given column/tab and work their way down that tab and feel like they have some logical order of prerequisite skills through which they are passing that is either grounded in the typical development literature, or the typical development literature plus our own personal experience teaching children these targets. However, working straight down a single tab alone is unlikely to be the best strategy as areas near the top of most tabs are likely to be more functional and important than areas lower down most other tabs. Thus, switching from one tab to another, or indeed, combining targets across tabs may be the best approach.

What the color-coding means: The purpose of the colors is to aid decisions about how to order or combine across tabs, though we view these color-coded divisions as somewhat more disputable.

Red : foundational. Get these basic components in place before teaching anything else.

Amber , Green , Blue : cross-domain groupings for things that might warrant attention before moving onto the next color block.

For example, an SLP working on amber areas of tense and aspect (e.g., is+VERB+ing) might want to teach grammatically correct who and what questions (also amber, who/what is VERBing?) before teaching third person singular -s (green) or perfect tense (green). Some areas, like adverbial (e.g., he fell BECAUSE she tripped him), or complement clauses (e.g., he thought she tripped him on purpose), are often thought of as late developing, but in fact are present in very young typically developing children's speech and thus are also coded amber. Other elements within the same column may be primarily observed in literate language (e.g., thus, nevertheless, although). Thus, we would encourage an SLP to not just proceed in lockstep down any individual column/tab, but rather to consider what else of that same color might need to be taught looking across the other columns/tabs before proceeding across color boundaries. Some precursor skills may be required or may help link two areas

In some cases, we can say that children must master certain precursor skills before being able to attempt a particular target (e.g., auxiliaries and copulas before Y/N Questions) because logically you need to be able to say am, is, or are before you can say Is she running? or Are you happy?. Similarly, being able to use a wh-question word meaningfully by itself ( Where?) may precede being able to use that wh-question word in a well-formed question; or understanding and use of temporal adverbs ( before, after) ought to precede work on temporal adverbial clauses ( before we eat dessert, we should eat dinner). In the more detailed tabs for each area, in addition to listing targets in a logical sequence we also indicate when a skill from another tab is required to be successful. Occasionally we indicate the need for semantic or conceptual foundations (e.g., time concepts before tense), though there is a need to attend to conceptual underpinnings in general. We have tried to differentiate between REQUIRED precursors and recommended ones, though we note that this is based on logic, our own clinical experience, or intuition rather than empirical research evidence.

Remember: If you identify a target you'd like to work on, also check out its prerequisites . These are its logical precursors.

​Consider targeting academically relevant syntax even if morphology isn't yet perfected

​Though it is common to work on pronoun case and verb morphology prior to working on compound and complex sentences, there may be reasons to move on to other targets prior to mastery. Examination of Brown's stages shows that typical children are advancing their use of complement clauses and coordinated/adverbial clauses while still making errors in tense and agreement (Brown, 1973). Tense and agreement can show a particularly protracted course of development in children with DLD (Rice, Wexler, & Herschberger, 1998), even with intervention (Rice, Hoffman, & Wexler, 2009).

Thus one might want to target improved use of verb morphemes while also targeting syntactic goals such as the use of complement clauses (also called nominal clauses). For example, "mom said she put my homework in my folder" might be a critical thing to communicate and could be successfully communicated even if morphology is in error as long as embedding is intact (e.g., Mom say her put my homework here (points to folder)). Expressing cause-effect ( me angry because he push me), if-then ( if lunch money at home, you be hungry), before-after ( before go school, I lose jacket), what someone said ( Sally asked I come her house after school), thought ( I think we go today), desired (I hope we play together) or perceived ( I see her car gone and no one at home) all require using embedded clauses and are critical for developing relationships and understanding school culture.

Teaching clause structure alongside morphology can help ensure that kids can communicate ideas associated with false belief ( I thought.... but...) or reported speech ( she said that...) (Durrleman & Delage, 2020) or introduce strategies for clause combining to allow conditional ( If-then) or causal ( because, so) concepts to be communicated. Two strategies exist:

1. Always have both a target that hinges on morphology and a target that does not rely on morphology at any given time.

2. If a child seems 'stuck' and no longer making progress on a morphological target, consider moving on to a syntactic target or a different morphological target and cycling back later on.

At the same time, introducing morphological targets may be necessary for progress in many areas (e.g., negation, questions, passives), as shown by the notes about firm prerequisites in the detailed tabs.

​Comprehension is at least as important as production

Successful interaction with others and access to the curriculum in the classroom depends both on being able to understand what others say or write and being able to clearly express yourself in speech and writing. We cannot assume that children who produce certain grammatical structures can also fully understand them. They may be producing strings of words they have previously heard without full understanding of the structure. Many children use context to help their comprehension, but when this is removed or limited, comprehension may break down. So, a child being quizzed by a teacher may not understand the difference between did you push Pete? and did Pete push you? leading to confusion about who was the guilty party.

It is vital that SLPs check children's comprehension and production. Factors that support production may be different than the factors that support comprehension. Nonetheless, when working on a particular area of grammar it may be most efficient and effective to work on both comprehension and production together. For example, the SLP says a target sentence (e.g., the cow is pushing the horse) and the child acts it out with toy figures and then the child produces another sentence using the same structure (e.g., the cat is chasing the dog) and the SLP acts it out. This reinforces the meaning of the structure, the importance of the word order and works on both comprehension and production together. Indeed, a final stage may be for the SLP to deliberately "make errors" in their comprehension and production to see if the child can spot these errors, with the eventual aim of the child being able to spot their own errors and self-correct them. In the detailed tabs, we especially call attention to places where comprehension is likely to lag behind production or require special attention.

​Generalization across structures is limited

We also know that kids with DLD show limited generalization across structures. In work with young children using recasting as the therapy technique, Wilcox and Leonard (1978), for instance, showed that children learn each wh-word plus auxiliary combination individually and Curran and Owen Van Horne (2019) found that preschool and kindergarten children learned because adverbial clauses but did not generalize to other types of causal adverbial clauses. Explicit instruction or intervention with older children may result in generalization within structures more than the implicit approaches frequently used with younger children. Tools like visual cues (as are employed in the SHAPE CODING™ system) highlight how grammatical forms are similar and serve similar functions within the sentence frame, which may lead to better generalization to items with the same (Ebbels, van der Lely & Dockrell, 2007) or similar structures (Tobin & Ebbels, 2019). Nonetheless, ensure that a child has learned all aspects of a new structure before marking it as mastered.

​Focus on functional implications and be flexible!

​This blog post and the linked tables were constructed in response to questions about working with school-age kids with DLD, but we have ultimately provided a broader view of interlocking goals in the area of grammar and syntax. Knowing what to target for school-age children can be difficult because they have made good progress on many of the 'basics' and now need support to master the nuances of literate and academic language. These aspects of grammar are areas even experienced SLPs may feel unsure of and need to brush up on in order to provide best supports. Ongoing efforts to support SLP metalinguistic awareness, knowledge and confidence of interventions in these areas are available through SHAPE CODING™ program.

Each area is likely to require concentrated intervention in order to see sustained progress that is maintained over time. This is effortful and some structures may never be targets for some children due to the need to address competing priorities such as vocabulary or pragmatics. Clinicians should set intervention priorities based on functional impact linked to the child's age and ability level and continuously revise these goals in consultation with the child, their parents, and their teachers. An adolescent or young adult may need the ability to engage with written language in academic texts, job contracts, and civil discourse. A younger child may need the oral language of the classroom and the playground the most. This is not to say that a younger child does not need access to complex syntax, however (Curran, 2020) or that an older child does not need to revisit tense and agreement (Nippold, Nehls-Lowe, & Lee, 2020). An SLP should feel empowered to move beyond the order set forth in these tables in order to flexibly match the order of intervention to the particular functional needs of the individual young person and to educate others about the importance of different aspects of grammar and syntax for academic and professional success.

NOTE: This spreadsheet is for the English language. But what about the various dialects of English? Will everything hold up, regardless of dialect? Blog author Dr. Amanda Owen Van Horne and our topic area expert, Dr. Kyomi Gregory, provide a little further discussion on that in the comments section, below.

Ebbels, S., & Owen Van Horne, A. (2020). Grammatical concepts of English: Suggested order of intervention. The Informed SLP. https://www.theinformedslp.com/how-to/grammar-chart

Authors of this blog post were paid for their contribution.
​The SHAPE CODING™ program, mentioned above, was created by author Susan Ebbels and her employer, Moor House School & College, receives financial compensation from training and resources.

​Brown, R. (1973). 1431. A First Language: The Early Stages. Harvard University Press.

Curran, M. (2020). Complex sentences in an elementary science curriculum: A research note. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 51(2), 329-335.

Curran, M., & Owen Van Horne, A. (2019). Use of Recast Intervention to Teach Causal Adverbials to Young Children With Developmental Language Disorder Within a Science Curriculum: A Single Case Design Study. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28(2), 430 - - - - - - -

Rvachew, S., & Nowak, M. (2001). The effect of target-selection strategy on phonological learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44(3), 610.

Tobin, L. M., & Ebbels, S. H. (2019). Effectiveness of intervention with visual templates targeting tense and plural agreement in copula and auxiliary structures in school-aged children with complex needs: a pilot study. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 33(1-2), 175 - - 239.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grammatical concepts of English: Suggested order of intervention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever asked the following? "I know that I still need to work on grammar with older kids with DLD to ensure academic success, but what rationale should I have for selecting targets?" "How do I decide what order to tackle the many areas of grammar that need support?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dear Lucy: An Open Letter to Lucy Calkins | Reading Rockets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thank you for writing No One Gets to Own the Term "The Science of Reading." I am so relieved that discussion of reading science has made its way into the balanced literacy community and that you've added your own voice to the conversation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is My Kid Learning How to Read? Part 1: Purple Challenge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jess Surles: Reading Instruction and Supplemental Interventions to Support Equitable Literacy...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Considerations for Remote Assessment and Progress Monitoring

Monitoring a student's progress toward meeting his or her IEP goals is critical to determining whether the services and supports outlined in the IEP are providing the student with educational benefit. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires IEP teams to document how student progress will be measured. Regardless of what method educators select to measure student progress, progress monitoring must take place. Student progress should be monitored in a frequent, ongoing manner so educators can respond quickly if the student is not making adequate progress or is making more progress than anticipated. When administering assessments, such as progress monitoring assessments in virtual environments and distance learning, a one-size-fits-all approach does not work; rather, a few key issues need to be considered.

Academic Progress Monitoring

Standardized assessments that were designed and normed in a face-to-face format will likely not be valid or reliable measures of a student's performance when administered under different conditions. Please check to see if the publisher of the assessment has provided any guidance regarding adaptations in administration of assessment, scoring, and interpretation procedures. Any temporary guidelines offered by developers/publishers would not apply once assessments would be able to be conducted as intended in face-to-face format. Data from non-standardized administration should not be aggregated and used for high-stakes decisions.

Informal assessments (e.g., rubrics, checklists, writing samples, task analyses of completed math work, etc.) can also be helpful in measuring student progress toward goals.

Behavioral Progress Monitoring

It is very difficult to complete direct observation of students in virtual learning environments, and the current situation is not reflective of their typical learning environment. For behavioral progress monitoring, consider if the behavior to be monitored is related to an expectation/behavior that was defined and taught, and that it is relevant for the remote learning environment. It should be observable by the teacher during remote learning sessions. If the behavior is not observable in the current learning circumstances, it probably wouldn't be appropriate to progress monitor that behavior. The student's IEP goals may need to be adjusted to represent how the behavior of concern is manifesting itself in the remote learning environment.

Behavioral progress monitoring could involve the use of informal progress monitoring methods such as measuring the frequency, duration, latency, and/or intensity of the behavior of concern.

Progress Monitoring in Virtual Settings - Guidance from Publishers Updated 4/28/20

Please see a list below of commonly used assessment systems by PA educators and advisement that is provided by the vendor. If the assessment tool you are using is not listed below, please do not hesitate to contact your system directly for virtual assessment guidance.

Open Source/Free Resources

Direct Behavior Ratings (DBR)

Publisher/ Fee-Based Resources

Examples of Virtual Assessment Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Resources for Progress Monitoring in a Virtual Setting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Monitoring a student's progress toward meeting his or her IEP goals is critical to determining whether the services and supports outlined in the IEP are providing the student with educational benefit. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires IEP teams to document how student progress will be measured.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This facilitator’s guide is intended to provide possible points for pause and discussion as educators, advocacy groups, and community members listen to At a Loss for Words from APM Reports. You&#82…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Part II: Equipped Conversation with Amy Siracusano and David Kilpatrick, Ph.D

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Part I: Equipped Conversation with Amy Siracusano and David Kilpatrick, Ph.D

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cookies are disabled for this browser. Wiley Online Library requires cookies for authentication and use of other site features; therefore, cookies must be enabled to browse the site. Detailed information on how Wiley uses cookies can be found in our Privacy Policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cookies are disabled for this browser. Wiley Online Library requires cookies for authentication and use of other site features; therefore, cookies must be enabled to browse the site. Detailed information on how Wiley uses cookies can be found in our Privacy Policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summarizing builds comprehension by helping to reduce confusion. Teachers train students to process the information they read with the goal of breaking down content into succinct pieces. This strategy can be used with the whole class, small groups, or as an individual assignment. Summarizing text by using writing activities builds on prior knowledge, helps improve writing, and strengthens vocabulary skills.
See strategy "

A Seed Discussion is a two-part strategy used to teach students how to actively engage in discussions about assigned readings. In the first part, students read selected text and identify "seeds" or key concepts of a passage which may need additional explanation. In the second part, students work in small groups to present their "seeds" to one another. Each "seed" should be thoroughly discussed before moving on to the next.
See strategy "

Featuring Kathleen Leos, Deborah Santiago, and Susan Lafond in a discussion on English Language Learners (ELLs). Our expert panel discusses demographic trends, instructional strategies, school-family partnerships, and college readiness.
Watch webcast "

At An Unlikely Story bookstore in Plainville, MA, Gene sits down for a lively conversation with Wimpy Kid author (and bookstore owner) Jeff Kinney.
Read "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AdLit.org is a national multimedia project offering information and resources to the parents and educators of struggling adolescent readers and writers. AdLit.org is an educational initiative of WETA, the flagship public television and radio station in the nation's capital, and is funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York and by the Ann B.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Early Literacy Symposia Series: How the Brain Learns to Read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Literacy Academy 2020: Knowledge Gap - Natalie Wexler

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Explicit Language Teaching is the Heart of Structured Literacy

Renowned literacy expert and author Dr. Louisa Moats speaks to a topic that she knows intricately: Structured Literacy. Dr. Moats identifies the content and procedures for teaching Structured Literacy, and presents examples of how to teach phoneme awareness, morphological awareness, phoneme-grapheme correspondences, and syllable patterns within an explicit lesson framework.

Attendees will walk away from this informative presentation with new understanding of:

Why phoneme awareness is challenging for many students

Why language instruction must be explicit, systematic, and cumulative

The scope of information about language that supports learning to read and write

Louisa Moats, Ed.D.

Louisa Moats, Ed.D., is the lead author of LANGUAGE! Live, a blended program for adolescent students reading below grade level. She is also the lead author of LETRS professional development for literacy educators. Dr. Moats has authored many books, journal articles, policy papers, and materials for professional development in the areas of reading, writing, and language. She received her M.A. from Peabody College of Vanderbilt and her Ed.D. from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

View Webinar

Complete form to watch this webinar.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Webinar | Explicit Language Teaching is the Heart of Structured Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explicit Language Teaching is the Heart of Structured Literacy Renowned literacy expert and author Dr. Louisa Moats speaks to a topic that she knows intricately: Structured Literacy. Dr. Moats identifies the content and procedures for teaching Structured Literacy, and presents examples of how to teach phoneme awareness, morphological awareness, phoneme-grapheme correspondences, and syllable patterns within an explicit lesson framework.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New Mississippi College Dyslexia Screener Available for Purchase

We are pleased to announce that the Mississippi College Dyslexia Screener has recently been approved for listing on the Mississippi Department of Education 2018-2019 Mississippi Approved List of Dyslexia Screeners:
http://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/Offices/MDE/OAE/OEER/Dyslexia/MS%20Approved%20List%20of%20Screeners_1819.pdf
Mississippi College's Dyslexia Screener is unique in that it can be used for Kindergarten, First, Second, and Third Grades. The cost is $35 per school, and the screener can be reproduced as many times as it is needed by the school. Directions are explicit enough that no training should be needed for screener administration. It is teacher-directed and recorded.

The Order Form for the MC Dyslexia Screener is found at the link below. If you or your school would like to have a copy, we look forward to receiving the completed order form and payment by check, money order, or purchase order.

Feel free to copy the Order Form and pass it along to any interested schools or individuals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are pleased to announce that the Mississippi College Dyslexia Screener has recently been approved for listing on the Mississippi Department of Education 2018-2019 Mississippi Approved List of Dyslexia Screeners: http://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/Offices/MDE/OAE/OEER/Dyslexia/MS%20Approved%20List%20of%20Screeners_1819.pdf Mississippi College's Dyslexia Screener is unique in that it can be used for Kindergarten, First, Second, and Third Grades.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This Online Tool has Two Purposes

First, it is organized into a survey that will allow district personnel to self-assess current literacy practices and then collaborate as a team to improve literacy strategies. For educators in schools, this scan is a chance to anonymously share your feedback on how literacy practices are being implemented in your school and district. For district administrators, this scan will capture perceptions among staff about implementation within individual schools and district-wide. (In fact, if you administer this scan a few times per year or across multiple years, you will also be able to track the progress of literacy implementation in your district over time.)

This tool's second purpose is to compile many relevant resources and examples that will help you to implement effective literacy practices.

Your Data is Confidential

This is an anonymous scan designed to capture the perceptions of personnel around key components associated with balanced literacy programs. The scan does not request any personal information and does not track email addresses or other information related to users. Only the district administrator who distributed the link for the scan has access to the reports generated by this tool. The use of this tool over time can help a district understand the progress of the implementation of a balanced literacy program.

How to Use This Tool

For Individuals, district personnel, or school personnel

If you have accessed this website on your own (i.e., your district has not formally administered this scan to you), click here. You can think of this scan as an informative rubric for how districts and schools can implement effective literacy practices. You can access and use any of the resources, examples, and tools that are embedded in the scan questions. (A full list of the resources can also be found below.) If you respond to the scan questions, your results will not be tallied unless your district administers this scan.

For District Administrators

If you are a district administrator who would like to survey your personnel on the extent to which they perceive effective literacy strategies to be in place, you can log in or sign up here. After you create your profile, you can create a school roster so that when you administer the scan, it will disaggregate school-level and district-level results.

If you are a District Administrator
Here are some helpful tips on managing the simple district dashboard

Select the Reporting Year. We suggest using the current school year, and administering the scan once or twice a year. That way, you can compare results over time.

Use the "Get Share Link" Button. If you want district personnel to take this scan, disseminate this link so that the unique results for your district will tally. (We have also included a sample message that you might include in your email with the link, but you can use whatever language is right for you.)

Use the On/Off Button. We recommend that you decide upon a period of time during which the scan will be live, and then turn the button off. This will allow you to close the scan so that results stop tallying.

View School-Level and District-Level Results. If you click on the "Aggregate District Report," you can get feedback on perceptions about literacy implementation across the district. However, you can also look at the results of individual schools under the "School Reports" section.

Compare Year-to-Year Results. If you administer this scan over multiple years, you will be able to track your progress over time.

Compare the Overview to the Individual Questions. This scan is divided into five content areas: Leadership, Tiered Instructional Model, Professional Development, Assessment, and Family Engagement. When you look at your scan results, the green graph on the left displays overview results for one entire area. When you scroll down, the purple graphs on the right will display the responses to the individual questions within that area. These data points allow you to track both: (a) category areas that are strongest and weakest in your district/school; and (b) the individual issues that make you strong/weak in each area.

Use the Data to Inform Strategic Planning. Once you have administered the survey multiple times, you will have useful data about how well implementation of your literacy program is going. Where you find weaknesses, incorporate potential solutions into your strategic planning process-and then continue to track whether your solutions are correlated with improved data on the scan over time. Survey, analyze, plan, repeat!

Download Instructions

Resources

Embedded throughout this scan are resources, examples, templates, and tools. They will help you to calibrate your responses to the scan questions. (Sometimes, it's just easier to establish a common vocabulary when there are examples in place.) But these resources are also there for you to use any time, as you deem appropriate. As well as being embedded throughout the scan, you can click the button below to view them all.
View Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Online Tool has Two Purposes First, it is organized into a survey that will allow district personnel to self-assess current literacy practices and then collaborate as a team to improve literacy strategies. For educators in schools, this scan is a chance to anonymously share your feedback on how literacy practices are being implemented in your school and district.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SOLAR The Science of Language and Reading- Pam Snow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This post also appears on The Reading Teacher's Top Ten Tools Blog. It has been posted here with permission from the author. Small Group Instruction
I just completed a review of 147 reading texts used in our colleges of education to teach teachers how to teach reading (National Center for Teacher Quality (NCTQ)). One troubling observation I made is the lack of guidance to help teachers and soon-to-be teachers understand how to structure small group reading instruction. To be clear, guided reading, a popular small group practice, is a prevalent practice throughout these texts, and it is perplexing that this universal custom lacks consistency. Authors of these texts present guided reading in ways that reflect their personal views of how reading should be taught, and unfortunately many of these views are not reflective of what we have learned about best practices in reading instruction, especially for our very young and struggling readers.
A New "Guided Reading"
Guided reading was originally designed to provide a comprehension focus. However, now, guided reading has become a small group catch-all wherein any reading skill, including 'word work' or decoding lessons are also taught.

Since the term guided reading is so universal in our schools, I propose that we redefine this small reading group practice to empower teachers to TEACH first then GUIDE our students to become proficient readers. The structures I propose incorporate the most effective overall teaching practices and those specific to reading instruction. Please download these two informative syntheses of the research on overall effective teaching practices and follow along with me on this journey as we design a small group structure that is easy to use and adapt to our students' needs. Principles of Effective Instruction and Seven Strategies
The Small Group Structure
We will create a framework, which may be new to many of you, or remind you of lesson structures you have used in the past. A framework helps us be more efficient in our planning - we all need that! If you use a reading program, it probably provides a lesson framework for you, steps that you follow. If you do not have a program, this framework will be especially helpful for you. Either way, having a structure into which you plug your lessons parts will ensure that you teach systematically and explicitly. As you read through this framework, know that it is just that. It will be up to you to insert the content that is responsive to your students' needs and plan your instruction for each part of the lesson in the framework.
The Small Group Lesson Framework
Our teacher lives are complex and demanding enough. Having a consistent framework helps simplify our planning, and meets a requirement of systematic instruction - a routine that fills teacher and student need for consistency. Try using this framework for planning whole group reading lessons too! You may not be teaching all of your students in small group, so use this framework to provide excellent TEACHING and GUIDING during your whole group lessons as well.

With a program, this framework will work. Insert the elements from your program, add additional practice activities.

Without a program - It will take a little extra work on your part, but you can do it! You need a skills sequence, words and reading materials that are matched to the target decoding elements. You will also need practice activities.
The STEPS Framework - Teach then Guide Adapted from Next STEPS in Literacy Instruction, Smartt and Glaser. Brookes Publishing.
The framework works well for decoding lessons, but is adaptable to teaching other reading components as well.
S - Set up for Learning (The Warm-Up) 3-5 min
Begin your lesson with a review of a skill students have learned. This serves to prime the pump for learning something new. This step wakes up the brain for learning, motivating students through active involvement at a high rate of success.

Choose the skill you want to review and plan an active way to review it.

Warm-Up Ideas: (remember - use words and material students have learned in earlier lessons)

Phoneme segmentation with head-waist-toes,

Encoding from teacher dictation with moveable letters,

Quick flash & say grapheme sounds, read, spell, and use vocabulary terms

Students pick a word from pile, read it and turn to partner, uses it in a sentence. Repeat.

Reread story or sentences.

T - Teach (I Do - Teacher Voice is Dominant) 3-5 min
In this step the teacher explicitly teaches the new skill through explanation, modeling, showing and telling. Students will hear you say, "Today we will learn..." "Watch me. Listen." "My turn."

Ideas:

Use a white board to model decoding new grapheme,

Point to and teach word parts,

Demonstrate decoding of words

Present and teach the orthography and meanings of vocabulary words

Demonstrate a comprehension process

E - Engage (We Do - Teacher and Student voices together) 3-5 min
With your support, students engage with, and briefly practice the skill just taught to them. This gives the teacher an indication of whether the students need more instruction before the next lesson step.

Ideas:

Students practice decoding words as the teacher points to words on a white board, a pocket chart, or with moveable letters as teacher creates them.

The teacher provides corrective feedback and scaffolds the process, stepping back to allow students to work independently, or stepping in to reteach, as needed.

P - Practice (You Do & We Do - Student voice with Teacher voice when needed for correction, praise, reteaching) 15-20 min
In this step, students practice the concept just taught multiple times. Teacher guides students to apply what they have learned, providing more instruction, corrective feedback, and specific praise.

Ideas: Students practice their skill with -

Sound spelling boxes, (here is a video of a 2nd grade teacher using this practice process)

Moveable letters to encode, (teacher dictates words and students tap phonemes and spell the words)

Games to practice reading words automatically, (only games that ensure students are reading words MULTIPLE times) Here is a resource for these activities.

Read decodable or other controlled text to practice the words just learned

S - Show you Know (Assess learning) Quick 3-5 min
During this closing step, students are asked to demonstrate their learning. Teachers want to know, "Did the students master this skill?" Teachers keep data on student performance to help them plan future lessons.

Ideas:

Students may read a list of the words just learned,

Spell dictated words or sentences,

Produce word meanings

Complete a timed progress monitoring measure.

Tips to make your small group instruction powerful!

Reading and spelling - decode and encode - in the same lesson

Engage - multiple student responses.

Include isolated word reading and sentence, story, reading.

Taught and guided... your small group lessons will become easier to plan and teach when you use a framework in which you TEACH and students PRACTICE the skills you teach.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Planning the Small Group Reading Lesson - Achieve the Core Aligned Materials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This post also appears on The Reading Teacher's Top Ten Tools Blog. It has been posted here with permission from the author. Small Group Instruction I just completed a review of 147 reading texts used in our colleges of education to teach teachers how to teach reading (National Center for Teacher Quality (NCTQ)).

# data[].attributes.body
Stephanie Stollar/Reading Science Academy

# data[].attributes.body
Stephanie Stollar/Reading Science Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Whether performed silently or aloud," Marilyn Adams recently wrote, "reading an alphabetic script with fluency and reflective comprehension incontrovertibly depends on...remarkably rich and over learned knowledge of the language's spellings and spelling-speech mappings....[But] despite myriad proposals to make it easier, alphabetic instruction has been dogged by one problem: Many students find it extremely difficult to induce the words from the code, no matter how they are drilled on the individual letters and sounds." However, she continued, research has now delivered on this fundamental problem: "Research has finally yielded an answer to the question of why learning to use the alphabetic principle is difficult for so many The impasse lies in the perceptual and conceptual elusiveness of the phonemes." What is this elusive element, the phoneme? Why has the lack of phonemic awareness blocked the doorway to reading for large numbers of children? And how might we remedy this situation?
We now have good answers to these questions, and we are extremely pleased to be able to share with our readers the following commentary and sample lessons from a new book, Phonemic Awareness in Young Children: A Classroom Curriculum. This curriculum is an example of what we desperately need more of research-based theory translated into field tested materials that teachers can confidently and successfully use in the classroom.
Walking through the fifty-one suggested lessons in this curriculum, as I have, gives one a window into how children can be brought, step by step, to under stand the architecture of their language, and how such understanding prepares them for the most critical academic undertaking of their lives: the mastery of reading and writing. Indeed, one finishes these exercises with a tremendous feeling of optimism, a sense that every child who is successfully led through them-no matter the spareness of that child's home environment-will glide ever so more easily into mastery of the alphabetic code and the door to literacy that it wedges open.
Phonemic Awareness in Young Children is divided into seven sets of multiple lessons (plus appendices filled with numerous additional activities and support materials):

Listening Games: To sharpen children's ability to attend selectively to sounds;

Rhyming: To use rhyme to introduce the children to the sounds of words;

Words and Sentences: To develop children's awareness that language is made up of strings of words;

Awareness of Syllables: To develop the ability to analyze words into separate syllables and to synthesize words from a string of separate syllables;

Initial and Final Sounds: To show the children that words contain phonemes and to introduce them to how phonemes sound and feel when spoken in isolation;

Phonemes: To develop the ability to analyze words into a sequence of separate phonemes and to synthesize words from a sequence of separate phonemes;

Introducing Letters and Spellings: To introduce the relation of letters to speech sounds.

To give you a flavor of how this curriculum can help children grasp the sound-based building blocks of their language, we have chosen two lessons from the very first set of activities (Chapter 3), in which children are introduced to the art of listening actively, attentively, and analytically; one lesson from the chapter that teaches children that words are made of strings of smaller units of speech-syllables; three lessons from "Initial and Final Sounds," which introduces the children to the nature and existence of phonemes; and two lessons from the chapter entitled "Phonemes," which builds on the previous work.
Keep in mind that these activities focus on the structure of spoken language and are preliminary to phonics, instruction. Their purpose is to lay the groundwork, prepare the soil, get children ready for instruction in phonics and spelling. Indeed, as the authors note, "Educators...have found that attending to children's phonemic awareness removes phonics from the realm of drill and skill and makes it learn able and interesting to their students." The activities in this curriculum were originally developed for use with kindergarten children, but the pace and complexity can be adjusted for use in first grade and special education. The authors recommend that fifteen to twenty minutes per day be de voted to phonemic awareness activities. Of course, as with all instruction, some students may need more intensive support than others. Phonemic awareness is not a magic bullet. We know there is no single magic bullet for mastering the complex task of reading. But-while research must continue to refine our knowledge and practice in all aspects of phonological processing-there is now widespread consensus that we have zeroed in on an important piece of the puzzle. On behalf of all the children for whom the lack of phonemic aware ness has been such a stumbling block in learning to read, we must act.
The Nature and Importance of Phonemic Awareness

Before children can make any sense of the alphabetic principle, they must understand that those sounds that are paired with the letters are one and the same as the sounds of speech. For those of us who already know how to read and write, this realization seems very basic, almost transparent. Nevertheless, research shows that the very notion that spoken language is made up of sequences of these little sounds does not come naturally or easily to human beings.

The small units of speech that correspond to letters of an alphabetic writing system are called phonemes. Thus, the awareness that language is composed of these small sounds is termed phonemic awareness. Research indicates that, without direct instructional support, phonemic awareness eludes roughly 25 per cent of middle-class first graders and substantially more of those who come from less literacy-rich back grounds. Furthermore, these children evidence serious difficulty in learning to read and write (see Adams, 1990, for a review).

Why is awareness of phonemes so difficult? The problem, in large measure, is that people do not attend to the sounds of phonemes as they produce or listen to speech. Instead, they process the phonemes automatically, directing their active attention to the meaning and force of the utterance as a whole. The challenge, therefore, is to find ways to get children to no tice the phonemes, to discover their existence and separability. Fortunately, many of the activities involving rhyme, rhythm, listening, and sounds that have long been enjoyed with preschool-age children are ideally suited for this purpose. In fact, with this goal in mind, all such activities can be used more effectively toward helping children to develop phonemic awareness.

The purpose of this book is to provide concrete activities that stimulate the development of phonemic awareness in the preschool or elementary classroom. It is based on a program originally developed and validated by Lundberg, Frost, and Petersen (1988) in Sweden and Denmark. After translating and adapting it for U.S. classrooms, we field tested it with kindergarten students and teachers in two schools receiving Title I funds. We, too, found that kindergartners developed the ability to analyze words into sounds significantly more quickly than kindergartners who did not have this program (Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, & Fletcher, 1997; Foorman, Francis, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1997). This ability to analyze words into sounds is exactly the skill that promotes successful reading in first grade (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte 1994).

What Research Says about Phonemic Awareness

Although a number of different types of linguistic awareness are, in one way or another, presupposed in the dialogues and activities of beginning reading instruction, preschool-age children's awareness of phonemes-of the speech sounds that correspond roughly to individual letters-has been shown to hold singular predictive power, statistically accounting for as much as 50 percent of the variance in their reading proficiency at the end of first grade (Blachman, 1991; Juel, 1991; Stanovich, 1986; Wagner et al., 1994). Furthermore, faced with an alphabetic script, a child's level of phonemic awareness on entering school is widely held to be the strongest single determinant of the success that she or he will experience in learning to read-or, conversely, the likelihood that she or he will fail (Adams, 1990; Stanovich, 1986).

Measures of preschool-age children's level of phonemic awareness strongly predict their future success in learning to read; this has been demonstrated not only among English students but also among Swedish (Lundberg, Olofsson, & Wall, 1980); Norwegian (Høien, Lundberg, Stanovich, & Bjaalid, 1995); Spanish (deManrique & Gramigna, 1984); French (Alegria, Pignot, & Morais, 1982); Italian (Cossu, Shankweiler, Liberman, Tola, & Katz, 1988); Portuguese (Cardoso-Martins, 1995); and Russian students (Elkonin, 1973). Measures of schoolchildren's ability to attend to and manipulate phonemes strongly correlate with their reading success through the twelfth grade (Calfee, Lindamood, & Lindamood, 1973). Poorly developed phonemic aware ness distinguishes economically disadvantaged preschoolers from their more advantaged peers (Wallach, Wallach, Dozier, & Kaplan, 1977) and has been shown to be characteristic of adults with literacy problem in the United States (Liberman, Rubin, Duques, & Carlisle, 1985); Portugal (Morais, Cary,Alegria, & Bertelson, 1979); England (Marcel, 1980); and Australia (Byrne & Ledez, 1983). Indeed, among readers of alphabetic languages, those who are successful invariably have phonemic awareness, whereas those who lack phonemic awareness are invariably struggling (Foorman, Francis, Beeler, et al., 1997; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Winikates, & Mehta, 1997; Foorman, Francis, Shaywitz, et al., 1997; Stanovich, 1986; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985).

Knowing that so many children lack phonemic awareness and that phonemic awareness is critical to learning to read and write an alphabetic script, we begin to see the importance of making a place for its instruction. In fact, research clearly shows that phone mic awareness can be developed through instruction, and, furthermore, that doing so significantly accelerates children's subsequent reading and writing achievement (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Blachman, Ball, Black, &Tangel, 1994; Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991, 1993, 1995; Castle, Riach, & Nicholson, 1994; Cunningham, 1990; Lundberg et al., 1988; Wallach &Wallach, 1979; Williams, 1980).

About the Structure of Language

In order to build phonemic awareness in all children, classroom teachers should know a little about the structure of language, especially phonology. Phonology is the study of the unconscious rules governing speech-sound production. In contrast, phonetics is the study of the way in which speech sounds are articulated, and phonics is the system by which symbols represent sounds in an alphabetic writing system.

Phonological rules constrain speech-sound production for biological and environmental reasons. Biological constraints are due to the limitations of human articulatory-motor production. For example, humans are not able to produce the high-frequency vocalizations of whales. Other constraints on our ability to produce speech have to do with the way our brains classify and perceive the minimal units of sound that make a difference to meaning-the units we call phonemes.

The differences between the sounds of two phonemes are often very subtle: Compare /b/ with /p/. Yet, these subtle differences in sound can signal dramatic differences in meaning: Compare bat with pat. Fortunately, because phonemes are the basic building blocks of spoken language, babies become attuned to the phonemes of their native language in the first few months of life. However, this sensitivity to the sounds of the phonemes and the differences between them is not conscious. It is deeply embedded in the subattentional machinery of the language system.

Phonemes are also the units of speech that are represented by the letters of an alphabetic language. Thus, developing readers must learn to separate these sounds, one from another, and to categorize them in a way that permits understanding of how words are spelled. It is this sort of explicit, reflective knowledge that falls under the rubric of phonemic awareness. Conscious awareness of phonemes is distinct from the built-in sensitivity that supports speech production and reception. Unfortunately, phonemic awareness is not easy to establish.

Part of the difficulty in acquiring phonemic awareness is that, from word to word and speaker to speaker, the sound of any given phoneme can vary considerably. These sorts of variations in spoken form that do not indicate a difference in meaning are referred to as allophones of a phoneme. For example, in the northern part of the United States, the pronunciation of grease typically rhymes with peace, whereas in parts of the south, it rhymes with sneeze. Similarly, the pronunciations of the vowels vary greatly across regions, dialects, and individuals. Alternatively, variations in spoken form sometimes eliminate phonetic distinctions between phonemes. Thus, for some people, the words pin and pen are pronounced differently with distinct medial sounds corresponding to their distinct vowels. For other people, however, these words are phonetically indistinguishable, leaving context as the only clue to meaning. Indeed, because of variations in the language, even linguists find it difficult to say exactly how many phonemes there are in English; answers vary from forty four to fifty-two.

It is also important to note that phonemes are not spoken as separate units. Rather, they are co-articulated; that is, when we speak, we fuse the phonemes together into a syllabic unit. For example, when we say bark aloud, we do not produce four distinct phonemes: /b/, /a/, /r/, /k/. Instead, our pronunciation of the initial consonant is influenced by the medial vowel, and the medial vowel is influenced by the consonants before and after it. Thus, we talk about r-controlled vowels like the "ar" in bark. Similarly, we speak of nasalized vowels before nasal consonants, such as in the words and, went, and gym. Because these vowels are assimilated into the following consonant in speech, most children have special difficulty representing them as distinct phonemes in reading and spelling, such that, for example, went might be read or spelled as W-E-T.

Consonants as well as vowels are affected by co-articulation. Consider /t/ and /d/. Say the words write and ride. The /t/ and /d/ sound distinct in these two words. However, now say writer and rider. Now the medial /t/ and /d/ phonemes are reduced to a common phoneme (called a tongue flap). Not surprisingly, children are likely to spell writer as R+D-R. Furthermore, /t/ and /d/ are affected by /r/ in consonant blends. Pronounce the following pairs of words: tuck truck; task-trash; dunk-drunk; dagger-dragon. Children notice the change in /t/ and /d/ when followed by /r/ and represent the phonetic detail with spellings of C-H-R-A-N for train and J-R-A-G-N for dragon.

The phonological awareness activities in this curriculum ask children to listen to the sameness, difference, number, and order of speech sounds. As the previous examples illustrate, such activities can become difficult when the phonetic level of speech does not relate cleanly or directly to the phonemic level. Yet, it is ultimately the phonemic level we are after because it is awareness of phonemes that allows children to understand how the alphabet works-an understanding that is essential to learning to read and spell.

For more information on phonology, we recommend Fromkin and Rodman (1993) and Parker and Riley (1994). For more information on how phonology relates to the teaching and learning of reading and spelling, we recommend Hull (1985), Moats (1995), and Treiman (1993). For more information on how to work with children who have extreme difficulty with speech-sound production, we recommend Lindamood and Lindamood (1975). For further information or assistance in working with these children, we add that speech-language pathologists can be very helpful. Their training provides them with in-depth understanding of phonology as well as expressive and receptive syntax (i.e., the rule system by which words may be ordered in phrases and sentences).

About This Curriculum

The design and sequence of the activities in this book are intended to help children acquire a sense of the architecture of their language and the nature of its building blocks. Thus, across chapters, the children's attention is focused and refocused on smaller and smaller parts, on layers within layers of the language. Gradually, they are led to notice how stories are built from sentences, sentences from words, words from syllables, and syllables themselves from a relatively small set of basic speech elements-phonemes. The children are led to see how, within each layer, the parts can be broken apart, separately spoken, and put back together. They are led to see that if the parts are omitted, substituted, or rearranged, then the whole is altered in sound and meaning. They are, in short, led to appreciate the structure of the system.

But that's not all. Over the course of all this structural play, the children also learn how to focus on the parts themselves; this is particularly important at the level of the phonemes. As the children practice synthesizing words from phonemes and analyzing phonemes from words, they are also practicing hearing and saying the phonemes over and over, both in isolation and in context. They are becoming generally familiar with how the different phonemes sound and how they are articulated. They are becoming comfortable with hearing and feeling the identity and distinguishing characteristics of each phoneme, whether spoken in isolation or in the beginning, middle, or end of a variety of words.

Research shows that once children have mastered phonemic awareness in this way, useful knowledge of the alphabetic principle generally follows with remark able ease-and no wonder: Having learned to attend to and think about the structure of language in this way, the alphabetic principle makes sense. All that's left to make it usable is knowledge of the particular letters by which each sound is represented.

Finally, a note is in order about the adaptations and adjustments that we made in putting together this version of the program. While we made a number of modifications, the most important is the addition of a whole new chapter (Introducing Letters and Spellings). The original program involved oral language play only. As such, the reading/writing advantage evidenced by Lundberg et al.'s (1988) young students offered strong validation of the advantages of training phonological awareness, per se. Yet, the rea son for training phonological awareness at all is to make spelling-sound correspondences more learnable when they are taught. In keeping with this philosophy, several more recent studies have demonstrated that the impact of phonemic awareness training on early reading and writing is enhanced still further when spelling-sound correspondences are developed alongside speech-sound correspondences (Ball & Blachman, 1990; Blachman et al., 1994; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991, 1993, 1995; Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994). It is important to note that doing so does not amount to a reversion to conventional phonics, for the letter-sound correspondences are not presented for rote memorization in and of themselves. Instead, they are built into the phonemic awareness activities in a way that ensures that the children's growing appreciation of the phonemic structure of the language will yield a confident, productive under standing of the logic of its written representation.

References

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Alegria, J., Pignot, E., & Morais, J. (1982). Phonetic analysis of speech and memory codes in beginning readers. Memory and Cognition, JO, 451-456.

Ball, E.W, & Blachman, B.A. (1991). Does phoneme segmentation training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.

Blachman, B.A. (1991). Getting ready to read: Learning how print maps to speech. In J.F. Kavanagh (Ed.), The language continuum: From infancy to literacy (pp. 41-62). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Blachman, B.A., Ball, E.W, Black, R.S., & Tangel, D.M. (1994). Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in low income, inner-city classrooms: Does it make a difference? Reading and Writing, 6, 1-18.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P.E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421.

Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 451-455.

Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 104-111.

Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1995). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 2- and 3- year follow-up and a new preschoo l trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 488-503.

Byrne, B., & Ledez, J. (1983). Phonological awareness in reading disabled adults. Australian Journal of Psychology, 35, 185- 197.

Calfee, R.C., Lindamood, P.E., & Lindamood, C.H. (1973). Acoustic-phonetic skills and reading: Kindergarten through 12th grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 293-298.

Cardoso-Martins, C. (1995). Sensitivity to rhymes, syllables, and phonemes in literacy acquisition in Portuguese. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 808-828.

Castle, J.M., Riach, J., & Nicholson, T. (1994). Getting off to a better start in reading and spelling: The effects of phonemic awareness instruction within a whole-language program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 350-359.

Cossu, G., Shankweiler, D., Liberman, I.Y., Tola, G., & Katz, L. (1988). Awareness of phonological segments and reading ability in Italian children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 1-16.

Cunningham, A.E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 429-444.

deManrique, A.M.B., & Gramigna, S. (1984). La segmentacion fonologica y silabica en niños de preescolar y primer grado [The phonological segmentation of syllables in nine first-year preschoolers]. Lectura y Vida, 5, 4-13.

Elkonin, D.B. (1973). U.S.S.R. In J. Downing (Ed.), Comparative reading (pp. 551-579). New York: Macmillan.

Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J.M. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 63-71.

Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher,J.M., Winikates, D., & Mehta,P. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading problems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(3), 255-276.

Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher,J.M. (1997).The case for early reading interventions. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 243- 264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fromkin, V., & Rodman, R. (1993). An introduction to language (4th ed.). NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Hatcher, P.J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A.W (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41-57.

Høien, T., Lundberg, I., Stanovich, K.E., & Bjaalid, I. (1995). Components of phonological awareness. Reading and Writing, 7, 171-188.

Hull, M. (1985). Phonics for the teacher of reading (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M.L. Kami!, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2,pp. 759-788). New York: Longman.

Liberman, I.Y, Rubin, H., Duques, S., & Carlisle,]. (1985). Linguistic abilities and spelling proficiency in kindergartners and adult poor spellers. In D.B. Gray &J.F. Kavanagh (Eds.),Biobehavioral measures of dyslexia (pp. 163-176).Timonium, MD: York Press.

Lindamood, C., & Lindamood, P. (1975). The A.D.D. Program: Auditory Discrimination in Depth. Austin,TX: PRO-ED.

Lundberg, I., Frost,]., & Petersen, O.P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 264- 284.

Lundberg, I., Olofsson, A., & Wall, S. (1980). Reading and spelling skills in the first school years predicted from phonemic awareness skills in kindergarten. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21, 159-173.

Marcel, A. (1980). Phonological awareness and phonological representation: Investigation of a specific spelling problem. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 373-403). New York: Academic Press.

Moats, L.C. (1995). Spelling: Development, disability, and instruction. Timonium, MD: York Press.

Morais, J., Cary, L.,Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1979). Does aware ness of speech as a sequence of phonemes arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7, 323-331.

Parker, F., & Riley, K. (1994). Linguistics for non-linguists: A primer with exercises (2nd ed.). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.

Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell: A study of first grade children. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tunmer, W.E., & Nesdale, A.R. (1985). Phonemic segmentation skill and beginning reading. Journal of Educational Psychol ogy, 77, 417-427.

Wagner, R.,Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology: 30, 73-87.

Wallach, L., Wallach, M.A., Dozier, M.G., & Kaplan, N.E. (1977). Poor children learning to read do not have trouble with auditory discrimination but do have trouble with phoneme recognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 36-39.

Wallach, M.A., & Wallach, L. (1979). Helping disadvantaged children learn to read by teaching them phoneme identification skills. In L.A. Resnick & P.A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 3, pp. 227-259). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Williams, J.P. (1980).Teaching decoding with a special emphasis on phoneme analysis and phoneme blending. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 1-15.

Objective

To develop the memory and attentional abilities for thinking about sequences of sounds and the language for discussing them.

Materials needed

Objects that make interesting, distinctive sounds. Some examples follow:

banging on wall/table/lap blowing

blowing a whistle

blowing nose clapping

clicking with tongue closing purse

coloring hard on paper

coughing crumpling paper cutting with a knife

cutting with scissors dropping (various things) drumming with fingers eating an apple

folding paper hammering hopping

noisy chewing

opening window or drawer pouring liquid

ringing a bell

rubbing hands together scratching

sharpening a pencil slamming a book smashing crackers snapping fingers stamping

stirring with teaspoon tearing paper tiptoeing

turning on computer walking

whistling writing on board

writing with a pencil

Activity

In this game, the children are challenged first to identify single sounds and then to identify each one of a sequence of sounds. Both will be very important in the language games to come. The children are to cover their eyes with their hands while you make a familiar noise such as closing the door, sneezing, or playing a key on the piano. By listening carefully and without peeking, the children are to try to identify the noise.

Once the children have caught on to the game, make two noises, one after the other. Without peeking, the children are to guess the two sounds in sequence saying,

"There were two sounds. First we heard a ______, and then we heard a______."

After the children have become quite good with pairs of noises, produce series of more than two for them to identify and report in sequence. Again, complete sentences should be encouraged.

Remember that, to give every child the opportunity to participate mentally in these games, it is important to discourage all children from calling out their answers until they are asked to do so. In addition, both to support full participation and to allow assessment of individual students, it is helpful to switch unpredictably between inviting a response from the whole group and from individual children of your designation.

Note: Because of the importance of the skill exercised through this game, invest special care in noting every child's progress and difficulties. Extra opportunities should be created to work with children who are having trouble with the concept of sequences or in expressing their responses.

Variations

With the children's eyes closed, make a series of sounds. Then repeat the sequence, but omit one of the sounds. The children must identify the sound that has been omitted from the second sequence.

Invite the children to make sounds for their classmates to guess.

These games also offer good opportunities to review, exercise, and evaluate children's use of ordinal terms, such as first, second, third, middle, last. It is worth ensuring that every student gains comfortable, receptive, and expressive command of these terms.

From Chapter 3: Listening Games

NONSENSE

Objective

To develop the children's ability to attend to differences between what they expect to hear and what they actually hear.

Materials needed

Book of familiar stories or poems.

Activity

Invite the children to sit down and close their eyes so that they can concentrate on what they will hear. Then recite or read aloud a familiar story or poem to the children but, once in a while, by changing its words or wording, change its sense to nonsense. The children's challenge is to detect such changes whenever they occur. When they do, encourage them to explain what was wrong. As the game is replayed in more subtle variations across the year, it will also serve usefully to sharpen the children's awareness of the phonology, words, syntax, and semantics of language.
Reverse words:
As illustrated in the following list, you can change any text in more or less subtle ways at a number of different levels including phonemes, words, grammar, and meaning. Because of this, the game can be profitably and enjoyably revisited again and again throughout the year. Even so, in initial plays of the game, it is important that the changes result in violations of the sense, meaning, and wording of the text that are relatively obvious. Following are some examples of the "nonsense" that can be created within familiar poems and rhymes:
Substitute words:
Song a sing of sixpence

Baa baa purple sheep
Swap word order:
Twinkle, twinkle little car

Humpty Dumpty wall on a sat
Swap word parts:
Jack fell down and crown his broke

One, two, shuckle my boo

I'm a tittle leapot
Switch order of events:
The eensy weensy spider went up the spouter wat.

One, two, buckle my shoe Five, six, pick up sticks

Little Miss Muffet, eating a tuffet

Sat on her curds and whey

Goldilocks went inside and knocked on the door.

The first little piggy built himself a house of bricks.

From Chapter 6: Awareness of Syllables

CLAPPING NAMES

Note: Don't forget to switch unpredictably between asking the whole group or individual children to respond.

Objective

To introduce the children to the nature of syllables by leading them to clap and count the syllables in their own names.

Activity

Ask the children to clap and count the syllables of their first and last names to gether.

After determining the number of syllables in a name, ask the children to hold two fingers horizontally under their chins, so they can feel the chin drop for each syllable. To maximize this effect, encourage the children to elongate or stretch each syllable.

As follows, this activity can be done to a rhythmic chant, such as "Bippity, Bippity Bumble Bee":

When you first introduce this activity, model it by using several names of contrasting lengths. Pronounce the first name of one of the children in the classroom syllable by syllable while clapping it out before inviting the children to say and clap the name along with you. After each name has been clapped, ask "How many syllables did you hear?'' Once the children have caught on, ask each child to clap and count the syllables in his or her own name. Don't forget last names, too! It is easy to continue clap ping other words and to count the syllables in each. When doing the activity for the first time, model each child's name by pronouncing it, clapping it, and then having all of the children clap it together. After each name has been clapped by all of the children, ask "How many syllables did you hear?" If a name has many syllables, you may need to let children count the syllables as they are clapping.

Variations

Bippity, bippity bumble bee, Tell me what your name should be.

(Point to a child; that child responds by giving his name. Class repeats name out loud.

Continue with one of the following:)

1. "Clap it!" (Children repeat name, enunciating and clapping to each syllable.)

From Chapter 7: Initial and Final Sounds

FINDING THINGS: INITIAL PHONEMES

2. "Whisper it!" (Children whisper each syllable while clapping.)

3. "Silent!" (Children repeat name, silently enunciating syllables with mouth movement.)

Objective

To extend the children's awareness of initial phonemes by asking them to compare, contrast, and eventually identify the initial sounds of a variety of words.

Materials needed

Picture cards

As the children become more comfortable with the game, spread out pictures from two different sets, asking the children to identify the name and initial phoneme of each picture and to sort them into two piles accordingly.

Pass pictures out to the children; each must identify the initial phoneme of her or his picture and put it in the corresponding pile. This game works well with small groups.

Sound-tration: Pass pictures of objects or animals to the children, naming each picture and placing it face down on the table or carpet. Children take turns flipping pairs of pictures right side up and deciding if the initial sounds of the pictures' names are the same. If the initial sounds match, the child selects another pair; other wise, another child takes a turn. This game works well with small groups.

From Chapter 7: Initial and Final Sounds

WORD PAIRS I:

TAKE A SOUND AWAY (ANALYSIS)

Activity

This game should be played as an extension of Activity 7B: Different Words, Same Initial Phoneme. Spread a few pictures out in the middle of the circle. Then ask the children to find those pictures whose names start with the initial sound on which they have just been working. As each picture is found, the child is to say its name and initial phoneme as be ore (e.g., f-f-f-f-ish, /f-f-f-f/,fish).

Variations

Objective

To help the children to separate the sounds of words from their meanings.

Activity

By showing the children that if the initial phoneme of a word is removed a totally different word may result, this activity further helps children to separate the sounds of words from their meanings. With the children seated in a circle, explain that some times when you take a sound away from a word, you end up with a totally different word. To give the children an example, say 'f-:f-f-ear,' elongating the initial consonant, and have the children repeat. Then say"ear,' and have the children repeat. Ask the children if they can determine which sound has been taken away and repeat the words for them (i.e., f-:f-:f-f-ear...ear.. f-:f-:f-f ..ear...ear).

In this way, the children are challenged to attend to the initial phonemes of words even as they come to realize that the presence or absence of the initial phoneme results in two different words. Across days, gradually work up from the easier initial consonants to harder ones. Sample word lists are provided at the end of the chapter.

Note: Most children can identify the "hidden word" but have a great deal of difficulty in identifying what is taken away. Children may also be inclined to produce rhyming words rather than to focus on initial sounds. With this in mind, take care not to flip back and forth between the activities involving rhyming and initial sounds.

From Chapter 7: Initial and Final Sounds

WORD PAIRS II:

ADD A SOUND (SYNTHESIS)

Objective

Invite the children to use each word of a pair in a sentence to emphasize the difference in their meanings.

When the children are good at this, play it with 71: Spider's Web.

To introduce the children to the challenge of synthesizing words from their separate phonemes.

Activity

Seat the children in a circle, and begin by explaining that sometimes a new word can be made by adding a sound to a word. As an example, say "ox," and have the children repeat it. Then ask what will happen if they add a new sound to the beginning of the word such as f-f-f-f-f: 'f-f-f-f-f ..ox, f-f-f-f .. ox, f-f-f-f-ox." The children say''fox!" You should then explain, "We put a new sound on the beginning, and we have a new word!"

Until the children catch on, you should provide solid guidance, asking the children to say the word parts with you in unison (e.g.,"ice...m-m-m-m ...ice...m-m-m-ice ... mice"). Again, it is appropriate to work up gradually, across days, from the easier initial consonants to harder ones and, only after the latter are reasonably well established, to consonant blends (e.g., mile-smile).

Variations

From Chapter 8: Phonemes

TWO-SOUND WORDS

Objective

To introduce the children to the challenges of analyzing words into phonemes and of synthesizing words from phonemes.

Materials needed

Blocks

Two-phoneme word cards

Activity

The two-sound games serve to introduce the procedure and logic of the more difficult phonemic analysis and synthesis activities that follow. In addition, two-sound words provide an unfettered medium for giving children practice with the sounds of the various phonemes, both in isolation and as blended together in phonologically minimal words. In view of this, it is more helpful to revisit them as needed by individ uals or by the group than to dwell too long in any given session. Because of their foundational importance, however, it is critical that every child grasp this concept be fore moving on to the more advanced activities.

On the first day, it is sufficient to do analysis only. On subsequent days, begin with analysis and shift to synthesis. Similarly, for the first few days, it is wise to separate play with initial consonant words from play with final consonant words for clarity. Once the children have caught on, the two types of words should be freely intermixed. Finally, because the short vowels are so much more variable and less distinctive in both sound and articulation, their introduction should be deferred until the children are reasonably comfortable with long-vowel words. Again, to clarify the children's image of the phonemes and to support their ability to distinguish them one from another, it is valuable to ask them to feel how their mouths change position with each sound or to look at their mouths in a mirror while saying the words. In addition, as in all of the phonemic awareness activities, it is important to ensure that the students are familiar with each word used in these exercises. If you suspect that any of your students are not, it is wise to review the word's meaning and usage.

Note: To play these games, each of the children should have two blocks. In addition, you should have two blocks of your own and a set of pictures of two-phoneme words. Also, before beginning, it is important to have read the introduction to this chapter.

Analysis

A child picks a card and names what it depicts. For this example, let us assume that the child chooses a picture of a hair bow. You would repeat the word, but slowly and with a clear pause (about a half-second interval) between its two phonemes (e.g., "b...ō").Then all of the children should repeat the word in this same manner, "b...

To show that the word bow consists of two separate sounds, the teacher now places blocks in two different colors underneath the picture as she enunciates the sound represented by each.

The children then repeat the word sound by sound while representing the sounds of the word, left to right, with their own blocks. The children should repeat the sounds while pointing to the respective blocks and then the word, pausing slightly less between phonemes with each repetition. (e.g., "b....ō..., bow, b...

Extend the exercise to unpictured words. At the outset of each analysis challenge, be sure to use each word in a sentence for the sake of clarity (e.g.,"Chew. Please chew your food before you swallow it. Chew."). Similarly, ask the children to use each word in a sentence as part of the wrap-up of each synthesis challenge.

Later, this game can be used to teach the alphabetic principle by replacing the colored blocks with letter tokens. If you choose to do so, however, bear in mind that to convey the essential logic of the alphabetic principle, it is best that all words include one letter for each sound, left to right. With this in mind, avoid words with silent letters or digraphs. Use only short vowel words and, among those, only those that are spelled with two letters (e.g., in and am are fine, but not edge or itch).

Synthesis

This game is just the reverse of the analysis game and likewise requires that you model the procedure before turning it over to the children.

Choose a picture and place it face down so the children cannot see it. Then name the picture, phoneme by phoneme (e.g., "b... while placing the blocks beneath the picture. While pointing to their own blocks, the children must repeat the phonemes over and over and faster and faster as they did in the analysis game. When they believe they know the identity of the picture, they should raise their hands. The teacher may then ask the group or any individual to name the picture. After resolving any disagreements, the picture is held up for all to see.

After modeling several words in this way, pass the challenge to the children. For each new picture, help them agree on its name and give them time to analyze it on their own. To gain a good sense of who is and is not catching on, ask one or more individuals to share his or her solution to each word. Then the whole group should repeat the solution together, voicing the separate phonemes of the word as they point to their corresponding blocks.

Variations

Note: All of the words in the following lists consist of only two phonemes. Nevertheless, due to the vagaries of English, the spellings of many involve more than two letters. For this reason, showing the words' spellings will only confuse the issue for now. The following are examples of two-sound words with initial consonants and long vowels:

The following are examples of two-sound words with final consonant sounds and long vowels:

The following are examples of two-sound words with final consonat sounds and short vowels:

From Chapter 8:

TROLL TALK II: PHONEMES

Objective

To reinforce students' ability to synthesize words from their separate phonemes.

Activity

Each child gets from one to three "secret" pictures. They may now give the things in the pictures as "presents," one thing at a time, to another child, by sounding out the word. The child who receives the present has to guess what it is before she or he can have the picture.

This activity is analogous to that presented in 6E:Troll Talk I: Syllables, except that the troll describes his treats phoneme by phoneme instead of syllable by syllable. Every one sits in a circle, and the teacher tells a tale:

Once upon a time, there was a kind, little troll who loved to give people presents. The only catch was that the troll always wanted people to know what their present was before giving it to them. The problem was that the little troll had a very strange way of talking. If he was going to tell a child that the present was a bike, he would say "b...i...k." Not until the child has guessed what the pre sent was would he be completely happy. Now I will pretend to be the troll. I will name a surprise for one of you. When you figure out what it is, it will be your turn.

Choose one child and pronounce the name of a present, phoneme by phoneme. When the child guesses the word, she or he is to name a present for somebody else. Work up from short (two- and three-sound) words to longer ones as children become more adept at hearing the sounds. It is best to limit the game to only four or five children on any given day or it becomes a bit long. Examples of gifts include the following:

Note: If the students are not familiar with trolls, then substitute another person or creature from folklore such as a leprechaun, unicorn, or elf.

Variation

Marilyn Jager Adams is visiting scholar at Harvard University in Cambridge, massachusetts. Barbara R. Foorman is professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas Medical School in Houston. Ingvar Lundberg is professor in the department of psychology at Göteborg University in Sweden. Terri Beeler is assistant professor of urban education at the University of Houston's downtown campus. This article and the classroom activities that follow are drawn from the authors' book Phonemic Awareness in Young Children: A Classroom Curriculum, copyright © by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc. Reprinted with permission. The book may be ordered directly by writing the publisher (P.O. Box 10624, Baltimore, MD 21285-0624) or by visiting their website (www.pbrookes.com). The price is $24.95. Free shipping and handling with prepayment. Ask for stock #3211.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Whether performed silently or aloud," Marilyn Adams recently wrote, "reading an alphabetic script with fluency and reflective comprehension incontrovertibly depends on...remarkably rich and over­ learned knowledge of the language's spellings and spelling-speech mappings....[But] despite myriad proposals to make it easier, alphabetic instruction has been dogged by one problem: Many students find it extremely difficult to induce the words from the code, no matter how they are drilled on the individual letters and sounds."

# data[].attributes.headline
evidence that oral vocabulary supports the formation of spelling expectations

# data[].attributes.subject
evidence that oral vocabulary supports the formation of spelling expectations

# data[].attributes.body
abstract

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Highlights

*

Children form expectations about the spellings of orally known words.

*

Eye movements during reading of novel written words reveal these expectancies.

*

Spelling expectancies are evident the first and second time a novel word is read.

*

By the third reading, spelling expectancies show evidence of updating.

*

Oral vocabulary knowledge benefits longer term retention of written words.

Abstract

Literate children can generate expectations about the spellings of newly learned words that they have not yet seen in print. These initial spelling expectations, or orthographic skeletons, have previously been observed at the first orthographic exposure to known spoken words. Here, we asked what happens to the orthographic skeleton over repeated visual exposures. Children in Grade 4 ( N = 38) were taught the pronunciations and meanings of one set of 16 novel words, whereas another set were untrained. Spellings of half the items were predictable from their phonology (e.g., nesh), whereas the other half were less predictable (e.g., koyb). Trained and untrained items were subsequently shown in print, embedded in sentences, and eye movements were monitored as children silently read all items over three exposures. A larger effect of spelling predictability for orally trained items compared with untrained items was observed at the first and second orthographic exposures, consistent with the notion that oral vocabulary knowledge had facilitated the formation of spelling expectations. By the third orthographic exposure, this interaction was no longer significant, suggesting that visual experience had begun to update children's spelling expectations. Delayed follow-up testing revealed that when visual exposure was equated, oral training provided a strong persisting benefit to children's written word recognition. Findings suggest that visual exposure can alter children's developing orthographic representations and that this process can be captured dynamically as children read novel words over repeated visual exposures.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tracking the evolution of orthographic expectancies over building visual experience

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Children form expectations about the spellings of orally known words. * Eye movements during reading of novel written words reveal these expectancies. * Spelling expectancies are evident the first and second time a novel word is read. * By the third reading, spelling expectancies show evidence of updating.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Logic of English Online offers practical strategies and skills that you can implement with your students today. Logic of English creates integrated Language Arts programs and literacy resources that are changing the way reading is taught by providing the world with tools that explain 98% of English words!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome to our library of free Templates and Printables!

You must be a free member to access this page, please log in below to gain access.

If you lost your password click the 'Lost your password?' button below
Lost your password?

If you are not currently a member, please sign up below.

By becoming a member of this library, you will automatically be signed up to receive our newsletter. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Please forward any questions or comments to info@keystoliteracy.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to our library of free Templates and Printables! You must be a free member to access this page, please log in below to gain access. If you lost your password click the 'Lost your password?' button below Lost your password? If you are not currently a member, please sign up below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our teacher lives are complex and demanding enough. Having a consistent framework helps simplify our planning, and meets a requirement of systematic instruction - a routine that fills teacher and student need for consistency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top Ten Tools | Reading Teachers Top Ten Tools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our teacher lives are complex and demanding enough. Having a consistent framework helps simplify our planning, and meets a requirement of systematic instruction - a routine that fills teacher and student need for consistency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Demand Webinar Series with Dr. Susan Hall

Are you looking for ways to improve and sustain the success of your MTSS/RTI framework in your school? Or, have you started the MTSS process and faced challeng es you weren't expecting? What are schools that are getting good results doing? When results are unimpressive, what's missing?

In her latest publication, 10 Success Factors for Literacy Intervention: Getting Results in Elementary Schools, author and reading intervention expert Dr. Susan Hall answers these persistent questions. Dr. Hall's work with schools across the United States led to the development of a list of 10 success factors observable in schools that are showing significant gains in student literacy with MTSS.

During the webinars, Dr. Hall candidly shares her experience helping school districts successfully implement and sustain effective processes on elementary campuses. She'll also highlight how leaders manage MTSS and make key decisions that improve the implementation process.
Webinar #1: SUCCESS FACTORS 1-5
What are the first five elements that need to be in place to begin and ensure a successful MTSS implementation?
Webinar #2: SUCCESS FACTORS 6-10 & Wrap Up
What does it take to keep your MTSS Implementation process moving forward? Learn how to INSPECT what you EXPECT by conducting snapshot observations.

No matter w here you are with MTSS, just starting out or fully implemented, the 10 Success Factors webinars will provide strate gies and tips for delivering a continuum of support to match student needs.

Now you can view both webinars at your convenience and share this information with your colleagues.

With our 10 Success Factors Book Study Bundle , educators have the collective opportunity to read 10 Success Factors while closely examining their school's current MTSS practices, identifying opportunities for improvement, and engaging in collaborative discussions that will ultimately lead to the development of a site-based MTSS Action Plan.

The 10 Success Factors Book Bundle (GN 9013), a $50 value, includes a Facilitator's Guide and ten Reader's Guides - and is automatically included with the purchase of ten copies of 10 Success Factors for Literacy Intervention. The bundle is also available for individual purchase in our web store. Click here for more information.
About Susan Hall, Ed.D.
Dr. Susan Hall, CEO and Co-Founder of 95 Percent Group, is a nationally recognized leader in RTI, data analysis, a nd r eading instruction.

Dr. Hall has been a nationally certified trainer of DIBELS and LETERS. She is the author of several books including Implementing Response to Intervention: A Principal's Guide; I've DIBEL'd Now What? and Jumpstart RTI: Using RTI in Your Elementary School Right Now. She also co-authored two books with Louisa Moats, Straight Talk About Reading and Parenting a Struggling Reader, as well as LETRS Module 7: Teaching Phonics, Word Study, and the Alphabetic Principle, 2nd Edition. Her eighth book, 10 Success Factors for Literacy Intervention: Getting Results with MTSS in Elementary Schools was just released by ASCD in July 2018.

to order a copy of 10 Success Factors for Literacy Intervention: Getting Results in Elementary Schools from our web store.

Contact us at info@95percentgroup.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Demand Webinar Series with Dr. Susan Hall Are you looking for ways to improve and sustain the success of your MTSS/RTI framework in your school? Or, have you started the MTSS process and faced challeng es you weren't expecting? What are schools that are getting good results doing?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TM

Elemeno's mission is to help all readers crack the alphabetic code. We do this by taking cutting-edge research from the lab and developing technology for teachers, parents, and service providers. Check out the solutions we are developing for creating, leveling, and aligning text to students, assessing decoding skill, and making sense of reading errors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TM Elemeno's mission is to help all readers crack the alphabetic code. We do this by taking cutting-edge research from the lab and developing technology for teachers, parents, and service providers. Check out the solutions we are developing for creating, leveling, and aligning text to students, assessing decoding skill, and making sense of reading errors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FREE Beautiful Online Decodable Phonics Books for Early Readers and Dyslexia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here's a great resource of free decodable books and stories found online. I use these fabulous readers as supplements with my students that I tutor reading online. All early readers can benefit from using decodable texts. Decodable texts are essential for dyslexic students. Contact Lisa at abctutorusa@gmail.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Geodes: Building Knowledge One Child at a Time

Geodes are the first early literacy texts that unite phonics with exciting content and beautiful art so students learn more than just how to read. They learn to wonder, to decode, and to know.

With every Geodes text, knowledge opens up.

Rich with research-based facts and information about the world outside of the classroom, Geodes establish confidence in children as they see themselves graduate from pictures to sounds to words to books.

Request a Sample

Geodes are authored and illustrated by some of the best writers and artists around the world.

Sign Up for an Overview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Geodes: Building Knowledge One Child at a Time Rich with research-based facts and information about the world outside of the classroom, Geodes establish confidence in children as they see themselves graduate from pictures to sounds to words to books. Request a Sample Geodes are authored and illustrated by some of the best writers and artists around the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this special Reading Rockets video series, reading expert Linda Farrell works one-on-one with students in grades K-3 to help ensure that they master the skills they need to become proficient readers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Flyleaf Publishing - Online Materials Portal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This portal is offered as a free resource through the 2023-2024 school year.

There are two areas of the site, one for Students and one for Instructors. Materials are organized by our Foundational Skills Scope & Sequence, and can be quickly navigated using the Menu at the top of the page.

If you would like more information about Flyleaf products, please visit flyleafpublishing.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home - Flyleaf Publishing - Online Materials Portal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Online Materials PortalThis portal is offered as a free resource through the 2023-2024 school year. There are two areas of the site, one for Students and one for Instructors. Materials are organized by our Foundational Skills Scope & Sequence, and can be quickly navigated using the Menu at the top of the page.