# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Blast from the past: Teacher question: Shanahan response:
I teach 4th-grade general education. I have read several of your articles the last few days because I have a growing frustration regarding guided reading. I believe a lot of your ideas about what does not work are correct, but I don't understand what you believe we SHOULD be doing. I am confused about how to give students difficult textbooks to read without reading it to them. I thought I was doing what I was supposed to be doing. I do not know how to scaffold science or social studies text for students that are 2 years behind without reading it to them. I also feel pressure in these subjects to read it to them because I thought it was more important for them to understand the information thoroughly by reading the text aloud, having thoughtful discussions, and follow up activities. Every time I think I know what I should be doing, I read another article and realize that I am doing that wrong too. So, please give me guidance on how to best to teach nonfiction and fiction text to my class whole group. What strategies and types of activities are the best? Originally posted February 2, 2013; re-issued October 12, 2024. Over the past 15 years, I have issued several blogs concerning the value of teaching students to read more challenging texts than we have used in instruction in the past. Despite a growing body of evidence showing that teaching students at their "instructional reading level" provides no learning benefits - and that sometimes it limits learning - most teachers continue to avoid challenging text by moving kids to easier text, reading texts to the students, or replacing texts with other sources of information (e.g., videos, teacher presentations). Given that I thought it would be a good idea to reissue this one. Oh, and by the way, I just completed writing a book on this topic. It will be published by Harvard Education Press early in 2025.
I feel your pain. What would it look like to scaffold a fourth-grade lesson from a social studies book with children who are reading at second-grade level? There are several possibilities.

First, I would "level" (pun intended) with the kids. I would not try to hide from them that I was going to ask them to read a book that in the past we would have avoided. The point here is motivation. People like a challenge and kids are people. When you ask them to take on something hard, let them in on the secret so they can take on the challenge with the right mindset and so they can be proud of themselves when they manage to meet the challenge - and we will make sure that they meet the challenge.

Second, it is essential that the teacher read the chapter before the kids do. We need to identify the linguistic, conceptual, and textual features that may be the source of their difficulty. Look out for ideas that you think will be especially complicated, subtle, or abstract, assumptions of background knowledge that you think your students lack, unknown vocabulary, complicated sentences, cohesive links that might be hard to track, organizational structure that students might ignore, and so on. Basically, you are trying to figure out what might make this text hard for your students to comprehend.

I'm willing to head off or avoid a problem if I think the students cannot surmount it. For instance, if there is a word that I think the students will not know and the author doesn't define it, the context doesn't reveal its meaning, or it can't be figured out from morphology, then I am willing to familiarize the kids with it prior to reading. However, if it is possible to gain its meaning from the text, I will not try to avoid the problem. I'd rather that they miss it, which will allow me to teach kids how to take it on successfully. Teachers must decide which problems to solve for the kids and which to guide them to fix themselves. The real learning will come from the latter.
References
Third, the scaffolding described above will likely require some rereading-either of the whole chapter (fourth-grade science and social studies chapters can be surprisingly short, so rereading the entire chapter is usually not that big a deal). Thus, they try to read it; I question them and help them work through the problems; and then they reread it (perhaps more than once), to see if they can figure it out the second or third time.

Fourth, if your kids' reading levels are more than a year or two below the level of the book that you are trying to teach, consider starting with fluency work. Have those students read the text aloud, once or twice before the lesson aimed at comprehension of the text. This can be done many ways (e.g., having partners practice reading the social studies text during their ELA fluency time, getting parents involved, including this kind of practice in a Tier 2 intervention). The point of the fluency work is to reduce the amount of basic reading struggle - the reading of the words - that these students may face. Once they have engaged in the fluency practice, these students should read the text along with the rest of the class. They will benefit from the same comprehension scaffolds noted above.

What you are trying to do with this encouragement, fluency work, and comprehension scaffolding is to enable the students to read the text that they are sure to struggle with. You can monitor their learning by how much improvement you see in their reading of each text. But remember your goal is not to avoid difficulty but to enable students to surmount difficulty. That means that you don't shift kids to texts at their supposed levels, you don't read the texts to the kids, and you don't go around the text by telling them what it says.

Shanahan, T. (In press). Leveled Readers, Leveled Lives. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Can I Teach with Books that are Two Years Above Student Reading Levels? | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This blog explains how teachers can teach students to read with books that are at the students’ supposed “instructional level.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Copy of Example: G2 Shared Reading Planning Menu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Possibilities for Writing about Reading for early primary...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EKC Community Resources: ASH Sem. 1 - 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EKC Community Resources: ASH Sem. 1 - 2024

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After more than 20 years as the neglected goal of reading instruction (Allington, 1983; NICHD, 2000), fluency has finally become the hot topic among reading researchers, professional development providers, and teachers. These days it is rare to pick up a reading journal, attend a professional conference, or sit in a faculty staff room at a school without hearing someone discussing reading fluency. Surely most every educator has heard the message that if students aren't sufficiently fluent in their reading, they won't have sufficient comprehension. Given this clear statement-supported by a strong consensus of high-quality research studies-teachers and administrators everywhere are searching for ideas to help their students become fluent readers.

As someone who has conducted research on fluency over the past two decades, I find the current buzz both promising and troubling. As I will explain, fluency is a vital reading skill, but the buzz around fluency is reaching deafening levels-and crucial details from the research are being overlooked. As a result, schools across the country are putting significant amounts of time and effort into two instructional strategies for improving fluency that the research does not support: silent reading and Round Robin Reading (RRR). Developing fluency among struggling readers takes more intensive, carefully guided practice than either of these strategies can deliver. Let's take a quick look at how these ineffective strategies became so popular and move on to an in-depth discussion of what reading fluency really is and how teachers can help their struggling students.

Marilyn Jager Adams (1990) stated in her noteworthy synthesis of reading research that "if we want children to read well, we must find a way to induce them to read lots" (p. 5). Many educators took this statement to heart and made the leap to the idea that one great way to help students do a lot of reading would be to have them read in the classroom. Methods labeled "sustained silent reading" (SSR) or "drop everything and read" (DEAR) became commonplace in schools across the country. Some schools encouraged teachers to spend significant amounts of classroom time having the students-and often the teacher as well-read silently up to 30 minutes a day, plus an additional 15 minutes in writing personal reflections on what was read (Sierra-Perry, 1996). What some SSR and DEAR proponents may have missed is Adams's follow-up statement: "if we want to induce children to read lots, we must also teach them to read well" (1990, p. 5).

Of course, not all educators got swept up in the excitement around SSR and DEAR; some questioned if devoting this much time to unassisted, independent reading and writing could really be beneficial for all students. What about those students who struggle with basic reading skills and who may not use their silent reading time well-either wasting time by doing little to no reading or writing, or trying to read materials that cause frustration because they are too difficult? As it turns out, such concerns are justified. The National Reading Panel* (NRP) concluded there is insufficient support from empirical research to suggest that independent, silent reading can be used to help students improve their fluency (NICHD, 2000). (Note that the NRP did not say that it has no benefits, just that evidence does not suggest it improves fluency. So, if some students are fluent readers, they could read silently while the teacher works with the struggling readers.)

Instead of independent silent reading, the NRP (NICHD, 2000) concluded that teachers should provide opportunities for students to read aloud with some guidance and feedback. One way some teachers have provided this kind of oral reading practice in their classrooms is with a method that has long been used in classrooms: Round Robin Reading. RRR involves having individual students in a group take turns reading aloud from text. While RRR can be used to read narrative passages, it is also frequently employed by content area teachers who have students take turns reading aloud all or part of a chapter in a social studies or science textbook.

A common rationale for using RRR in a classroom-along with providing the oral guided reading recommended by the NRP-is that in some classes there are students who would not be able or motivated to read a literature passage or a chapter from their textbook by themselves. RRR is seen as a way for a teacher to ensure that every student is in fact reading, and if there are some difficult words or concepts, the teacher is available to provide support.

Despite the popularity and longevity of RRR, upon reflection there are clearly several downsides to using this method. Perhaps the most obvious concern is how the requirement to read aloud to classmates can put students-especially those who struggle with reading-in a position of being humiliated and demoralized by displaying their weak skills in front of their peers. Their more skilled peers may feel uncomfortable as well, and are subjected to listening to poor examples of reading. Another concern about RRR is the very minimal practice provided by this method. If there are more than a small number of students in the group, each individual student is only reading for a very short period of time, which is clearly insufficient to make any difference in fluency. In addition, it is questionable as to whether or not the students who are not reading aloud are actually paying attention. RRR can be most accurately viewed as a way to "cover" written text, but it is difficult to justify its use given these considerable weaknesses.

* * *

Since the importance of fluency has become widely recognized, teachers have been doing their best to improve students' fluency. But, as we have just seen, sometimes the information they have to work with is incomplete and, therefore, leads them down the wrong path. Silent reading seems like a good idea since it gives students additional practice. Round Robin seems like a good idea since it focuses the class on oral reading. But increasing fluency requires more practice, more support, and more guided oral reading than either of these strategies can deliver.

Let's cut through the buzz around fluency and review what reading fluency is, why it is essential to ensure that our students have sufficient fluency, how fluency should be assessed, and how to best provide fluency practice and support for our students. We'll start by defining fluency.

I. Understanding and Assessing Fluency

While the National Reading Panel's definition of fluency as the ability to read text with accuracy, appropriate rate, and good expression (NICHD, 2000) is widely accepted among fluency researchers, these experts continue to debate the more subtle aspects of fluency (Stecker, Roser, and Martinez, 1998; Wolf and Katzir-Cohen, 2001). However it is defined, this much is certain: Fluency is necessary, but not sufficient, for understanding the meaning of text. When children read too slowly or haltingly, the text devolves into a broken string of words and/or phrases; it's a struggle just to remember what's been read, much less extract its meaning. So it's important that teachers determine if their students' fluency is at a level appropriate for their grade. If not, how should it be developed? If a student is appropriately fluent for her grade level, how does a teacher help maintain that student's fluency? And, how does a teacher make these determinations? This process begins with assessments of the component pieces of fluency: prosody, accuracy, and rate.

The exact role of expression and phrasing-or prosody-in fluency and comprehension has not yet been determined, but it certainly is one element that signifies whether or not a student is truly a fluent reader. To measure the quality of a student's reading prosody, some educators rely on the four-level scale first developed for the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading (Daane, Campbell, Grigg, Goodman, and Oranje, 2005). This scale focuses on the level of skill a student demonstrates in phrasing and expression while reading aloud (see below). After listening to an individual student read aloud, the educator rates the student's reading according to the level that best describes the student's overall performance.

National Assessment of Educational Progress Fluency Scale

Fluent

Level 4

Reads primarily in larger, meaningful phrase groups. Although some regressions, repetitions, and deviations from text may be present, these do not appear to detract from the overall structure of the story. Preservation of the author's syntax is consistent. Some or most of the story is read with expressive interpretation.

Level 3

Reads primarily in three- or four-word phrase groups. Some small groupings may be present. However, the majority of phrasing seems appropriate and preserves the syntax of the author. Little or no expressive interpretation is present.

Non-Fluent

Level 2

Reads primarily in two-word phrases with some three- or four-word groupings. Some word-by-word reading may be present. Word groupings may seem awkward and unrelated to larger context of sentence or passage.

Level 1

Reads primarily word-by-word. Occasional two-word or three-word phrases may occur-but these are infrequent and/or they do not preserve meaningful syntax.

A checklist developed by Hudson, Lane and Pullen (2005, p. 707) provides a more detailed assessment of a student's prosody:

1. Student placed vocal emphasis on appropriate words.

2. Student's voice tone rose and fell at appropriate points in the text.

3. Student's inflection reflected the punctuation in the text (e.g., voice tone rose near the end of a question).

4. In narrative text with dialogue, student used appropriate vocal tone to represent characters' mental states, such as excitement, sadness, fear, or confidence.

5. Student used punctuation to pause appropriately at phrase boundaries.

6. Student used prepositional phrases to pause appropriately at phrase boundaries.

7. Student used subject-verb divisions to pause appropriately at phrase boundaries.

8. Student used conjunctions to pause appropriately at phrase boundaries.

Although most researchers consider prosody important, the subjectivity of judging students' prosody makes it a difficult component of fluency to study. Many researchers have focused on the more easily quantifiable components of fluency (rate and accuracy) and, therefore, some basic questions about prosody-like what should be expected in second grade versus sixth grade-have not been answered. Nevertheless, students' prosody is an extra piece of information for making instructional decisions. When students' speed and accuracy are at appropriate levels, reading with proper phrasing, expression, and intonation should be the next goal.

To measure students' oral reading speed and accuracy, researchers have developed a simple and very brief procedure that uses regular classroom texts to determine the number of words that students can read correctly in one minute. To obtain a words-correct-per-minute (WCPM) score, students are assessed individually as they read aloud for one minute from an unpracticed passage of text.

To calculate the WCPM score, the examiner subtracts the total number of errors from the total number of words read in one minute. An error includes any word that is omitted, mispronounced, or substituted for another word. Words transposed in a phrase count as two errors (e.g., reading "laughed and played" instead of "played and laughed"). Each time a word is read incorrectly it is counted as an error. Words read correctly that are repeated more than once, errors self-corrected by the student, words inserted by the student that do not appear in the text, and words mispronounced due to dialect or speech impairments are not counted as errors. They do, however, impact the final score since they slow the student down and, therefore, reduce the number of words that are read correctly in one minute (Shinn, 1989).

If the passage is randomly selected from a text or trade book, an average score should be taken from readings of two or three different passages to account for any text-based differences. If standardized passages are used (in which the text has been carefully controlled for difficulty), a score from a single passage may be sufficient (Hintze and Christ, 2004). Standardized passages can be found in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills-DIBELS (Good and Kaminski, 2002), the Reading Fluency Benchmark (Read Naturally, 2002), or Edformation's AIMSWeb materials.

To determine if the student's score is on target, the examiner compares it to the oral reading fluency norms (see the sidebar " Screening, Diagnosing, and Progress Monitoring: The Details"). My colleague Gerald Tindal and I (2006) developed these national norms for grades one to eight by analyzing data that were collected using the procedures just described with over 200,000 students from 23 states. It's critical to understand, as explained in the next section and in the sidebar above, that a WCPM score can be an alarm bell, a canary in a coal mine. If the WCPM is very low, the student is not sufficiently fluent and an intervention is merited. However, a low WCPM score may be the result of weak fluency skills or other reading weaknesses, for example, in decoding, vocabulary, sight words, etc.-so administering some diagnostic assessments may be necessary to determine exactly what type of intervention a student needs.
The Canary in the Coal Mine
With all the assessments schools are required to administer as a result of No Child Left Behind, Reading First, and numerous statewide and district initiatives, some educators are concerned about over-testing students. They ask: "How can we justify spending so much precious instructional time testing our students over and over again?" This concern is certainly legitimate. The purpose of having our students in school is to teach them, not to test them. However, as professional educators, it is imperative that we make decisions about the instruction we provide our students based on the best information available. The WCPM procedure just described is an extremely time-efficient and reliable way to track students' fluency- and their overall reading ability. While it may be surprising that a one-minute assessment can be so informative, WCPM has been shown, in both theoretical and empirical research, to serve as an accurate and powerful indicator of overall reading competence-especially through its strong correlation with comprehension. Its validity and reliability have been well established in a body of research extending over the past 25 years (Fuchs et al., 2001; Shinn, 1998). The relationship between WCPM and comprehension has been found to be stronger in the elementary and junior high grades than in older students (Fuchs et al., 2001), likely due to the fact that as a reader matures, competent reading involves more complex skills, vocabulary, and knowledge (and thus any single measure becomes less predictive of general reading competence as a student develops).

Teachers can and should use WCPM as their canary in the coal mine-their first indicator that all may not be well with their students' reading ability. In first through fifth grade, WCPM should be used to screen all students, help to diagnose a possible cause of struggling students' problems, and to monitor the progress of struggling students who are receiving additional support. To learn how, see the sidebar mentioned above.

* * *

With this understanding of what fluency is and how to assess it, let's turn to the questions that teachers are always most interested in: What should fluency instruction look like? And, what can I do to help students whose fluency is far behind their peers'?

II. Developing Fluent Readers

Research over the past two decades has identified repeated reading as the key strategy for improving students' fluency skills (NICHD, 2000). Repeated reading has two essential elements: 1) Giving students the opportunity to read and then re-read the same text, and 2) having students practice their reading orally with an opportunity to receive corrections and guidance (if necessary). Research has also determined that having students read aloud along with a model of well-paced, expressive reading and receiving specific feedback through systematic progress monitoring also helps improve students' fluency skills. So, what are the best methods to use in the classroom to help students become fluent? The answer depends on whether the student is just beginning to read, has learned to read and is making adequate progress, or is struggling. Let's start with beginning readers, those students in kindergarten and grade one.
Teaching Beginning Readers to Become Fluent
Because accuracy is a fundamental component of fluency, teachers who work with beginning readers must focus significant amounts of instructional time on basic word recognition and word analysis skills (Pikulski and Chard, 2005). To do this effectively, teachers should provide instruction that systematically presents daily opportunities for students to learn to read words accurately (Snow, Burns, and Griffith, 1998)-the important first step in becoming a skillful, proficient, and motivated reader. Pushing students to "read faster" too soon could cause some students to begin guessing or otherwise undermine their focus on reading carefully.

There is no guidance from empirical research about precisely when teachers should formally begin encouraging beginning readers to increase their speed, but teachers usually wait until about the middle of first grade. Fluency researchers Stahl and Kuhn (2002) recommend that students be given opportunities to re-read sentences and encouraged to make their reading "sound like talking" as soon as they are making good progress with basic decoding, demonstrating an understanding of the act of reading, and showing some degree of confidence-whether that happens in kindergarten or in first grade. Teachers and parents should also frequently model fluent reading, demonstrating (and sometimes explicitly pointing out) how accurate reading can be done at a reasonable rate and with good phrasing, intonation, and expression. In the classroom, the teacher can read aloud from large-format books so the students can follow along.
Maintaining Reading Fluency for On-Level Readers
What about students in grades two and higher who are making adequate progress with their reading? Three techniques can be used very frequently with a variety of texts to help maintain and develop students' reading fluency: Choral reading, cloze reading, and partner reading. All of these procedures can be used with readers at any grade level, with small or large groups, and with fiction or content-heavy nonfiction materials. Two additional techniques can also be considered for use: Readers' Theater and poetry readings. Let's review each.

For choral reading, the teacher and students read aloud together, following the teacher's pace-so students get the benefit of a model while they practice reading aloud. The teacher can stop at any time to ask questions, comment on the text, discuss a vocabulary term, or remind the class that she expects everyone to be reading. If choral reading is used with heterogeneously grouped students, it is possible that the lowest performing students may have difficulty keeping up with even a moderate pace. However, they can follow along, participating when they can, and still hear the text being read accurately and with good pacing and phrasing. Choral reading works best if the teacher directs all students-regardless of age or ability level-to use a marker or finger to follow along in the text as they read.

Cloze reading is similar to choral reading, except that the teacher does most of the oral reading while the students read along silently. Once or twice every few sentences, the teacher omits an important vocabulary or content word, not a simple sight word, and the students' job is to read it aloud as a class. Notice that with cloze reading, as opposed to choral reading, students spend less time practicing oral reading. Therefore, cloze reading is best thought of as an alternative to Round Robin Reading. Cloze reading allows teachers to cover text and keep students engaged while avoiding the pitfalls of subjecting the class to examples of poor reading and embarrassing struggling students. As with choral reading, it is likely that the lowest performing readers will be unable to keep up or to correctly read every omitted word, but they will not be singled out-and will be provided with examples of skillful reading.

Another method for improving fluency is to have students read aloud to a partner. This procedure works best when students are taught some techniques for giving feedback and managing their time, and when the partners have been selected by the teacher. One technique for assigning partners is for teachers to first rank the students from the strongest reader in the class to the weakest (making judgments subjectively or from assessment data) and then consider whether there are students whose reading ability is so low that partner reading may be inappropriate. (These students could meet with the teacher for more direct instruction or closely supported partner reading while the other students do independent partner reading.) The teacher then divides the remaining students in half, forming pairs such that the strongest reader is paired with a mid-level reader, and so on, ensuring that each pair has a slightly stronger reader, but that the difference in the students' ability is not so large as to cause embarrassment or confusion.

At times, the stronger reader may be directed to read first, providing a model of fluent reading. Then the less fluent reader reads the same text aloud. The stronger student can help with word recognition and give feedback and encouragement to the less fluent partner. Another effective technique pairs students who read at the same level and asks them to re-read a story on which they have already received instruction from the teacher (Osborn and Lehr, 2004).

Readers' Theater and poetry readings-both of which engage students in a reading performance-have become popular over the last few years. Much has been written about Readers' Theater in particular, and about the apparent value of having students participate in dramatic readings (Rasinski, 2006). These kinds of activities provide students with an opportunity to read text that is enjoyable-and provides a clear incentive for students to read, and re-read, their assigned parts or poem. However, while these techniques are motivating, teachers should not assume that either one could possibly provide as much practice for the whole class as choral or partner reading, much less anything close to the amount of instruction and practice necessary for struggling students to improve their fluency.
Improving Struggling Readers' Fluency: Suggestions for Intervention
The research literature provides some clear directions on what to do with struggling readers: Interventions must combine the modeling, repeated reading, and feedback that research has demonstrated effective (Shaywitz, 2003). Several commercial programs have been developed, including Read Naturally (Ihnot, 1991), the Six Minute Solution (Adams and Brown, 2003), Quick Reads (Heibert, 2002), and the Great Leaps Reading program (Campbell, 1996). Each of these programs includes at least some of the instructional components that have been shown to improve students' reading fluency and has its own approach to student engagement.

Unfortunately, research that directly compares the effectiveness of these various programs has yet to be done. In my own review of the available research, I've concluded that the strategy developed by Read Naturally makes the best use of the research base on fluency and has the strongest evidence of effectiveness as a fluency intervention. And, in using the Read Naturally strategy with students in many different grade levels, I've found that it engages them in the repeated reading they so desperately need. (However, I encourage readers to keep in mind that over the next several years, research may provide evidence of effectiveness on these other programs that equals or surpasses that of the Read Naturally strategy.)

The Read Naturally (RN) strategy was developed by Candyce Ihnot, a Title I reading teacher from Minneapolis. Candyce developed and tested it in 1989 as part of her master's thesis in special education. After finding that her approach was effective with struggling students in her school, Candyce and her husband, Tom Ihnot, developed a set of instructional materials that are commercially available from their company, Read Naturally, Inc.

To implement the RN strategy, students' fluency levels (WCPM) are assessed to place students at an appropriate instructional level. The teacher then helps each student set a reasonable, achievable fluency goal (approximately 80-90 WCPM for primary students or older students reading at a primary level; from 90-120 WCPM for upper elementary students).

Instruction begins with an unpracticed, "cold reading" of a student-selected passage from the targeted level. Passages may range in length from approximately 100 words at the mid-first-grade level to 350 words at the sixth-grade level. As they read, students use a timer and keep track of the words they skip or stumble over (by lightly underlining the problem word). They then calculate their WCPM and graph this first, unpracticed WCPM score on a bar graph.

In step two, students practice reading this same passage three to four times along with a model to learn how to accurately pronounce all the words in the text. This step is not timed, and the students read the entire passage. The modeled reading can come from a recording or a person trained to read the passage at a rate that is comfortable for the student. The key here is that a student does not just listen to the model, but actually reads aloud (softly) with the narrator's voice, giving full attention to the text. Encouraging students to point to the text being read and informing them that they will be responsible for answering a set of comprehension questions after completing all the steps in the strategy helps students stay focused.

Once students feel comfortable with the text, they begin step three in which they read the text independently, again aloud, but softly. Students set a timer for one minute and read the text several times until they are comfortably reaching their predetermined goal level-and are ready to be checked by the teacher. (Having some kind of silent signal for the teacher such as a flag or colored card at the students' desk can help manage this step.) Students keep practicing the passage until the teacher can meet with them because this maximizes their engaged practice time-a key to improved skills in low-performing students (Brophy, 1988).

In the final step, the student reads for the teacher, who then calculates the WCPM score. The student "passes" if four criteria are met: 1) the WCPM score meets or exceeds the predetermined goal; 2) three or fewer errors are made; 3) the student reads the passage with correct phrasing and attention to punctuation; and, 4) the student can correctly answer a few comprehension questions. When students do not pass, they continue practicing this same text. When they do pass, they graph their new score onto the same bar with their initial, unpracticed score, using a different colored pencil or marker. This graph gives tangible evidence to the students that they are improving-and keeps motivation high by showing them that their own effort makes the difference. (For an external check on progress, the teacher should also periodically assess students' performance on an unpracticed passage by following the progress monitoring procedure described in the sidebar mentioned above.)

Students repeat these steps until they complete 10-12 passages of equivalent difficulty. At that point the student and teacher collaboratively examine the data on the student's graph to decide what step to take next. If the student is making steady progress in the current level, but is not yet approaching his goal level on the first, unpracticed reading, he should stay in that same level for another 10-12 passages. If the student's first unpracticed readings are occasionally meeting or approaching the goal, the teacher and student may decide to move the student up to the next level of difficulty with the same goal, or stay in the current level of difficulty and raise the "pass" goal a bit higher. Of course, if at any time the student is having difficulty reading at the goal level after the practice readings, the decision can be made to move the student down to an easier level or make a downward adjustment in the WCPM goal.

In addition to requiring the students to answer a set of comprehension questions at the end of each passage, some teachers have added other comprehension activities to this process, such as having the students write a five-minute re-tell response after each passage.

Using the RN strategy for 20-30 minutes per day, for three or more days per week, can have a significant impact on improving students' reading fluency. In two studies reported on by Hasbrouck, Ihnot, and Rogers (1999), second- and third-grade Title I students, as well as sixth-grade special education students, showed significant improvement in their fluency. The second- and third-graders received, on average, 32 weeks of RN instruction. From fall to spring, the second-graders' average WCPM increased from 17.9 to 71.6, meaning that they moved from well below the 25th percentile to well above it (see norms table, p. 29); they showed an average gain of 1.68 WCPM per week, much greater than the 1.2 WCPM per week gain that second-graders typically make. Third-grade students had similar results. From fall to spring, their average WCPM increased from 42 to 93, meaning that they moved from just below the 25th percentile to well above it; they gained 1.60 WCPM per week, as compared to the typical growth of 1.1 WCPM per week. The study of sixth-grade special education students also found significant improvements. These students were reading at levels ranging from grade 1.5 to 4.0. They received RN instruction in a special education class for 20 to 32 weeks and improved their fluency by an average of 1.4 WCPM per week, which is double the 0.7 words per week that sixth-graders typically gain.

* * *

I would like to add two caveats regarding reading fluency. First, as this skill has recently garnered greater attention, and awareness of the link between fluency and comprehension has grown, there appears to be a tendency for some to believe that raising a student's fluency score is the main goal of reading instruction. As important as fluency is, and as valuable as the information obtained from fluency-based assessments can be for instructional decision-making, I want to caution teachers and administrators to keep fluency and fluency-based assessment scores in perspective. The ability to read text accurately, at a reasonable rate, and with appropriate expression and phrasing is certainly a key factor in being able to understand what has been read and to enjoy the process of reading. Nonetheless, fluency is only one of the key components of reading. I urge teachers to use the 50th percentile as a reasonable level of proficiency for students, and keep in mind that it is appropriate and expected for students to adjust their rate when reading texts of varying difficulty and for varied purposes. Pushing every student to reach the 90th or even the 75th percentile in fluency is not feasible or necessary and, for students at or above the expected level in fluency, the instructional time could be better spent by enhancing other critical aspects of reading, such as increasing their vocabulary and becoming better at monitoring their comprehension.

The second caveat is that we still have much to learn about fluency. Ongoing debates in the research community include questions regarding the value of reading lists of words versus sentences and paragraphs; repeated reading of the same passage versus reading several different passages that have lots of the same vocabulary; the nature of the text in which students would benefit most for fluency practice (i.e., narrative or expository, randomly selected or highly controlled passages); the exact role of silent reading in a comprehensive reading instructional program; the role of prosody in the impact of fluency on text comprehension, etc. For example, we know that the ability to instantaneously recognize high-frequency sight words is an essential element of fluent reading. Researchers continue to explore whether or not having students practice reading word lists or passages is the more efficient way to develop this automaticity. Until research provides a definitive answer, having students orally read passages seems more beneficial because of the added opportunity to work on prosody and comprehension. Likewise, we know that repeated reading of a single passage is highly effective, but it is not clear whether or not a set of passages on a single topic that has been carefully written with a large number of repeated words could be equally or even more effective. If reading a set of passages turns out to be as effective as re-reading a single passage, the set could conceivably be used to enhance students' fluency, vocabulary, and domain knowledge simultaneously.

We will leave researchers to continue their valuable efforts to address these important but yet-to-be-answered questions. However, this article should help practitioners feel confident that there is sufficient guidance from research to support the use of fluency-based assessments in their professional data-collection procedures, and to select instructional practices for both those students who are on-track and those who are struggling to develop the essential skill of reading fluency.

Jan Hasbrouck is president of JH Consulting, as well as an affiliate of the Behavioral Research and Teaching Group at the University of Oregon. Her most recent book, which she co-authored with Carolyn Denton, is The Reading Coach: A How-To Manual for Success.

*In 1997, the U.S. Congress asked the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to convene a group of experts to assess the effectiveness of different approaches used to teach children to read. This group, called the National Reading Panel (NRP), spent more than two years reviewing research; their resulting report, completed in 2000, is widely considered the single best source for information on how-and how not-to teach reading. ( back to article)

†Comprehension depends on reading skills (like decoding and fluency), but it also depends on vocabulary and background knowledge. To learn more about comprehension, see "Building Knowledge: The Case for Bringing Content into the Language Arts Block and for a Knowledge-Rich Curriculum Core for All Children" by E. D. Hirsch, Jr., in the Spring 2006 issue of American Educator. ( back to article)

‡There are also screening assessments that should be administered as early as kindergarten, to determine if students are on track for reading achievement. To learn more, see "Preventing Early Reading Failure" in the Fall 2004 issue of American Educator. ( back to article)

References

Adams, G.N. and Brown, S. (2003). The Six-minute solution. Longmont, Colo.:Sopris West.

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.

Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal in reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 36, 556-561.

Brophy, J.E. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classroom and students. Teacher and Teacher Education 4(1), 1-18.

Campbell, K. (1996). Great Leaps Reading Program.

Daane, M.C., Campbell, J.R., Grigg, W.S., Goodman, M.J., and Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-Grade Students Reading Aloud: NAEP 2002 Special Study of Oral Reading (NCES 2006-469). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office.

Edformation (2004). AIMSweb progress monitoring and assessment system. http://www.edformation.com/.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., and Jenkins, J.R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256.

Good, III, R.H. and Kaminski, R.A. (Eds.) (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), 6th Ed. Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Eugene, Ore.:University of Oregon.

Good, III, R.H., Simmons, D.C., and Kame'enui, E.J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading 5(3), 257-288.

Hasbrouck, J.E., Ihnot, C., and Rogers, G.H. (1999). "Read Naturally": A strategy to increase oral reading fluency. Reading Research & Instruction, 39(1), 27-38.

Hasbrouck, J. and Tindal, G.A. (2006, April). ORF norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.

Hasbrouck, J.E., Woldbeck, T., Ihnot, C., and Parker, R. I. (1999). One teacher's use of curriculum-based measurement: A changed opinion. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 14(2), 118-126.

Heibert, E.H. (2003). Quick reads. Parsipanny, N.J.:Pearson Learning.

Hintze, J.M. and Christ, T.J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 204-217.

Hudson, R.F., Lane, H.B., and Pullen, P.C. (2005, May). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714.

Ihnot, C. (1991). Read naturally. Read Naturally:Minneapolis, Minn.

Kuhn, M.R. and Stahl, S.A. (2000). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. CIERA Rep. No. 2-008. Ann Arbor, Mich.:Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. NIH Publication No. 00-4769. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Osborn, J. and Lehr, F. (2004). A focus on fluency. Honolulu: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.

Partnership for Reading (September 2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, D.C.:National Institute for Literacy; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; and U.S. Department of Education.

Pikulski, J.J. and Chard, D.J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510-519.

Rasinski, T. (2006, April). Reading Fluency Instruction: Moving Beyond Accuracy, Automaticity, and Prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 704-706.

Read Naturally (2002). Reading fluency monitor. Minneapolis: Author.

Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York:Alfred A. Knopf.

Shinn, M.R. (1989). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM Screening and eligibility procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children, 90-129. N.Y.:Guilford.

Shinn, M.R. (Ed.) (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York:Guilford.

Sierra-Perry, M. (1996). Standards in practice: Grades 3-5. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., and Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press.

Stahl, S.A. and Kuhn, M.R. (2002). Making it sound like language: Developing fluency. The Reading Teacher, 55, 582-584.

Stecker, S.K., Roser, N.L., and Martinez, M.G. (1998). Understanding oral reading fluency. In T. Shanahan and F.V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), 47th yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 295-310. Chicago:National Reading Conference.

Tindal, G. and Marston, D. (1990). Classroom-based Assessment: Testing for Teachers. Columbus, Ohio:Merrill Publishing Company.

Torgeson, J.K. ( Spring/Summer 1998). Catch Them Before They Fall: Identification and Assessment to Prevent Reading Failure in Young Children. American Educator 22(1 & 2), 32-41.

Wolf, M. and Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 211-239.

Related Articles

Drop Everything and Read-but How?
For Students Who Are Not Yet Fluent, Silent Reading Is Not the Best Use of Classroom Time
By Jan Hasbrouck

Screening, Diagnosing,
and Progress Monitoring:
The Details (PDF)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After more than 20 years as the neglected goal of reading instruction (Allington, 1983; NICHD, 2000), fluency has finally become the hot topic among reading researchers, professional development providers, and teachers. These days it is rare to pick up a reading journal, attend a professional conference, or sit in a faculty staff room at a school without hearing someone discussing reading fluency. Surely most every educator has heard the message that if students aren’t sufficiently fluent in their reading, they won’t have sufficient comprehension.

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

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

He operationalized all those in terms of instructional time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An example here may help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shanahan, T. (2022, February 12).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Dr. Reid Lyon

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

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

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

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

With that as prologue, here are my ten maxims:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the guest author:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
The Six Shifts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Multi-Year Morphology Plan Example - The Six Shifts.pdf

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The morpheme mapper lets you type in a word and see its morphemes and meanings mapped out.

# data[].attributes.headline
Read Aloud: Example Comprehension Planner for Caves

# data[].attributes.subject
Read Aloud: Example Comprehension Planner for Caves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Read Aloud Comprehension Planning for Caves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
Se

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Understand the key characteristics of SRSD that make it a deeply structured and evidence-based approach to teaching writing. Transform your classroom today.

# data[].attributes.headline
Comprehension Skills and Strategies - Tim Shanahan

# data[].attributes.subject
Comprehension Skills and Strategies - Tim Shanahan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It seems to me that asking a series of good questions about what an author appears to be telling us allows students (all of us) to build our knowledge, learn how to question conclusions, and overall just better understand the text at hand. Do you agree or am I still missing something?
Last week, I posted an explanation of the difference between comprehension strategies and comprehension skills. Before answering your thoughtful question about comprehension teaching, let's quickly review what I said previously.

Basically, comprehension skills have been conceptualized as the ability to answer certain kinds of questions. Accordingly, there is a main idea skill and a comparison skill and a supporting details skill and so on. In their zeal to teach standards-appropriate skills, teachers and publishers transform the standards into questions. Skills teaching devolves into having kids practicing answering those questions.

Skills, by their very nature, are meant to be automatic; someone should learn to implement them without conscious attention.

The problem is that, for the most part, these question types are not really comprehension skills and they do not translate into effective teaching or learning.

Comprehension strategies, on the other hand, have a different history and a different purpose. Comprehension strategies refer to intentional (not automatic) actions a reader takes to keep his/her head in the game. Comprehension strategies include summarization. Not the ability to write a summary, but the use of summarization as a technique for increasing understanding and recall. When reading a challenging text, an effective reader may stop occasionally to sum up the text. Summarizing occasionally during reading, develops a clearer understanding of a text.

Strategies like monitoring, self-questioning, visualizing, comparing the text with prior knowledge, identifying text organization, and so on are all intentional, purposeful actions that are effective in improving comprehension or recall.

Comprehension strategies don't improve the ability to answer specific kinds of questions, but they have substantial research support showing their ability to improve reading comprehension generally and definitely should be taught.

Instructional implications?

Let's consider skills first.

The right amount of time to spend on comprehension skills in curriculum, instruction, or assessment? Zero.

Skills practice is a time waster. It's like pushing the elevator button twice. It makes you feel better, perhaps, but the elevator doesn't come any more quickly.

Teaching comprehension skills might make you feel like you are doing something, but it won't improve students' reading comprehension.

But, this week's question rightfully queries the practice of guiding reading with questions. Does it make sense to have kids reading texts and then asking them questions about them. Isn't that just the skills practice that I derided?

E.L. Thorndike first took up this issue in 1917. He assigned readers to two groups; one that just read, and one that read and responded to questions. The question-answerers ended with better comprehension, and researchers started recommending that readers do more than just read in the classroom. Teacher questions and discussion time became a standard of reading instruction practice. (Later research showed that answering questions improves recall for the information questioned, but not for the rest of the information-and the questioned information was more likely to be remembered later (Andre, 1990; Wixson, 1983)).

In the mid-1930s, when publishers started including teacher's guides along with their basals, following Thorndike, they provided lists of questions to be asked for each story. It was not long before the idea emerged that there were certain kinds of questions that should be asked, and over the years this idea morphed into what we now think of as "comprehension skills."

It isn't much of a distance from the idea that questions focus one's attention, to the possibility that experiences with certain types of questions could more generally focus one's attention on particular kinds of text information. It's not that easy, however.

This kind of attention focusing works, but only when the information emphasized is easy to identify and parallel across texts. Students, given multiple text reading tasks, who early on are asked questions about numbers or dates, get better at paying attention to that kind of info in subsequent readings (Anderson, 1977).

However, most question types don't focus readers' attention quite this powerfully.

It's one thing to be on the lookout for the numbers in a text and quite another to draw correct conclusions. Texts are just too varied to allow information-types to be identified easily. Main ideas, inferences, application, interpretation, right there, think and search, relationships, supporting details, comparisons, drawing conclusions, higher-order questions, and so on are all question types that instructional programs or tests claim to emphasize, but none of these are generally identifiable in any useful way by readers. Therefore, they are not likely to have much impact on anybody's reading ability.

If you ask kids questions that challenge an author's claims, they'll probably come away with doubts about the author's conclusions (and will be more likely to remember those doubts later). Yay, critical reading questions.

However, if the idea is that by asking such questions, readers in the future will be more likely to recognize the short-comings evident in subsequent texts, well that outcome is much less likely.

Indeed, keep having kids read text, and definitely engage them in discussions of those texts, but form your questions--not on the basis of standards or skills lists-but on the basis of the texts themselves. Your questions should lead kids to think deeply about a text and to come away with a coherent and lasting memory of its content and aesthetic qualities.

Reading should be about that; not about answering particular kinds of questions, even if the questions vaguely resemble the ones on your state assessment test.

If there is such a thing as comprehension skills, they are made up of those repeatable things we do while reading that allow us to understand a text. Things like making sense of the meaning of unknown words based on context or morphology. Or, recognizing that a term is an idiom and can't be looked up in a conventional dictionary. Or, making sense of the complicated grammar of a sentence. Or, making cohesive links among the words and ideas across a text. Or, identifying and using the structure or organization of the text. Or, drawing logical inferences during reading.

These actually are comprehension skills because they enable comprehension and because being able to do them can improve one's performance with multiple texts.

Readers usually don't read text looking for information that they could use to answer particular kinds of questions. But they do use the meanings of words again and again, and they do learn to recognize verbs in sentences, and to recognize that authors sometimes use synonyms instead of repeating the same words.

Guiding students in the reading of texts that are difficult to read... and using questions to get them to confront the sources of that complexity and to hold them accountable for learning the content through questioning, discussions, projects, and writing assignments are central to the teaching of reading comprehension.

And, what about strategy instruction? Where does that fit into this picture?

Comprehension strategies should be taught-and, according to research, should be taught using a gradual release of responsibility approach. That just means that the teacher models and explains when, how, and why to implement the strategies. Then the teacher guides students to use the strategies themselves, turning more and more of the responsibility for that over to them gradually.

However, in our pendulum-oriented field, we have a tendency to either ignore the teaching of strategies altogether (which disadvantages kids since strategies can help them to be active as readers and focused on making sense of texts), or to teach strategies ad nauseum.

Studies of strategy teaching usually have examined brief regimens of instruction, so it's fair to say that we may be overdoing it a bit. (Strategy teaching is a research-based idea but teaching strategies 180-days a year for 12-13 years has nothing to do with research). There are no studies evaluating the diminishing returns of strategy instruction, but for most kids 6-10 weeks of such teaching each year is likely plenty. But even during strategy teaching, there needs to be a major focus on mastering the content of the texts; that's the only purpose for the strategies in the first place, and kids should see, from the beginning, that they work in helping accomplish that goal.
What does it mean to teach reading comprehension?
Guide kids to read-and reread-challenging texts with thoughtful questions.

Get kids to think deeply about the parts of the text that might trip up their understanding.

Teach kids to keep their heads in the game-reading mindfully-through strategy use.

Make sure kids come away knowing more about their world each time they read.
What should you avoid?
Having kids practice answering certain kinds of questions.

Placing greater emphasis on comprehension skills and strategies than on the content of the texts being read.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Role of Questioning in Comprehension Instruction | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It seems to me that asking a series of good questions about what an author appears to be telling us allows students (all of us) to build our knowledge, learn how to question conclusions, and overall just better understand the text at hand. But questions do not represent independent reading skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Winner of a silver medal from the Nautilus Book Awards in the category of Social Sciences and Education

"Is it possible to create a more inclusive and fairer education system? The Knowledge Gap shows the way." Daisy Christodoulou, tes.

"The Knowledge Gap is not just a scholarly work. It pulsates with vivid detail as it winds its way through the strange terrain of the Educational Upside Down. Anyone who seeks to understand the quixotic state of educational ideas in American schools and beyond should place it on the top of their summer reading list." Greg Ashman, Quillette

"The best book I have seen on improving elementary schools." Jay Mathews, Washington Post

"The Knowledge Gap makes a persuasive case for attending to the importance of rich content and high-quality curricula in elementary classrooms." Carnegie Corporation of New York

"This book serves as a reminder of our own potential knowledge gap and provides an opportunity for educators to be wiser consumers of information with the ability to 'distinguish between approaches that are likely to produce the outcomes we want and those that will only lead to a heartbreaking waste of precious time.'" Sheryl Ferlito, Perspectives on Language and Literacy

"Wexler ... has made a first-rate case for content. ... If you are among the uninitiated on the value of content knowledge for kids, buy a copy. If you're already among the true believers, buy two copies and put them in the hands of persuadable educators." Robert Pondiscio, Education Next

"In this compelling work, journalist Wexler pinpoints the underlying issues that plague the American public education system, provides context to recent educational reforms, and offers possible solutions." Library Journal (starred review)

"A compelling critique of American elementary schools" that "highlights pervasive problems." Kirkus Reviews

"Illuminating and thought-provoking." Publishers Weekly

THE KNOWLEDGE GAP focuses on a long-overlooked issue lying at the heart of what is known as the achievement gap: the failure of most elementary schools, and especially those serving low-income children, to systematically build knowledge of the world.

Every school day, elementary teachers spend hours drilling students on comprehension skills and strategies like "finding the main idea" or "making inferences," in an effort to boost their reading ability-and their scores on standardized reading tests. Subjects like history, science, and art have virtually disappeared from the curriculum in many schools.

In fact, these schools are doing the exact opposite of what can actually turn students into good readers. Comprehension strategies can be useful-when delivered in limited doses and connected to specific content. But cognitive science has shown that the primary factor in whether you're able to understand what you read is whether you possess relevant background knowledge and vocabulary.

The prevailing narrow, skills-focused approach to literacy instruction can hold any child back, but its effects fall hardest on those at the bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum. Children from more educated families often absorb knowledge about the world at home. But those from less educated families have to rely on schools for the kind of knowledge that will equip them to do well on tests-not to mention in high school, college, and life. Every year they spend in school without getting that knowledge puts them farther behind their more affluent peers. By the time they get to middle or high school, it's often too late for them to catch up.

Through the stories of educators, students, and parents, The Knowledge Gap examines what elementary literacy instruction currently looks like, how it evolved to this point - and how it can be changed so that all students receive a meaningful, rigorous education.

Excerpts from the book have appeared in The Atlantic, Chalkbeat, MindShift, American Educator, and the blog of the Albert Shanker Institute.

Read or listen to interviews with Natalie and presentations about The Knowledge Gap:

TV:

Morning Joe, MSNBC

After Words With Natalie Wexler, C-SPAN

Good Morning Washington, WJLA

VIDEO:

Why Prior Knowledge Wins the Game (two-minute video from Edutopia)

Western NY Science of Reading Conference, November 2022

Iniciativa Educacao, Lisbon (in English)

Why Teaching Social Studies Is Teaching Reading, The OC for Social Studies Conference

RADIO:
Total Information AM South Dakota Public Broadcasting
The Pulse (WHYY/NPR) (episode on comprehension)

On Point (WBUR/NPR)

Leonard Lopate at Large, WBAI

All of It, WNYC

The Record, KUOW

St. Louis in Tune, KWRH

Nightside with Dan Rea, WBZ

PODCASTS:

Through the Educational Looking Glass with Don Sturm and Courtney Eddleson

Lars og pal with Lars Sandaker

Education Uncharted with Amanda Bratten (Propello)

Raising Healthy Kid Brains podcast with Amy Nielson

TeachThought Podcast panel discussion with Emily Hanford and others

The Literacy View with Faith Borkowsky, Judy Boksner, and Mary McCool Berry

Building Knowledge with Kristen Rodriguez

Mr. Nico Summer Schoolin' with Nico Eaglin

Melissa and Lori Love Literacy (with Judith Hochman)

On the Scene with SST 13 with Mary Williams

The Inquiring Mind with Stanley Goldberg

After the Bell with Cassie Tabrizi
Talking to Teens
Alabama Literacy Network's Podcast with Shelley Vail-Smith

The Charles Love Show (second hour)

Catalysts for Change with Jill Shah

Rethinking Intervention with Emily Freitag

Tests and the Rest with Mike Bergin and Amy Seeley

Filling the Pail with Greg Ashman

Rethinking Intervention with Emily Freitag and Christina Gonzales

PodcastED with Doug Tuthill
EDVIEW 360 Podcast, Voyager Sopris: Righting the Wrongs of the Elementary Education System EWA Radio: Can Schools Close "The Knowledge Gap"?Just a Few Questions with Marc Sims
Education is Power with Chris Stewart (Facebook Live)

Melissa and Lori Love Literacy (second appearance)
More Teacher Talk: Transforming Teaching and Learning for Disadvantaged Pupils Full Prefrontal: A Podcast About Exposing the Mysteries of Executive Function Ed's Not Dead: A podcast covering today's hottest education issues Off the Assembly Line: A Podcast with Rebecca Reed ExtraOrdinary Districts: Ordinary school districts that get extraordinary results Vrain Waves: Teaching Conversations with Minds Shaping Education Science of Reading: The Podcast The Learning Curve with Bob Bowdon and Cara Candel The Report Card with Nat Malkus Education Research Reading Room with Ollie Lovell Principal Center Radio with Justin Baeder Melissa and Lori Love Literacy

PRINT INTERVIEWS AND ARTICLES:
EdSource/KQED, This Literacy Expert Reveals the Key Problem Undermining American Education, April 25, 2024 Edutopia, "Why Our Youngest Readers Need 'Knowledge,' Not 'Skills,' July 28, 2022 Edutopia, "Is It Time to Drop 'Finding the Main Idea' and Teach Reading in a New Way?, July 28, 2020 American Educator, "Building Knowledge: What an Elementary Curriculum Should Do", Summer 2020 EdNC, "Reading instruction needs to improve. Who will lead the charge, and how?", February 17, 2020 Perspectives on Language and Literacy, "The Importance of Knowledge" (International Dyslexia Association), Fall 2019 MindShift (KQED) ,"Why Deeply Diving Into Content Could Be the Key to Reading Comprehension," October 22, 2019 Chalkbeat, "Want better readers? Spend less time teaching kids to find the main idea, 'Knowledge Gap' author Natalie Wexler argues", September 16, 2019 District Administration, "Closing the knowledge gap: Why schools are failing to teach fundamental reading and comprehension skills-and how to change it", October 2019
Click HERE to order The Knowledge Gap through the publisher's website or HERE to order from Amazon. Listen to an excerpt from the audio version, read by the author, below. To order the audio book, click HERE.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Winner of a silver medal from the Nautilus Book Awards in the category of Social Sciences and Education "Is it possible to create a more inclusive and fairer education system? The Knowledge Gap shows the way." Daisy Christodoulou, tes. "The Knowledge Gap is not just a scholarly work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free Decodable Texts | Right to Read Initiative

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Right to Read Inquiry in an EFI Special Ed Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MS Content Literacy and the Reading Rope

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This section provides specific ideas and strategies to support ELLs' language and literacy development, such as tips for planning lessons and the use of language objectives, as well as broader approaches such as using informal assessment and differentiation for varying language levels.

What You'll Find in This Section

Learn how educators can support the success of their English language learners (ELLs). They will be useful for a wide range of audiences, including new and veteran teachers of ELLs, paraprofessionals, tutors, and administrators at the school and district level.
Photo by Allison Shelley for EDUimages

Each student comes to school not only with unique academic needs but also with unique background experiences, culture, language, personality, interests, and attitudes toward learning. Effective teachers recognize that all of these factors affect how students learn in the classroom, and they adjust, or differentiate, their instruction to meet students' needs.

Here are some strategies for differentiating instruction for your English language learners, as well as ideas for taking students' level of English language proficiency into account when planning instruction.

Need some help finding ways to help your English language learners? Read these inspirational stories about English language learners, teachers and paraprofessionals who have overcome obstacles standing to achieve success.

What's even better than a bright idea? A bright idea that works! Educators from across the country have discovered excellent ways to tackle some common classroom stumbling blocks. Below are their step-by-step suggestions on how to handle issues like the fourth-grade slump or the development of critical thinking skills.

Project-based learning (PBL) offers many benefits to English language learners (ELLs), including hands-on activities, peer interaction, rich language use, and a chance to explore personal interests.

ELLs may need some additional support or guidance in order to make the most of PBL, and the following resources share ideas on how to make it a successful experience for all students.

Designing instruction based on student strengths (what the student can do) provides an important foundation for success and offers opportunities to build upon those strengths in order to address areas where the student is struggling. Learn more about this approach from the following resources and videos.

Learn how educators can support the success of their English language learners (ELLs). They will be useful for a wide range of audiences, including new and veteran teachers of ELLs, paraprofessionals, tutors, and administrators at the school and district level.
Photo by Allison Shelley for EDUimages

Each student comes to school not only with unique academic needs but also with unique background experiences, culture, language, personality, interests, and attitudes toward learning. Effective teachers recognize that all of these factors affect how students learn in the classroom, and they adjust, or differentiate, their instruction to meet students' needs.

Here are some strategies for differentiating instruction for your English language learners, as well as ideas for taking students' level of English language proficiency into account when planning instruction.

Need some help finding ways to help your English language learners? Read these inspirational stories about English language learners, teachers and paraprofessionals who have overcome obstacles standing to achieve success.

What's even better than a bright idea? A bright idea that works! Educators from across the country have discovered excellent ways to tackle some common classroom stumbling blocks. Below are their step-by-step suggestions on how to handle issues like the fourth-grade slump or the development of critical thinking skills.

Project-based learning (PBL) offers many benefits to English language learners (ELLs), including hands-on activities, peer interaction, rich language use, and a chance to explore personal interests.

ELLs may need some additional support or guidance in order to make the most of PBL, and the following resources share ideas on how to make it a successful experience for all students.

Designing instruction based on student strengths (what the student can do) provides an important foundation for success and offers opportunities to build upon those strengths in order to address areas where the student is struggling. Learn more about this approach from the following resources and videos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This section provides specific ideas and strategies to support ELLs' language and literacy development, such as tips for planning lessons and the use of language objectives, as well as broader approaches such as using informal assessment and differentiation for varying language levels. Learn how educators can support the success of their English language learners (ELLs).

# data[].attributes.headline
Article about Importance of Mother tongue for Language development

# data[].attributes.subject
Article about Importance of Mother tongue for Language development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Example Read Aloud Comprehension Planning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
G2 - G3: Using Data to plan Small Groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Upper Grades G3/G4/G5: Using Data Inform Small Groups

# data[].attributes.headline
Bigger words for upper grade Phonics: small group planning

# data[].attributes.subject
Bigger words for upper grade Phonics: small group planning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bigger Words with Closed Syllables Decodable Word Lists and Sentences .pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
G5 VocabMorphology Lesson - January 2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The morpheme mapper lets you type in a word and see its morphemes and meanings mapped out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
G2 EGood and Services Passage for Read Aloud

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
 Analyzing Essential Agreements: Protocol