Reading Program for 1st Grade
The reading program discussed in this essay is going to focus on the first-grade students. The key components of an effective reading program are fluency building, phonemic awareness, and phonics. Phonemic awareness is especially crucial for first-grade students because it is the basis of the later reading skills of students. If students are incapable of developing phonemic awareness, they will have trouble decoding word meanings and sentences later.
To understand whether a student has developed phonemic awareness, the teacher has to observe whether the student can notice and work on/with the components of spoken words (i.e. sounds). Phonemic awareness helps students recognize sounds and letters, form words, and distinguish phonemes from each other, as well as letters from sounds. First-graders usually have more developed phonemic awareness than kindergartners but need help and assistance to blend or divide phonemes, make words using phonemes, or name phonemes in a word. More developed phonemic awareness leads to better letter recognition and good reading achievements in first-graders. Thus, phonemic awareness is the first step in becoming an advanced reader.
Phonological awareness is another term that also includes phonemic awareness. Rhyming words and recognizing intonation are the signs of phonological awareness. Phonological awareness is as important for future reading skills as phonemic awareness is and should not be neglected.
Phonics instruction implies that students learn to understand letter-sound correspondences so that they can read and write words. The main aim of this instruction is to teach students to see the relation between word and letter, letter, and sound. Each word consists of letters, which, in return, are linked to sounds, which are linked to phonemes. To learn how to read successfully, students have to develop alphabetic understanding and see how letters and sounds correspond with each other. Otherwise, students will be unable to decode words written in the text, and this will slow down or interfere with their reading process. Phonics instruction has to be systematic and explicit since other types of instruction were not proven effective. Using uncontrolled texts is also unreasonable since they can confuse students and lead to serious complexities in word decoding. Furthermore, the research has also shown that systematic phonics instruction was more effective compared to unsystematic instruction (Nishanimut, Johnston, Joshi, Thomas, & Padakannaya, 2013).
As to reading fluency, its connection to successful reading skills is evident. If students can read a text fluently, they will spend less time trying to recognize and decode words, which is a common problem among struggling readers. One of the strategies that are suggested to develop fluency is SSR – sustained silent reading. According to Merga (2013), sustained silent reading is effective when implemented for a long period. SSR allows students to work on a text independently, whereas neither the teacher nor classmates interfere with this activity. The author of the research also states SSR is not always perceived by students as an exciting activity, and that is why it can be transformed into a more interactive assignment (Merga, 2013). For example, “students involved in a Silent Reading program featuring interaction with peers or individual teacher‐student conferences had significantly higher scores on a scale measuring attitude toward reading…” (Merga, 2013, p. 20). Of course, SSR is one of the many strategies that can be used in schools. However, these strategies support the assumption that fluency has to be developed starting from the first grade. If the SSR is seen as unacceptable, the teacher can choose another approach, for example, guided reading. During guided reading, the student reads a text or several passages aloud and receives feedback and help from the teacher. This activity can be perceived as less boring by the students but also requires a significant investment of time from the teacher.
As can be seen, the key components of an efficient reading program are fluency building, phonemic awareness, and phonics. Each of these dimensions can be addressed using specific activities, guidelines, and tools.
Limited Vocabulary and Comprehension Skills
There are several ways to address the issue of limited vocabulary and comprehension skills. The program I would develop for this student would be based on automated vocabulary and comprehension intervention. In one of the studies, the authors suggest using Tier 2 (frequently used but challenging) words to improve vocabulary and comprehension skills (Spencer et al., 2012). Spencer et al. (2012) point out that the intervention package used in the study “included automated vocabulary and comprehension lessons” that were embedded in the books recorded before the intervention (p. 199). Explicit instructions are also supported as a tool for efficient intervention. However, to implement the intervention, I will also need a computer with speakers or any other device that will be able to replay recorded audios. To measure the level of comprehension, the authors suggest providing the child with pretest and posttest questions about target words (Spencer et al., 2012). After the pretest (before the listening), students listened to the story. The story was presented without embedded lessons at first, but for the next several day’s students listened to the same story with the embedded lessons (Spencer et al., 2012). Each of the intervention sessions was approximately 15 minutes (Spencer et al., 2012). Since I work with one student, it is possible to increase the length of intervention to 20 minutes. I plan to use the same approach as described by Spencer et al. (2012) to improve students’ vocabulary and comprehension skills. According to the research, the vocabulary improvements were moderate after the intervention, which implies that this framework can be used with students who experience problems with the mentioned skills (Spencer et al., 2012).
A similar but more interactive approach is suggested by Kelley, Goldstein, Spencer, and Sherman (2015) who gave students colorful storybooks that students could use when listening to the story and embedded lessons. Moreover, the authors of the research also provided students with prerecordings that introduced the main characters of the book (Kelley et al., 2015). Thus, it seems reasonable to provide the student with materials that will present the characters. This needs to be done to ensure that the student will not be confused by the unfamiliarity of the characters when the story is presented. The words included in this intervention were also Tier 2 words; each of the recordings addressed specific vocabulary and also provided students with open-ended questions to assess their comprehension.
These similar approaches can be blended into one, where the student will receive an interactive book, several recordings that will present the characters and the story, and pre- and posttest questions for the assessment.
At the same time, the motivation of students (or one student in my case) also demands attention. To increase student’s motivation, I plan to utilize different prizes and privileges as suggested by Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, and Tarver (2004). These prizes can include candy bars, stickers, sharpies, pencils, etc. I also agree with the authors that identifying daily goals would be important for the student; this way, we could divide the task into smaller parts and explain those little goals to the student (Carnine et al., 2004). Students often become confused when teachers introduce only the primary goals to them because these goals appear to be too complicated or too big. Dividing the whole intervention into smaller tasks and clearly describing each of the objectives will help the student overcome any anxieties about possible failure or misunderstanding.
All of the researches mentioned in the study support the idea that teaching personnel needs to be well trained before the intervention (Carnine et al., 2004; Kelley et al., 2015; Spencer et al., 2012). This means that I will need to receive additional practice and coaching to address the problems the student is facing professionally. I will need to observe other professionals in action, as well as get familiar with reading materials about similar interventions and their results. Reviewing the researches and studies will help me see what strategies are more effective and how I should utilize them.
Consumer’s Guide
The Consumer’s Guide and Planning and Evaluation Tool is a valuable document for teachers that can help them evaluate various programs to understand whether these can be used in classrooms for different grade levels. One of the major problems teachers have to face is finding a program that can be used as the base for the teaching process, and that does not require loads of supplementary materials and instructions. It does not mean that additional instructions should not be used (they definitely should be); instead, some of the programs can lack core elements that will not only undermine the teaching process but also fail to address students’ needs.
I plan to use this tool to evaluate core programs and see whether they meet the necessary criteria. For example, some of the programs can only be marked as supplemental or intervention programs, but it is difficult to establish whether a program is supplemental if you do not have any criteria for such evaluation (Simmons & Kame’enui, 2006).
I can use vocabulary criteria to assess the reading materials I choose for the classroom. Not all reading materials, no matter how relevant, provide repeated exposure to the needed vocabulary (Simmons & Kame’enui, 2006). Therefore, I would have to either prepare other reading materials or edit these so that the text can align with the criteria proposed by Simmons and Kame’enui (2006). At the same time, I can use this tool to identify anchor lessons in each of the instructions, which can be challenging for some teachers. The advantage of this tool is that is shows teachers what criteria should be met in different grade levels and how these criteria differ from each other. The tool can help teachers provide more clear daily, monthly, and yearly goals, as well as use these criteria in other content areas if needed. Of course, not all instructions presented in the tool will be suitable for other content areas, but other teachers can also use them to evaluate their core programs and identify anchor lessons. For example, reading comprehension instruction can also be applied in history and science classes, where teachers need to teach how to interpret information in graphs and tables or provide guided practice of critical strategies during several lessons (Simmons & Kame’enui, 2006). A similar approach towards programs and strategies among teachers will significantly facilitate the learning process of students, and, possibly, teachers’ work as well. Although the criteria provided in the tool mostly concern reading programs, they are perfectly applicable to other content areas, especially those that rely on language instruction as well (e.g. science, foreign languages).
The tool can also help teachers classify the existing programs and use those by the objectives. Although the evaluation of programs will certainly take some time, it can provide the teacher with a plethora of useful materials that might not be sufficient enough to be a core program but still can be utilized during various instructions.
One should also remember that most of the programs are not scientifically evaluated or scrutinized enough to ensure they can be used as core programs (Simmons & Kame’enui, 2006). Thus, the teacher can use these criteria to avoid the mistake of implementing the wrong program that might not be as effective as expected. It is impossible to wait for the moment when all programs are evaluated and presented with supporting scientific evidence; some programs can even be too unsuitable and interfere with successful teaching and learning process. The evaluation tool will, thus, help teachers identify the programs they can freely use as the core ones without being afraid that these programs are not effective enough or lack any experimental testing. Some of the programs might not be applicable for the identified age, and the tool helps teachers to evaluate that as well.
RTI: Comparison
The response to intervention model provides teachers and students with strategies that can help struggling students overcome the challenges they face in reading and writing. There are differences and similarities in RTI when working with students from third and 4-12 grades. These factors will be discussed below.
The RTI instruction for students from primary grades (i.e. third grade) needs to be purposeful and “targeted at important objectives that students need to learn” (Denton, 2012). The logical progression from simpler to more challenging tasks is also essential for students’ success. As for the 4-12 grade requirements of RTI, these students need explicit vocabulary instruction, as well as “direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruction” and individualized interventions for struggling readers (Wanzek et al., 2013). Unlike students from 4-12 grades, third-grade students need to have guided and independent practice that will also be supported by positive feedback (Denton, 2012). Active student involvement is also seen as significant in RTI with third-grade students (Denton, 2012). At the same time, to improve reading skills of students from 4-12 grades, the researchers suggest using intensive individualized interventions by trained personnel; it should be noted that positive feedback and extended time for independent work is not seen as crucial for students past third grade (Wanzek et al., 2013). For students from third grades, it is also important to provide tasks that will contain many opportunities to respond (Denton, 2012). Supplemental small-group instruction is recommended for students from 4-12 grades; this intervention should be long-term, but it is unclear if it should be particularly extensive. Other researchers suggest creating a synthesis of interventions for 4-12 grade students that will consist of instructions on vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension (Wanzek et al., 2013). These instructions could be provided to students in a combination or alone; as the results showed, most of these instructions (including fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, etc.) had a positive impact on students’ reading and writing skills (Wanzek et al., 2013).
The experiments where a multicomponent intervention was used or instructions and interventions focused specifically on comprehension were proven to be especially successful (Wanzek et al., 2013). One should remember that such approaches are suitable and effective for older students, while students from primary grades have to be instructed differently. Denton (2012) points out that one of the studies included two different interventions that both included explicit instructions in phonics, phonemic awareness, and fluency. The difference between those two interventions was that the first was a fully scripted direct instruction program while the other was more flexible; teachers were allowed to pick various activities with attention to students’ needs. Both interventions provided much better results compared to the control group where none of the frameworks was used (Denton, 2012). Thus, multicomponent interventions are not advisable for primary grade students, possibly because of their complexity. However, those instructions that allow interaction and flexibility seem to be efficient for struggling third-graders. For third-grade students who are not native English speakers Denton (2012) suggests adding other activities that will allow students to have enough time to train the new words they learned during the lesson. It seems logical to focus on oral training with English learners since they might experience additional struggles in the future if mistakes in their speech are left unaddressed.
Another difference between RTI requirements for primary and 4-12 grade students is the group size. While some of the researchers acknowledge that group size is important for primary students, the same statement does not apply to students from grades four to twelve (Denton, 2012). According to the research, different group sizes (10-15 students or 3-5 students) did not show any impact on students’ achievements (Denton, 2012). Therefore, one can assume that large group sizes are not disadvantageous for older students but might interfere with the learning process of primary grade students. At the same time, one can also conclude that “for students struggling with reading after Grade 3, receiving the same instruction in smaller group size may not be sufficient for improving student outcomes” (Wanzek et al., 2013, p. 26). The authors of the study point out that individualized instruction is crucial for students’ very specific needs (Wanzek et al., 2013). Therefore, if a student from any grade has very specific or very significant needs, these should be addressed individually. In this case, RTI requirements align for third and 4-12 grade students.
Summary: First Article
The first article Leave no teacher behind was written by Jimmy Kilpatrick in 2003. In this article, the author acknowledges that he is excited about the emphasis on reading instruction based on research and evidence (Kilpatrick, 2003). However, the author also points out that the phrase “bring research to practice” appears to be misunderstood by teachers, publishers, and education professionals. Teachers understand how students learn to read but also admit they are not trained enough to become effective reading teachers (Kilpatrick, 2003). Thus, the problem is not in the lack of research but in teachers’ inability to apply (or event obtain) the knowledge needed for the proposed interventions. Educators do not use the research findings in their practice, neither elementary, nor middle, nor high school teachers. Therefore, the development of teachers is more important for now; it is not the class size and the reading program that affect students and their success, it is teachers (Kilpatrick, 2003).
The author notices that most of the funding goes into new research-based programs and not the training of teachers, which many prefer to ignore (Kilpatrick, 2003). There is research on the effectiveness of many programs but completely no data about teacher quality. Kilpatrick (2003) suggests investing in teacher development and knowledge since the majority of researchers point out this is the action we should take. Somehow, though, we do not do anything about improving teacher quality. According to Kilpatrick (2003), the reason for that is that educators try to look for a quick solution to the problem, e.g. “finding the panacea program” (para. 7). Nevertheless, this is not how we should bring research into practice because it is doubtful this scheme will work. It is not the program that will guarantee the success of struggling students but professional development. Publishers can provide teachers with various, highly effective programs but they will not work until the issue of teacher quality is addressed. Therefore, Kilpatrick (2003) states, we are looking for a solution in the wrong place. There will not be any magical quick fix because it is impossible and because students rely on teachers’ professionalism (especially struggling ones). The teacher quality remains unaddressed (possibly because we fear to address this extremely challenging problem); publishers continue providing their effective reading programs, and students keep struggling. Kilpatrick (2003) concludes that we need a long-term professional development.
Summary: Second Article
The second article Assisting students struggling with reading was written by Gersten et al. in 2009. It presents five recommendations on how teachers can help struggling students to overcome some problems and develop their skills. The first recommendation is to screen students for possible struggles in reading by targeting specific areas such as letter naming fluency, word identification, oral reading, and others (Gersten et al., 2009). It is important to create a team that will facilitate the implementation of the screening processes and select measures that will identify students at risk. Growth rates should be used too to measure the possibility of developing reading difficulties (Gersten et al., 2009). The second recommendation includes providing differentiated reading instruction. This instruction should be based on students’ reading levels. Teachers need to be trained so that they understand how to gather and examine data on reading efficiency (Gersten et al., 2009). Data-driven decision rules on differentiated instruction are vital for this intervention. At last, differentiated instructions should be based on the assessment of students’ skills (Gersten et al., 2009). The third recommendation includes intensive instruction on three (or fewer) foundational skills, essential for reading.
It is critical to use a curriculum that will address students’ needs in phonics, comprehension, fluency, etc. Next, teachers are expected to implement this program three to five times a week, and each session takes from 20 to 40 minutes (Gersten et al., 2009). Teachers should not forget that clear instructions supported by feedback and extensive interaction also can improve students’ skills (Gersten et al., 2009). It is also advisable to ask students to make the thinking process public, i.e. to think aloud. The fourth recommendation is to monitor the progress and determine whether students will need an intervention. To understand that, teachers need to collect and analyze data on students’ assessments. When teachers provide Tier 2 instructions, they should also utilize progress monitoring data to evaluate whether there are students who need intervention (Gersten et al., 2009). The fifth recommendation focuses on students in need of intervention. Gersten et al. (2009) advice providing an instruction concentrated on a particular set of skills and adjusting the lessons’ pace. Scheduling instructional sessions, providing high-quality feedback, and planning Tier 3 instruction using the information from an RTI team is also recommended.
Summary: Third Article
The third article From research to practice was written by Fleishman, Kohlmoos, and Rotherham in 2003. The authors discuss the problems evidence-based education faces and why research does not contribute to education as much as some want it to (Fleishman et al., 2003). Education research is somewhat inefficient because teachers are not encouraged to use it in their practice, because researching education is more difficult, and because it is underfunded. The authors pinpoint two developments that happened to education: The “No Child Left Behind” Act and the education-knowledge industry (Fleishman et al., 2003). Evidence should be more valued than ideology, and all practices that are not efficient anymore should be abandoned if their inefficiency is determined. There are several steps the educational system has to make to implement evidence-based education practices. Researchers need to reevaluate their methods and develop a mix of foundational knowledge of basic research, as well as the usable findings of applied research (Fleishman et al., 2003). There should be a career track for researchers who will conduct relevant, high-quality researches on education and be rewarded for it. All educators need to understand that accepting the best evidence is the only way to improve the education system; professional autonomy should not play any role here.
School boards need to ensure they create an environment that fosters evidence-based education. Decisions guided by personal agendas and pet projects have to be forgotten. Evidence-based education requires support at national and state levels, and it has to be promoted as a guide, not as a weapon, Fleishman et al. (2003) argue. The federal government is expected to take part in the promotion and support of evidence-based education as well since the majority of Americans value-effective education and are interested in its development. Also, parents, as well as business and community leaders, need to be engaged in the promotion of evidence-based education and receive information about it so that they can support it too (Fleishman et al., 2003). At last, the authors also point out journalists should review their methods of reporting about education: scandals and statistics are not the only themes worth journalists’ attention. They have to be skeptical but should not focus too much on controversies. Fleischman et al. (2003) are certain that if all these statements are taken into consideration, evidence-based education will have the chance to prove its efficiency.
References
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct reading instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Denton, C. A. (2012). Response to intervention for reading difficulties in the primary grades: Some answers and lingering questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 232-243.
Fleishman, S., Kohlmoos, J. W., & Rotherham, A. J. (2003). From research to practice.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide.
Kelley, E. S., Goldstein, H., Spencer, T. D., & Sherman, A. (2015). Effects of automated Tier 2 storybook intervention on vocabulary and comprehension learning in preschool children with limited oral language skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31(2), 47-61.
Kilpatrick, J. (2003). Leave no teacher behind. Web.
Merga, M. K. (2013). Should silent reading feature in a secondary school English programme? West Australian students’ perspectives on silent reading. English in Education, 47(3), 229-244.
Nishanimut, S. P., Johnston, R. S., Joshi, R. M., Thomas, P. J., & Padakannaya, P. (2013). Effect of synthetic phonics instruction on literacy skills in an ESL setting. Learning and Individual Differences, 27(1), 47-53.
Simmons, D. & Kame’enui, E. (2006). A consumer’s guide to analyzing a core reading program grades K-3: A critical elements analysis. Web.
Spencer, E. J., Goldstein, H., Sherman, A., Noe, S., Tabbah, R., Ziolkowski, R., & Schneider, N. (2012). Effects of an automated vocabulary and comprehension intervention: An early efficacy study. Journal of Early Intervention, 34(4), 195-221.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 163-195.