View as Webpage

Copy of Copy of Website Link Lines Newsletter Header _1_.png

By Mary Stowe, M.Ed. and Elizabeth Auguste, Ph.D.

Ineffective-Practices-in-Literacy-4_1_.gif

In our December issue of Link Lines, we highlighted the need for reading intervention based on diagnostic data and evidence-based practices grounded in the Science of Reading. We looked at evidence supporting instructional shifts from the use of leveled texts to the use of decodable texts for phonics instruction. Additionally, we highlighted why the Science of Reading is grounded in direct, explicit instruction as opposed to implicit instructional practices.


In this issue, we continue the conversation around practices that should be removed from the classroom, and we identify better instructional options grounded in the Science of Reading. Our hope is that you explore the included resources and find them helpful in making these important shifts in practice.


Lesson Section of the Article


Ineffective Practice: Reliance on rote memorization to build sight vocabulary


Effective Practice: Teaching word attack strategies and pattern recognition for sight vocabulary development


Task: Memorize the spelling and meaning of 2000 to 3000 new words per year! Next, spell them all correctly and remember their meanings as you write and read. Difficulty Level: High!


Unfortunately, this is what we expect when we ask students to rely mostly on memorization to build their sight vocabulary. What do we mean by sight vocabulary? Our current understanding is that given enough practice with reading words, phonetic decoding will become more automatic. Ehri (2014) defined sight words as any word practiced enough to be read from memory as students move through the Full Alphabetic Phase and into the Consolidated Alphabetic Phase of word-reading development (see also Honig et al., 2018). 


As students progress through elementary school, they learn 2000 to 3000 words each year (Biemiller, 2003; Fitzer & Hale, 2015), most of which are regularly spelled, so rote memorization becomes less and less sustainable and more and more ineffective! For students with learning disabilities, reliance on memorization is even more daunting as they struggle significantly with working memory and executive functioning skills related to their learning challenges. Even with partially decodable words that are considered high frequency (e.g., said, was, want, to), strategies must be taught to assist students in the development of automatic recognition (Honig et al., 2018; Kilpatrick, 2016; check out the Heart Word strategy as one such resource).


Teaching word attack strategies and word patterns, however, must occur in tandem with extensive exposure to text so that students can build cognitive pathways for the development of automaticity (Ehri, 2014). Unfortunately, data show that grave inequities exist in students’ exposure to texts. Not only do students from low-income homes have less access to books in the home, but many live in communities with fewer high-quality books in their classrooms, schools, and public libraries (Bridges, 2013). Students with learning disabilities in reading also experience less exposure to text given their struggles with phonetic decoding. For students facing these inequities and challenges, the impact on their sight vocabulary development is compounded over time, so it is important to also consider these challenges when thinking about how to best support sight vocabulary development.


In our December issue, we highlighted the efficacy of using decodable texts within a phonics or reading lesson. Decodable texts also provide great support for the development of students’ word attack strategies and recognition of word patterns, as the texts align with the skills being taught. In a classroom committed to equitable literacy practices, explicit phonics, morphology, and word attack instruction, rather than memorization, must be the cornerstone of all frameworks for vocabulary acquisition and retention.


The resources below provide some tips and tools for lesson planning.


Reading and Word-Attack Strategies


Interventions for Word Recognition/Automaticity Pre-k to Grade 2


Interventions for Word Recognition/Automaticity Grade 3+

 

Ineffective Practice: Use of oral text reading practices (cold-reads) as classroom management, engagement, and assessment techniques.


Effective Practice: Use of explicit instruction practices during oral reading as support for decoding practice, fluency, comprehension, and informal assessment.


Debates surrounding effective practices for classroom oral reading have been the source of avid discussions for years. Round-robin reading (RRR), once a commonly used practice, is an ineffective practice. Data consistently show the negative impact of all iterations of RRR like popcorn reading (teacher calls on a random student), combat reading (students call on each other), and popsicle reading (names written on popsicles are drawn randomly), to name a few (Finley, 2014; Himmele & Himmele, 2021; Opitz & Guccione, n.d.; Shanahan, 2019).


Teachers need to hear students read aloud regularly, as this:


  • provides additional multisensory input for students,
  • is key to developing students’ automatic decoding, fluency, and comprehension, and
  • provides teachers the opportunity to assess students’ progress in developing appropriate decoding and fluency skills (Frankel, 2017; Hasbrouck, 2006).


The RRR practices outlined above, however, do not allow for confidence building or for explicit and supportive feedback that emphasizes the appropriate application of taught decoding skills.


If oral text reading is key to developing students’ automatic decoding, fluency, and comprehension skills, what practices should teachers use in the classroom to facilitate hearing students read aloud and providing direct, explicit, and corrective feedback? Here are some suggestions for scaffolding, supporting, and assessing students’ reading development:


  • Buddy Reading: Students practice orally reading a text in preparation for reading to an assigned buddy in an earlier grade. The teacher provides explicit feedback as the student ‘rehearses’ the selection.
  • Small Group Reading: Within small groups supporting explicit, systematic phonics instruction, students are asked to read aloud during one of the final sections of the lesson. The students within the small groups are matched with similar skill sets and are studying the same content together. When students are asked to read aloud, the teacher is listening for the correct use of the skills learned. The other students in the group may be using whisper phones to practice their reading while the teacher is listening to one student within the group. The purpose of this section of the lesson, again, is to practice the skills that have been taught.
  • Echo Reading: The teacher models fluent reading of a short segment of text. Students then echo what the teacher reads as the teacher pays attention to students’ pacing and inflections. The teacher can then select 3-4 students on a rotating basis and have each individually re-read the selection.
  • Fluency-Oriented Reading Instruction (FORI): With FORI, students read the same section of a short text many times over the course of a week. First, the teacher scaffolds by reading aloud with the students, then students echo read, choral read, partner read, and, finally, teachers listen to students’ individual reading.
  • Oral Reading Fluency Assessments (ORFs): Teachers may also use ORFs as a fluency measure (for accuracy, rate, and prosody), an analysis of the application of phonics skills taught (syllable types or morphemes), and a comprehension measure where students may retell the content of a passage read. These assessments should be used for instructional purposes as research indicates their lack of usefulness in predicting outcomes on high-stakes testing (Amendum et al., 2021).


With any oral reading strategy that requires a student to read in front of peers, even if with just one partner, it is important to match students with similar skills when considering how to group. Reading in front of peers can be a source of extreme anxiety for students with disabilities and for students who struggle with reading, so care should be taken to make oral reading a supportive practice and not a source of discouragement for students who are already hesitant about reading and reading aloud.


We have included resources below to help you navigate implementing the echo reading strategy in your classroom.


VDOE/TTAC: Echo Reading


Echo Reading (IES Video #37)

Additional Resources

References



Amendum, S. J., Smith, K. C., & Liebfreund, M. D. (2021). Explaining reading variance by student subgroup: Should we move beyond oral reading fluency? Journal of Research in Reading, 44(4), 757-786.


Biemiller, A. (2003). Vocabulary: Needed if more children are to read well. Reading Psychology, 24(3-4), 323-335. 


Bridges, L. (2013). Access to books. In Make every student count: How collaboration among families, schools, and communities ensures student success (pp. 49-67).

Scholastic. http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/face/pdf/research-compendium/Compendium.pdf


Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356


Finley, T. (2014, December 1). 11 alternatives to round robin (and popcorn) reading. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/alternatives-to-round-robin-reading-todd-finley


Fitzer, K. R., & Hale, J. B. (2015, May 15). Reading and the brain: Strategies for decoding, fluency, and comprehension. LD@school. https://www.ldatschool.ca/teaching-the-brain-to-read-strategies-for-enhancing-reading-decoding-fluency-and-comprehension/


Frankel, K. K. (2017). What does it mean to be a reader?: Identity and positioning in two high school literacy intervention classes. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(6), 501-518.


Hasbrouck, J. (2006). For students who are not yet fluent, silent reading is not the best use of classroom time. Reading Rockets. https://www.readingrockets.org/article/students-who-are-not-yet-fluent-silent-reading-not-best-use-classroom-time


Himmele, P., & Himmele, W. (2021). Why are we still doing that? Positive alternatives to problematic teaching practices. ASCD.


Honig, B., Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. (2018). Teaching reading sourcebook (3rd ed.). Core.


Kilpatrick, D. A. (2016). Equipped for reading success. Casey & Kirsch.


Opitz, M. F., & Guccione, L. M. (n.d.). 5 reasons not to use round robin reading with ELLs. Colorin Colorado. https://www.colorincolorado.org/article/5-reasons-not-use-round-robin-reading-ells


Shanahan, T. (2019, July 30). Is round robin reading really that bad? Reading Rockets. https://www.readingrockets.org/blogs/shanahan-literacy/round-robin-reading-really-bad

Facebook  Twitter
VDOE Large Logo.jpg