What is Needed to Supplement Tier 3 Reading Interventions?

           Before we dive fully into what is needed to effectively supplement Tier 3 reading interventions, let’s review what it means to have phonemic and phonological awareness.  Ideally, there is no argument that phonemic and phonological awareness is an essential competency for emergent literacy. Phonemic awareness is the ability to hear and manipulate the sounds in spoken words and the understanding that spoken words and syllables are made up of sequences of speech sounds (Yopp, 1992).

Phonemic awareness is essential to learning to read in an alphabetic writing system, because letters represent sounds or phonemes.  Without phonemic awareness, phonics makes little sense.  Phonemic awareness is fundamental to mapping speech to print.  For instance, if a child cannot hear that "man" and "moon“ begin with the same sound or is unable to blend the sounds /rrrrrruuuuuunnnnn/ into the word "run",  then he or she may have great difficulty connecting sounds with their written symbols or blending sounds to make a word.

A phoneme is a speech sound.  A phoneme is the smallest unit of spoken language.  It has no inherent meaning (National Reading Panel, 2000).  Phonemic awareness involves hearing language at the phoneme level. Phonemic awareness is not phonics.  Phonemic awareness is auditory and does not involve words in print.  Phonemic awareness is important because it teaches students to attend to sounds. Phonemic awareness primes the connection of sound to print.  Phonemic awareness gives students a way to approach reading new words.  Phonemic awareness helps students understand the alphabetic principle whereby letters in words are systematically represented by sounds.

Phonics, is the use of the code (sound-symbol relationships to recognize words.  Phonological awareness is the ability to hear and manipulate the sound structure of language. This is an encompassing term that involves working with the sounds of language at the word, syllable, and phoneme level.

Phonemic and phonological awareness is difficult because although the English language includes 26 letters, there are approximately 40 phonemes.  Sounds are represented in 250 different spellings.  For instance, /f/ as in ph, f, gh, ff.  Research has established that children lacking phonemic and phonological awareness skills exhibit difficulty grouping words with similar and dissimilar sounds (mat, mug, sun), blending and splitting syllables (sun-ny), blending sounds into words (m_a_n), segmenting a word as a sequence of sounds (e.g., fish is made up of three phonemes, /f/ ,/i/, /sh/), detecting and manipulating sounds within words (change “r” in “run” to “s” to make “sun”), (Kame'enui, et. al., 1997).

Most research-based reading intervention programs utilize a phonemic and phonological awareness approach as the foundation for their model of reading intervention.  This approach is utilized as part of a Tier 3 (Intensive) RTI implemented through the programs discussed last month.  Arguably, what needs to come next is the true debate. 

For quite some time, Reading Recovery has remained a 1:1 program and thereby utilized as a Tier 3 RTI reading intervention.  Reading Recovery marketers are potentially being deceptive if stating nothing more is ever needed. Reading Recovery founder Marie Clay (2005) was clear there should be two years of monitoring and additional support following a Grade 1 student’s successful completion of the Reading Recovery program (Tier 3). 

Remove the students that were not provided any support beyond Reading Recovery during Grade 1 from the APM (2022) study and the real problem will be evident:  Neglect of the need to effectively monitor and adjust instruction or interventions based on subsequent results!  Many of the Tier 3 RTI reading programs discussed last month have evolved to offer further structured and systemic support that can be delivered as Tier 2 and Tier 1 (universal) practice.  The need for continued evolution will ideally soon include Reading Recovery. 

As noted last month, the Remediation Plus System's Teacher Training White Paper (2017) helps teachers and school administrators understand its reading intervention training and curriculum. Crucially, the system provides opportunities to become expert teachers of reading and remediation. By seeking to ensure every teacher is proficient to address reading deficits, the system's replicable lesson plans offer an invaluable opportunity to use a very strategic approach to providing interventions. Tier 2 RTI should always be a structured literacy intervention that builds upon a systemic P-3 curriculum of fluent reading, comprehension, writing, and thinking skills.

The benefit of programs such as the Remediation Plus System, is it was created to address the need for systemic professional development rather than only creating a specialized group trained in delivering Tier 3 interventions.   Having HIGHLY Proficient PK-Grade 3 teachers delivering Tier 1 & 2 reading, comprehension, and writing skills should be part of every district’s strategic goal.  

The correlate of frequent monitoring and subsequent adjustment drives the core principles for effectively implementing RTI.  Therefore, the ability to collect data, evaluate results, and be an honest consumer of the resulting data promotes sustained success.  Teacher proficiency with data must therefore be embraced as an essential professional competency

                Frequent monitoring of student progress, and adjusting instruction or interventions based on results is a correlate of continuous school improvement within Effective Schools Research.  This correlate requires teacher competency in ethically and reliably collecting data, evaluating results, and effectively consuming the data.  Teacher bias becomes possible when teachers identify and prescribe an intervention.  They then may have difficulty accepting the need to adjust when the prescribed intervention proves ineffective. A teacher may erroneously perceive the intervention’s failure as a personal failure of his or her initial prescription.  Thus, defensiveness rather than professional awareness delays any necessary adjustment.  For this reason, teacher preparation programs as well as districts or schools need to institutionalize the following six ideas for successful development of an effective RTI system:

1. Encourage participation by key stakeholders during planning and implementation.
2. Elicit strong administrative support in staff development, instructional integrity, and data collection.
3. Provide in-depth staff development with mentoring, modeling, and coaching.
4. Begin follow-up trainings at the beginning of each school year.
5. Distribute a manual outlining procedures and materials.
6. Build Problem Solving Models such as RTI into school schedules and the student improvement process (Lau, Sieler, Muyskens, et al, 2006).

Crucially, the field of education will benefit from embracing a whole child approach to learning, teaching, and community engagement grounded in the belief that “each child, in each school, in each of our communities deserves to be healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged” (ASCD, 2018).  Advocates of these fundamental tenets have long considered them essential for ensuring students become college-, career-, and citizenship-ready, which is a desired outcome of Effective Schools Research.

In order to effectively lead a school using a whole child approach to education, an educational leader needs to be “visionary; effective instructional leaders; active learners; and influencers within their staff and the community” (ASCD, 2018).  As can be expected, the Whole Child Approach to education promotes policies and practices aligned to support the whole child.  This requires a change in how adults currently work together to educate children. 

As an advocate for Invitational Education Theory and Practices, I whole-heartedly believe student success is possible whenever educators utilize an intentionally caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (I-CORT) mindset. Through intentional invitations for vibrant discussions and active interactions, an I-CORT-driven educator systemically addresses institutional needs through an inventory of the people. places, policies, programs, and processes (5-Ps) that influence the potential for success. This intentional desire promotes collaboration,  exhibits critical, higher order thinking skills (HOTS), and analyzes accessible, reliable data.  Are you an I-CORT-driven educator embracing diverse approaches, promoting cooperative learning, exhibiting high expectations, utilizing HOTS, and analyzing data to monitor and adjust whenever needed?

Remember: A goal without a plan is just a wish. An ICORT-driven educator plans for success!  Strengthen your intervention plans and RTI systems through the active pursuit for increased awareness, elevated knowledge, and willingness to make better possible.

 

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (April 30, 2022) What is needed to supplement tier 3 reading intervention? [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References; 

ASCD (2018) The Whole Child Approach. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/whole-child.aspx

Big Ideas in Beginning Reading (2009) University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning

Retrieved from:  http://reading.uoregon.edu/resources/bibr_pa_concepts.pdf

 

Brown, R. (2021). Understanding dyslexia. A whitepaper published by for Illuminate Education

 

Kame'enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C., Baker, S., Chard, D. J., Dickson, S. V., Gunn, B., Smith, S. B.,

Sprick, M., & Lin, S. J. (1997). Effective strategies for teaching beginning reading. In E. J.

Kame'enui, & D. W. Carnine (Eds.), Effective Teaching Strategies That Accommodate

Diverse Learners. Merrill.

 

Lezotte, L. W. (1991) Correlates of Effective Schools: The First and Second Generation.

            Retrieved from: http://www.effectiveschools.com/images/stories/escorrelates.pdf

 

Lezotte, L. W. & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

correlates. Solution Tree Press.

 

Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3-27.

 

Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading

should know and be able to do. American Federation of Teachers.

 

National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of

the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction

[online]. Retrieved from: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm.

 

Remediation Plus teacher training white paper (2017) retrieved from https://issuu.com/remediationplus/docs/r__teacher_training_white_paper

 

Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing Phonemic Awareness in Young Children. Reading Teacher,

45(9), 696-703.

Effective Response to Intervention Programs Can Make a Difference

        Stakeholders involved with students exhibiting academic, behavioral, or social/emotional learning deficits too often sense there are too few options for effective support.   While the teacher or parents believe such deficits exhibit a major concern, the student is often not evaluated until categorical programs such as Title I, ESL, literacy services, or special education becomes involved,  Yet, since NCLB (2001) and IDEA (2004) began emphasizing the expectation for Response to Intervention (RTI), at-risk students with learning and/or behavioral challenges should be identified sooner rather than later, and provided with more flexible and responsive service options.  RTI should be mitigating the expectation for individualized help to come only through special education services.  An effective RTI approach offers several key opportunities for systemic effectiveness:

(1) emphasizes early intervention in the typical, general education learning environment,

(2) maximizes all staff’s expertise and services, and makes effective use of all existing resources,

(3) intends to assess the student’s strengths and weaknesses based on their academic performance or behavior in the regular educational setting,

(4) delivers interventions regular educational setting and interventions are based on reliable and measurable information,

(5) response to the intervention is directly and frequently monitored and charted, and

(6) intends to de-emphasize categories and labels while encouraging creativity, problem solving, and providing support to students in a timely manner.

           The effective RTI approach institutionalizes a problem-solving model for schools.  As such, the RTI model allows application of a systemic, school-wide problem-solving approach.  Therefore, rather than perceptions or assumptions, effective curriculum and instructional decisions can be based on collected and analyzed student-centered data.

As far back as 1990, Vacca and Padak found at-risk learners were seldom more academically vulnerable than during instructional situations that required them to engage in acts of literacy.  Kletzien & Bednar (1990) viewed at-risk readers as students who saw themselves “as poor learners who have limited aptitude to benefit from educational opportunities.  They are at risk by being constantly discouraged and by having an inadequate understanding of their own learning abilities and potential” (p 528). 

To better understand the purpose of literacy or developmental reading options utilized for  RTI, it is prudent to understand that most research-based reading intervention programs utilize a phonemic and phonological awareness approach as the foundation for their model of reading intervention.  The most effective reading programs for at-risk students utilize a multisensory and systematic approach ( Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan, 2001; Kim, Wagner, & Lopez, 2012; Kruidenier, MacArthur, Wrigley, 2010).  Research on the foundations of these these approaches will find many to be based on the Orton-Gillingham method. 

Many RTI initiatives utilize these approaches within Tier 3 (Intensive) reading programs.  Research by Slavin, Lake, Davis, and Madden, (2009) found one-to-one intervention effective for students at-risk for reading failure.  Below are brief descriptions of some of the more popular reading programs utilized as Tier 3 RTI interventions.

Before reviewing specific programs, let’s be mindful that regardless of the intervention, it is crucial to recognize teaching does not entail instruction alone.  A highly qualified teacher will understand the ongoing relationship between the curriculum, his or her instruction, and ongoing assessment of learning.  Competency regarding this relationship should be exhibited through increased classroom assessment literacy whereby standards-based instruction is continually provided and monitored through diverse and consistent formative and criterion assessments.  The aim of the Reading Recovery® program is to reduce the number of children that experience difficulty with reading and writing.  Specially trained Reading Recovery® teachers identify children for the program.  The identified children “are the lowest achievers in the first-grade cohort as evidenced on a standardized test and the Diagnostic Survey (Clay, 1985), excluding none” (Lyons, 1989, p 126).  The Reading Recovery® approach to identifying at-risk students involves a relative notion of risk, rather than an absolute one.  Students are selected for the Reading Recovery® intervention program because of their performance relative to their classmates according to teacher judgment and performance on a diagnostic battery.

During the Reading Recovery® intervention program, children are pulled out of their classrooms each day for thirty-minute individual lessons.  The lessons supplement regular classroom instruction for 12 to 20 weeks.  The Reading Recovery® program does not rely on consumable materials or step-by-step programs.  Rather, the knowledgeable Reading Recovery® teacher develops an individualized lesson for each child.  Each lesson provides the child with an opportunity to think and problem solve while reading and writing.  A detailed, daily running record is kept of the student’s progress and the teacher then designs the next day’s lesson (Lyons, 1989).

Reading Recovery® is not meant to be a perfect program for every need.  It is an intervention that appears best suited for students with moderate reading or language disorders.  Evidence identifies Reading Recovery as a successful early intervention reading program.  A WWC report (2013) found Reading Recovery® to have positive effects on general reading achievement and potentially positive effects on alphabetics, reading fluency, and comprehension for beginning readers.  In response to critics, it is only logical to believe sustained student progress will depend upon subsequent support, both in school and at home.  

The Wilson Language Training® (WLT) empowers individual educators, schools, and districts to achieve literacy with all students.  Approximately 25,000 teachers in United States schools have achieved WRS Level I Certification.  While WLT initially focused solely on the education of teachers who were working with individuals with dyslexia, since 2002 WLT programs provide professional development to the general education classroom teachers as well.

WLT serves as a provider of research-based reading and spelling programs for all ages. Its programs offer a multisensory and structured curricula.  Programs include Fundations®, Wilson Just Words®, the Wilson Reading System®, and Wilson Fluency®/Basic.  The approaches utilized within WLT programs have proven highly effective (Melby-Lervåg, Lyster, & Hulme, 2012).

The Wilson Reading System® exhibit potentially positive effects on alphabetics but no discernible effects on fluency and comprehension.  One study, which included more than 70 third-grade students in Pennsylvania, used a modified version of Wilson Reading System®.  The study met the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards.  As a result, of their literature review (2007), the WWC considered the extent of evidence for Wilson Reading System® to be small for alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension.  No studies meeting WWC evidence standards, with or without reservations, addressed general reading achievement. 

An intervention found to be popular in New York City public schools is Reading Rescue®, which is a systematic reading intervention model based on tenets of Reading Recovery® (Clay, 1993).  Ehri, Dreyer, Flugman, and Gross (2007) found Reading Rescue® to be an effective tutoring intervention model for first-grade struggling readers.  The Reading Rescue® program offers staff development designed to implement the intensive early intervention program.  Using trained tutors rather than certified reading specialists, the intervention specifically targets students who will benefit from one-on-one instruction to reach grade-level reading.  Training tutors rather than reading specialists offers school districts a less expensive alternative to providing Tier 3 RTI.

The Reading Rescue® program’s twelve-part professional development protocol for those delivering the intervention is delivered over two-years.  The structured training seeks to equip participating staff with knowledge and skills typically associated with reading specialists.  Ideally, this approach increases the school’s culture of high expectations for successful literacy and builds the school's capacity to promote learning for all students.  However, one reality of a cost-efficient two-year plan for professional development is that at-risk students may not be served by tutors as fully trained as those studied by Ehri, et. al (2007), thereby impacting the generalizability of those findings.  Additionally, spreading the full training protocol over two years, may adversely impact the necessary development and implementation of a systemic process for subsequent monitoring of program completers for sustained success.

The Remediation Plus System's Teacher Training White Paper (2017) seeks to help teachers and school administrators understand the program's reading intervention training and curriculum. The system provides opportunities to become expert teachers of reading and remediation. If seeking to ensure every teacher is proficient to address reading deficits, the system's replicable lesson plans offer an invaluable opportunity to use a very strategic approach to providing interventions.

Undoubtedly, RTI programs utilizing a phonemic and phonological awareness approach in a multisensory, systemic reading intervention model should be offering a research-based Tier 3 RTI administered by well-trained interventionist. However, for at least two years following successful participation in any early intervention program, the effective school needs to ensure the student is exposed to “good classroom instruction and moderate personal motivation that should be achievable” (Clay, 2005, p. 52).  Next month’s post will address the need for a systemic follow up program for successful completers of early intervention reading programs.  A follow-up program needs to offer techniques that address the students’ “affective needs to help them see themselves as capable learners and good thinkers” (Coley & Hoffman, 1990, p 497).

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (March 31, 2022) Effective Response to Intervention programs can make a

 difference [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References;

 

Brown, R. (2021). Understanding dyslexia. A whitepaper published by for Illuminate Education

 

Clay, M.M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled.  New Zealand Journal of Educational

Studies, v22, 155-173.

 

Clay, M. M. (2005). Reading recovery. Heinemann

 

Ehri, L.. Dreyer, L.,Flugman,B. and Gross, A. Alan. (2007) Reading Rescue: An effective

tutoring intervention model for first-grade struggling readers. American Educational

Research Journal, 44,414-448.

 International Dyslexia Association. (2008). Just the Facts: Multisensory Structured Language

Teaching. Baltimore: MD.  Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250-287.

doi: 10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2

 Hoover, N. L., (2011). Reading Rescue®: A literacy intervention for elementary students,

            Gainsville, FL: The Literacy Trust.

 

Kletzien, S.B. & Bednar, M.R., (1990). Dynamic assessment for at-risk readers. Journal

 of Reading v33. n7  528-533

 

Lyons, C.A. (1989) Reading recovery: A preventative for labeling young at-risk learners.

Urban Education v 24, n2  125-39.

 Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S.-A. H., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their role

in learning  to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 322-352.

doi: 10.1037/a0026744

 National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing Early Literacy: A Scientific Synthesis of

            Early Literacy Development and Implications for Intervention. Jessup, MD: National

            Institute for Literacy. 

 

Remediation Plus System Teacher Training White Paper (2017) Retrieved from:

    https://issuu.com/remediationplus/docs/r__teacher_training_white_paper

Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling

               readers:   A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1–26.

               doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.002

 

Vacca, R. T. & Padak, N. D. (1990). Who's at risk in reading? Journal of Reading v33. n7

486-88.

 

 

A Metaphor and Strategies for Planning and Implementing Differentiated Instruction

Although Response to Intervention (RTI) approaches should be content or behavior specific, educational systems often utilize a macro-approach to student diversity. Metaphorically, such a view of student diversity is as limited as merely accepting there are different types of forests.  Continuing the metaphor, it is crucial for educational systems to accept that understanding differentiation of learning needs is akin to recognizing there are different types of trees within each forest: Oaks, maples, pines, etc. Content specific differentiation must further recognize there are differences amongst specific family of trees: Big pines, average-sized pines, and small pines OR Ponderosa pines, Red pines, and Eastern white pines.

Therefore, just as the diversity within a family of trees requires different climate and conditions, so too will diverse students thrive or whither, depending on the classroom’s climate and conditions.  For professional development related to differentiation, educational stakeholders must reflect upon whether their teaching approaches focus on the forest or the trees.  How might your mindset influence the most fragile within your educational ecosystem?

Images created through metaphorical language influence thought-processes.  The instinctive nature of symbolic thought can transcend cultures (Jung, 1964).  Therefore, providing metaphors can be constructive when planning professional development programs. 

Crucially, utilization of metaphor can optimize the relationship between the learning organization and the organization’s collective efficacy.  Thus, the presentation of a metaphor or other symbolic thought can increase identification of the most positive aspects of an organization’s culture (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004).  Ideally, developing and perpetuating metaphorical messages, such as that presented above, creates more effective, sustained change from subsequent professional development programs.

Effective differentiation of instruction provides students with multiple options for receiving information, making sense of it, and expressing what they learned (Tomlinson, 2017).  Thus, planning for differentiation begins by understanding the desired content to be learned, diverse processes for accessing and making sense of the content, and various formats for reliably demonstrating new skills or knowledge.  Providing accommodations and reliably planning for valid differentiation allows inclusive education to be designed from the beginning (Peterson & Hittie, 2010).  The following review of accommodation categories, presentation of categorical differentiation strategies, and directions for conducting a Talk, Think, Open- Exchange activity, can be utilized for either a short professional development session or adapted to be part of a professional learning community’s planning series.

Review of accommodations:

All students exhibit differences.  Crucially, educational stakeholders must accept that difference does NOT mean deficient.  Learning differences and preferences can be exhibited through each student’s learning styles: a preferred modality for input and output OR the student’s learning environment preference: active, quiet, peer-work, independent, etc.  Differences are also exhibited through the student’s background, multiple intelligences, ability, interests, strengths, inculcation or tendency aptitude, or motivations.  An accommodation does not significantly alter what the evaluation purports to measure (validity) or the comparability of results (reliability). Accommodations should provide fairness in equity to access optimal student learning.  Accommodations are changes in:

•Preparation (Format or Administration),

•Response,

•Setting,

•Timing or Scheduling

Related to the planning for differentiation, choice-making practices recognize difference does NOT mean deficient.  Choice empowers students to feel part of their own learning.  Choice improves teacher-student interactions.  There is NO research indicating negative effects resulting from providing choices (Jolivette, Wehby, Canale, Massey, 2001).

             

Differentiation Strategies:

General Differentiation Strategies:

• Use multisensory approaches; address multiple intelligences
• Use manipulatives and hands-on or real-life experiences
• Adjust verbal and written vocabulary for level of student

• Relate information being presented to previous experience; use real, culturally relevant examples and situations

• Teach prerequisite skills; build on prior knowledge
• Teach to student's strengths and interests

Language: Speaking and Listening Differentiation Strategies:

• Provide for whole group and small group participation and pair work
• Give visual and oral cues; use graphic organizers; tape record lessons, stories, assignments
• Have students repeat, retell, or paraphrase
• Demonstrate and describe at the same time
• Use concrete language; keep sentences simple
• Provide multiple ways for students to share what they know, both language and non-language based

Thinking Differentiation Strategies:

• Keep information and instructions at student's comprehension and vocabulary level
• Demonstrate abstract concepts using concrete materials
• Provide multiple exposures to information
• Reduce distractions
• Draw attention by using visual cues such as highlighting, arrows
• Break information into manageable chunks; sequence materials and information from simple to complex

Writing Differentiation Strategies:

• Break writing task into small steps; show how each step leads to the next
• Have student dictate (to student, teacher or tape recorder) or draw, then write
• Utilize work banks, word walls, and dictionaries; have students make their own dictionaries with words, definitions, and pictures
• Provide a variety of graphic forms for organizing: lists, webs, diagrams, charts, index cards, outlines
• Allow peer conferencing for editing
• Have student read his/her writing to class and other audiences
• Provide authentic writing tasks such as thank you notes or letters of request

Reading Differentiation Strategies:

• Build background and vocabulary before reading
• Use Story Maps, Picture Walks, Word Walls, Sentence Strips, Think Alouds, readers circle, retelling, strategy charts, highlighting tape, rulers for line of print, and graphic organizers
• Select materials at student's reading level; use leveled books
• Provide multiple exposures such as tape recording of text, dramatization, role playing and music
• Provide a variety of manipulative pictures, letters and words
• Use a variety of printed materials including real life print such as magazines and cereal boxes

Work and Study Differentiation Strategies:

• Provide strategies to help students organize their work
• Use peer tutoring or study buddies
• Use questioning strategies to assist in problem solving
• Set clear timelines; give time cues
• Gain students' attention before giving instructions; give oral and written instructions and keep them as simple as possible
• Check for understanding by having student repeat directions or assignment

Assessment and Test Taking Differentiation Strategies:

• Use multiple forms of assessment that use different intelligences (e.g., drawing and writing); provide multiple ways of responding
• Make sure the readability level matches the student's reading level
• Decrease distractions
• Provide clear simple directions
• Adjust task and criteria/rubric for different students

Social/Emotional Differentiation Strategies:

• Consider social and emotional as well as academic needs when planning
• Place students in groups where they will be most successful
• Verbally and visually prepare students for transitions and changes in routine
• Allow for short breaks and movement during long periods of sitting
• Provide student with adequate space (some need more than others); provide advantageous seating
• Provide clear limits and consequences and enforce them consistently

Adapted from Educational Checklist and Suggested Accommodations (Arlington Public Schools, 2000)

Preparing for the Group Learning Routine: Talk, Think, Open-Exchange Activity:

After an initial review of the Differentiation Strategies categorized above (make into a handout), participants should form content-based triad groups for the Think-Talk-Open-Exchange activity.  Triads then further review the Differentiation Strategies Handout while reflecting upon a recent or current unit of instruction.

Before beginning the ensuing Talk, Think, Open-Exchange activity, participants should reflect upon how their utilization of suggested strategies could:

·         scaffold content to reduce frustration for some students,

·         provide choices in how to respond to new learning,

·         present information based on diverse learning styles, OR

Group Learning Routine: Talk, Think, Open-Exchange Activity:

Roles: One Speaker, Two Listeners, One Time keeper (can be the facilitator for the entire group or one of the listeners. It is useful to set a timer so that no one watches a clock.)

Note: Whenever a participant’s task is to listen, then that participant (or “listener”) cannot talk.

Steps:

1.      Talk Out Loud: Speaker: describes a question, dilemma, or resonating ideas. Listeners: Two other participants listen without interrupting. No one but the speaker talks during this time period. If the speaker finishes before the time is up then the group uses the extra time to think.

2.      Think: Everyone takes time to think about what they heard. During think time participants may jot down questions, record connections, patterns, and surprises, and take notes.

3.      Open Exchange: Speaker is not allowed to speak during this step. It is often useful for the speaker to move the chair back a bit while still close enough to actively listen. The two listeners then have an exchange about what they heard: raising questions, making connections, noting surprises and patterns. It is helpful for the two listeners to look at each other, avoiding eye contact with the Speaker.

4.      Interesting and Useful: Speaker shares what was interesting or “surprising” and useful from the exchange.  Listeners listen to the Speaker.

5.      Repeat steps 1 – 4 (changing roles so that everyone has a chance to be the Speaker).

6.      Facilitated Short Discussion: PD Facilitator engages the group in a short discussion to ask questions and talk about patterns that came up in the Talk Out Louds and the Open-Exchanges.

Additional Tips:

·         PD facilitator must teach participants this routine for them to be able to use it in an efficient manner.

·         Do not forget to share the purpose of the group learning and criteria for success with the PD participants.

·         Be sure to include enough information in the directions about the participants’ roles during the group learning routine, so that they know exactly what to do.  Include directions about who speaks first, what they need to discuss, and how much time they have for each aspect of the routine.

·         Do not omit the timed “think time” in this routine.  It is important that participants learn to reflect on what each group member said in order for them to learn to truly listen, instead of just waiting until it is their turn to speak.

·         When participants are sharing (“interesting and useful” step), remember to take time to reflect on the process and the learning that was achieved.  Help participants identify patterns in their responses.

·         You can make your own variations to the base Talk, Think, Open-Exchange routine.  To do this, simply augment the “open exchange” part with whatever outcome you would like the participants to produce. 

o   For example, ask participants to rank the information they discussed to identify the three items they think are most important.

o   Ask participants to “talk-think-thread”, in which they have to connect or “thread” their ideas onto the statement made by the previous speakers.

o   Require participants to use provided strategies or vocabulary during their open exchange discussion time.

·         The point of any augmentation to this group learning routine is to further the exchange, so that it becomes more rigorous.

Be mindful how the Talk, Think, Open-Exchange activity above, adapted from Bondie and Zusho (2018), can generalize to the classroom itself. An adapted Talk, Think, Open-Exchange activity provides great opportunities for differentiated learning throughout many grade levels and content areas. The structure of the Talk, Think, Open-Exchange activity is based on the Micro Lab Protocol guidelines as available from the National School Reform’s protocols site:

https://nsrfharmony.org/protocols/

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (September 30, 2019) A metaphor and strategies for planning and implementing differentiated instruction. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Bondie, R., & Zusho, A. (2018). Differentiated Instruction Made Practical. doi:10.4324/9781351248471

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13.

Jolivette, K., Wehby, J. H., Canale, J., & Massey, N. G. (2001). Effects of Choice-Making Opportunities on the Behavior of Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26(2), 131–145. doi:10.1177/019874290102600203

Jung, C. G. (1964) Man and his symbols London, England: Aldus Books in association with W.H. Allen

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009).  District leadership that works. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press

Peterson, M.J. and Hittie, M.M (2010). Inclusive teaching: The journey towards effective schools for all learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.