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:
- Encourage participation by key stakeholders during planning and implementation.
- Elicit strong administrative support in staff development, instructional integrity, and data collection.
- Provide in-depth staff development with mentoring, modeling, and coaching.
- Begin follow-up trainings at the beginning of each school year.
- Distribute a manual outlining procedures and materials.
- 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.
