Making Invitational Education Theory and Practice Omnipresent in Your 'Five Ps'

         Invitational Education theory and practice shifted a model of leadership “from emphasizing control and dominance to one that focuses on connectedness, cooperation, and communication” (Purkey & Siegel, 2013, p.1).  In 2003, Egley found “research on the effects of Invitational Education Theory in the educational administrative process is relatively new as compared to other theories pertaining to leadership” (p.57).  Later, Burns and Martin (2010) believed their literature review, which included analysis of Aldridge, (2003); Jennings, (2003); Penner, (1981); Shapiro, (1990); and Stillion & Siegel, (2005), reinforced their premise that “contemporary leaders in education must face a new day requiring skills and knowledge beyond what needed to be exhibited by previous leaders” (p. 30).  By blending leadership qualities, values, and principles, Purkey and Siegel developed the Invitational Leadership model that invited success from all interested stakeholders whereby “Invitational leadership was created based upon four basic assumptions exemplifying invitational leaders: optimism, respect, trust, and intentionality” (Burns & Martin, 2010, p.31). 

            It is now recognized that intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust (I-CORT) should be the Invitational Education leader’s consistent mindset (Anderson, 2019) to exhibit the personally and professionally inviting behaviors (Purkey & Novak, 2016) that promote “increased learning outcomes and personal growth” (Shaw, Siegel, & Schoenlein, 2013, p. 33).  I-CORT must be evident throughout the five powerful factors: people, places, policies, programs, and processes, which Purkey and Siegel called the “five P’s” (p. 104).  Being interdependent, each factor has separate and combined influence on an organization’s culture and potential sustainability of success initiatives.  Therefore, interdependent consideration of these five P’s and an exhibition of I-CORT when dealing with each factor provides limitless opportunities because the results can positively impact the total culture of nearly every organization. 

            Invitational Education theory seeks to promote trust, collaboration, and purposeful inclusion (Purkey & Novak, 2015; Purkey & Siegel, 2013). However, “People cannot accept invitations they have never received” (Purkey & Novak, 1996, p.75). To be dependably inviting, effective leaders need to check for receipt and seek acknowledgement of their invitations for personal and professional development. Is there an adverse influence of a teacher candidate’s low emotional intelligence upon the ability to recognize intentional invitation as an opportunity?    The interdependent IE framework addresses “the total culture or ecosystem of almost any organization” (Purkey and Siegel, 2013, p. 104).  Given there is no quick fix for educational problems, the IE framework encourages ongoing vigilance before affirming sustained change (Purkey & Siegel, 2013; Strahan & Purkey, 1992). Vigilance is required because changing how a school operates requires transforming its people (Asbill, 1994). School reform requires systemic change: A metamorphosis, based on systemic analysis of the people, places, policies, programs, and processes (the Five Ps). This structural analysis of school climate discerns whether any part of the whole is disinviting (Purkey & Siegel, 2013).       

            As proponents of IE theory, we know others are better served by empowering opportunities for achieving one’s human potential.  Therefore, we encourage dialogue that promotes critical thinking and open-mindedness.  A critical theory perspective invites dialogue to identify, address, and problem-solve societal issues by accepting there are multiple perspectives.  What is "true" for one group may be different given each group's lived inequities, lack of access, and unequal power.

       Metaphorically, when each thread is considered valuable and interwoven, the fabric is strengthened.  A critical theory perspective would suggest each group be considered a valuable thread in the fabric of society.  Shall we weave or allow to fray...? IE theory and practice advocates should naturally reject any exhibition of contempt because it merely destroys motivation and incites further division.  As champions of IE theory and practices, we endeavor to always promote intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust (I-CORT) in all our educational, leadership, and interpersonal opportunities. 

            During 2022 IE theory advocates must be omnipresent through our modeling and nurturing an intentionally inviting stance.  We must promote IE theory and practice in our demonstrated efforts to encourage the learning for all mission.  We can no longer wait to be recognized but rather we must lead others in the “direction and purpose for all Invitational thought and action” (Purkey & Novak, 2016, p 11).  Through this intentional invitation, we are provided the opportunity to sustain our successful educational practices through our actions.  These right actions will allow IE theory and practice to strengthen minds, free spirits, and enrich societies.

            As the Editor of the 2017-2021 Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice you are welcomed and encouraged to promote the study, application, and research of Invitational Education theory and practice.  You and your colleagues are invited to submit scholarly papers that identify how Invitational Education theory and practice guides reform, sustains success, or reinforces best practices through research.  The Journal for Invitational Theory and Practice (JITP) (ISSN-1060-6041) publishes once a year and promotes the tenets of invitational theory and practice, self-concept theory, and perceptual psychology. First published in 1992, the JITP is currently indexed in the ERIC and EBSCO databases.

            The JITP seeks to publish articles under two priorities: research and practice. First, manuscripts are encouraged that report research that examines and expands the theory and practice of invitational learning and development, investigates the efficacy of invitational practices, relates invitational theory to other theories of human development and behavior, or focuses on theories that are compatible with invitational theory and practice. Second, manuscripts will be considered that are more focused on the practice of invitational theory. These articles are less data-oriented and could describe authors’ attempts to apply invitational theory to a variety of settings or activities related to invitational theory. The editorial board will also consider book reviews of professional books related to invitational or other related theories. 

            The JITP accepts articles for submission year-round.  However, the ideal submission deadline for each issue is October 1^st. The Journal uses a blind peer review of articles with final publication decisions made by the editor. Upon publication, authors will receive an electronic copy of the JITP. Manuscripts submitted to or under consideration for publication by other journals are not accepted.  Authors must follow specific guidelines when submitting manuscripts for publication consideration:

1.   1. Prepare manuscripts in APA style. Refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th Edition (2019).

2.      2. Submit manuscripts as email attachments to: JITPeditor@invitationaleducation.net

a.   All submissions will be acknowledged by return email to the originating email address.

b.  Questions about submissions should be emailed to the editor, Chris James Anderson: JITPeditor@invitationaleducation.net; ucan@rcn.com

3.      3. Include your home and business phone numbers.

a.   This will allow the editor to quickly contact you if necessary.

4.      4. Create all manuscripts as Microsoft Word documents.

a.   Please remove embedded comments, tracked changes, and hidden personal data in the file.

5.      5. Submit two copies of the manuscript – one with your identifying information and one without your identifying information

a.    The anonymous copy is sent for blind review.

6.        6.  Limit manuscripts to less than 10,000 words, double spaced (including references and quotations)

a.  Use Times New Roman, 12-point font, with one-inch margins on each side, top, and bottom.

7.      7. Format (APA, 2019) the cover page with the author’s or authors’ names, institutional affiliation(s), and title of the manuscript.

8.          8. On the second page, include the title and an abstract of 150 - 250 words.

9.         9.  For the blind copy, do not include authors’ names on this or subsequent pages.  The author(s)’ name(s) should not appear anywhere in the blind copy of the manuscript. 

a.  If the author(s)’ own research is used, insert the word Author for all within manuscript citations and all References.  For the Reference Page, include only Author (year) for each citation – do not include the name of the article/book, etc.

1           10. Include tables: created with MS Word table function only, and figures sparingly. These must be formatted per APA (2019) style.

a.     All tables and figures should be placed (embedded) within the document.

b.   Any artwork and diagrams should be included as separate digital graphic files, .tif, .gif, or .jpg.

11.          11. Quotations must follow APA (2019) style.

a.  Lengthy quotations require written permission from the copyright holder for reproduction.

b.   Authors are responsible for obtaining permissions and providing documentation of permission to the JITP editor.

1             12. Reviews of manuscripts typically take approximately eight weeks.

a.   Manuscripts are reviewed by two members of the Editorial Review Board

b.    Manuscripts are rubric-scored.

c.   Patience is appreciated but author(s) can contact the JITP editor at any time for a status report.

1              13. Notification regarding publication will presented to the author(s) from the editor.

a.  If the manuscript is accepted, details about the issue for publication will be conveyed at that time.

14.     14. For accepted manuscripts requiring revisions, the author(s) MUST use the Review>Track Changes function within MS Word.

1.             15. Members can access previous JITP publications at https://www.invitationaleducation.org/jitp-publications/ 

 

 To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (December 31, 2021) Making invitational theory and practice omnipresent 

    in your 5Ps. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References:

Anderson, C. J. (2016). A correlational study examining demonstrated emotional

intelligence and perceptions of school climate. (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 10027119

Anderson, C. J. (2019). A leader’s emotional self-control and management of others impacts a

school’s climate. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 25, 39-57.

Anderson, C. J. (2021). Developing your students' emotional intelligence and philosophical

 perspective begins with I-CORT. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 27, 36-50.

 McLaren, P. (1986). Interrogating the conceptual roots of invitational education: A review

of Purkey and Novak's inviting school success. Interchange, 17, 90-95.

 Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach

            to teaching, learning, and democratic practice (3rd ed.).Wadsworth

            Publishing Company. 

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2^nd Ed)

            International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:

http://invitationaleducation.net/product/category/books

 Purkey, W. W., Schmidt, J. J., & Novak, J. M. (2010). From conflict to conciliation: How

            to defuse difficult situations.  Corwin Press. ISBN: 9787452212104

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach  to

professional and personal success. Humanics. Retrieved from:

http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Shaw, D., Siegel, B., & Schoenlein, A. (2013). The basic tenets of invitational theory and

practice: An invitational glossary. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 19, 30-42

 Welch, G. & Smith, K. (2014) From theory to praxis: Applying invitational education beyond

schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 20, 5-10

Utilize Metacognitive Tools and Executive Functioning Skills to Optimize Pathways to HOTS

 

Can we agree that all educators should be planning and implementing instruction that progresses students toward utilizing higher order thinking skills (HOTS)?  Effective learning environments utilize psychological tools to reduce learning overload by optimizing metacognition (Bohlin et al., 2008)  During his FAT City Workshops, Lavoie (1989) encouraged avoidance of instructional environments that exacerbate frustration, anxiety, and tension (FAT).  Prospective and in-service teachers are encouraged to eliminate FAT in the classrooms, thereby optimizing a learning environment approaching nirvana (LEAN).  Acronyms and mnemonics are two psychological tools utilizing social interactions within an educational environment to effectively reduce neurological overload and increase learning of desired goals.

In the endeavor to promote HOTS rather than mostly LOTS, an effective educator seeks to mitigate learning overload.  Learning overload prevents educators from helping students realize progress and achieve stated goals (Reason, 2010).  Citing Kennedy (2006) and Franklin (2005), Reason (2010) further noted, “We can’t alter the brain to hold more information, but we can change our approach to learning in ways that reduce overwhelm and prepare us to deal with institutional challenges more effectively” (p. 99). 

In any learning environment, the student’s reticular activating system (RAS) impacts his or her attention and motivation.  Therefore, the RAS impacts how efficiently students address the curriculum focal points.  Effective educators recognize this and seek to “clearly identify the learning focal points that matter” (Reason, 2010, p. 100) as a way to mitigate stressors that overwhelms one’s perception and attention to curriculum focal points. 

Vygotsky (1979) believed that the most important thing a culture passes on to its members are psychological tools, which are cognitive devices and procedures used to communicate and explore the world around us.  Metagognitive tools both aid and change our mental functioning.  Speech, writing, gestures, diagrams, numbers, chemical formulas, musical notation, rules, and memory techniques are some common psychological tools.  Eventually these social interactions become internalized as cognitive processes that are automatically invoked.  Quoting Vygotsky, researchers Tudge and Scrimsher (2003) advocated that “through others we become ourselves” (p. 218).

Executive Function Skills include working memory, flexible thinking, attentional self-control, cognitive inhibition, self-control, time management, and stress tolerance. For this reason, it is important to begin teaching Executive Function Skills beginning in preschool.  Yes, another reason to advocate for universal pre-school but let’s have that discussion at another time… It should be difficult to argue with the suggestion that well-developed Executive Function Skills result in greater resiliency.

A great problem resulting from the COVID 19 pandemic is many of our students haven’t been in a classroom for almost two years. Everyone seems willing to accept academic progress, social emotional learning, and cognitive development were adversely impacted by school closures and reliance upon virtual instruction.  However, executive functioning skills are involved in each of those areas and thereby an impacted area that needs our specific attention. Beginning in preschool, certain early childhood activities such as imaginative play or storytelling establish for our youngest learners the pathways to their academic success.  For activities that can accelerate executive function skill development, check out the links below:

·         2014 Activities Guide: Enhancing and Practicing Executive Function Skills With Children from Infancy to Adolescence, from the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University

·         2019 paper on the science of learning and development, by Linda Darling-Hammond et al. 

·         2021 Edutopia article on executive function and kindergarten readiness, by Jackie Peng

·         2014 article about the influence of self-talk, by Ethan Kross et al.

·         2016 study about improving perseverance in young children, by Rachel E. White et al.

We do not yet fully know the implications resulting from students’ lack of daily interactions with their teachers and peers. Given teaching and learning is a social endeavor, direct interactions are essential when seeking to transmit knowledge from one person to another. Educators can more effectively accelerate learning to overcome academic and social-emotional losses by planning lessons that require Executive Function Skills and  utilize metacognitive skills to  mitigate learning overload. Does it work?  Well, after defining HOTS above, did you know what LOTS was referencing ?

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (November 30, 2021) Utilize metacognitive tools and executive functioning skills to optimize pathways to HOTS [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References:

 Bohlin, L., Durwin, C., & Reese-Weber, M. (2008). Ed psych: Modules: McGraw-Hill.

 Lavoie, R. (1989) How difficult can this be? F.A.T. City--A learning disabilities workshop DVD

            Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhzh9kt8z7c

Reason, C. (2010). Leading a learning organization: The science of working with others. Solution Tree

    Press.

Tudge, J., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical,

            interpersonal, and individual approach to development. In B. J. Zimmerman &

D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions

(pp. 207–228): Erlbaum.

 

The Students’ Funds of Identify Contributes to the Teacher's Funds of Knowledge

Yes! The student's Funds of Identify contributes to the teacher's Funds of Knowledge that can be utilized through a mindset of intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust (ICORT) to optimize an institution's people, places, policies, programs, and processes (5Ps) to create a climate that results in sustained academic success leading to the fullest development of human potential.  

In the midst of the pandemic, Dr. Katherine Roe, a former colleague, shared the potential result from linking these conceptual frameworks during the following linked podcast: https://soundcloud.com/wcsumedia/wcsu-katherine-caitlin-and-jaclyn#t=1:30

For this month’s discussion, let's accept the premise that one purpose of culturally relevant pedagogy is to motivate and stimulate learning. Given that, how can we argue with proponents of the Funds of Knowledge theory, who suggest cultural relevance is founded on the student’s culture, community, and family?  Such aspects of students’ worldview are referred to as assets (Moll, González, & Amanti, 2009). "The extent to which teachers learn about students’ assets is termed Funds of Knowledge. To increase students’ sense that they are a part of the classroom community, it is recommended that teachers learn about students’ families, community, and culture.  Understanding these assets can then be leveraged to intentionally invite students into learning that results from enhanced engagement, cognition, and comprehension. Appreciation for the exchange between teacher and student of the assets attributed to Funds of Knowledge theory aligns with Invitational Education theory and practice (Purkey & Novak, 2016), which encourages personal and professional opportunities to be intentionally caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting toward others’ pursuit of their human potential.  Research indicates teachers that interdependently implement tenets of these theories foster a positive learning environment that promotes their students’ self-concept" (Roe, 2019).

Embracing the Funds of Knowledge framework can allow administrators and teachers to build curricula based on the events and situations observed in the students' households and community.  This knowledge provides leverage for increased understanding of the student strengths; thereby building a foundation for learning within the classroom. By implementing an inter-connected IE theory and Funds of Knowledge framework, teachers can use the students' strengths and an ICORT mindset to provide effective instructional supports that result in more active, engaging, and successful learning. "This is most clearly evident in relation to ELLs, diverse learners, and students with individual education programs" (Roe, 2019). Our most vulnerable, at-risk populations especially respond well when learning becomes personalized and meaningful by aligning learning outcomes with the student’s social schema. 

Previous research by Roe (2019) proved consistent utilization of Funds of Knowledge aligned with an ICORT mindset empowers students and improves programs.  Let’s embrace the obvious parallels within the IE and Funds of Knowledge conceptual frameworks to enrich our pedagogical practices, especially for English-language Learners and at-risk populations without losing sight that good pedagogical practices generalize to all students. Simply put, the utilization of IE theory and practices to support student assets through respect for their Funds of Knowledge demonstrates a climate graced by intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust!

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (October 31, 2021) The students’ funds of identify contributes to the teacher's funds of knowledge [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References:

Moll, L., González, N., & Amanti, C. (2009). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classroom: Routledge

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. N. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education (A. T. Schoenlein Ed. 2nd ed.): The International Alliance for Invitational Education.

Roe. K. (2019) Supporting student assets and demonstrating respect for funds of knowledge. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, v25 p5-13

Understanding Dyslexia

     What is dyslexia?  We can all benefit from a deeper understanding of what dyslexia is, learning how to identify signs of it, and  adding effective strategies to prevent reading difficulties into our "pedagogical toolbox."  In these endeavors, the linked whitepaper should be considered a resource: Understanding Dyslexia: Defining, Evaluating, and Teaching Students at Risk of Reading Problems (Brown, 2021). 

    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).  Many Response to Intervention (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.  This blog post will identify tenets and critiques of some of the most popular reading programs utilized as Tier 3 RTI.

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 available on a nonprofit, no royalty basis.  Reading Recovery® in the United States is a collaboration between universities and school districts.  Therefore program costs include tuition for initial training and continuing professional development.  Establishment of a Reading Recovery® site requires training of a teacher leader.  Additional start-up costs include the teacher leader’s salary, the university tuition for the Reading Recovery® coursework, and costs for books and materials.  Each site must provide a “cognitive lab” (a room with a one-way mirror and sound system), which will optimize subsequent training for teachers.  Trained teacher leaders work at the site level and provide professional development to subsequent Reading Recovery® teachers.  Subsequent costs support the teacher leader and a proportional part of the Reading Recovery® teachers’ salaries and benefits.  Specially trained Reading Recovery®  teachers work part of the day implementing Reading Recovery® interventions and the balance of the day in assigned duties such as classroom teaching or providing small group literacy instruction.  Data reported for 2010-2011 identifies the average Reading Recovery® teacher in the United States provided eight students with Reading Recovery® interventions and provided instruction to nearly 40 additional students. 

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. 

Reading Recovery® also has its critics.  Center, Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred, & McNaught (1995); Rasinski (1995); and Shanahan & Barr (1995) all level criticism on its methodological effectiveness.  Hiebert (1994) questions the level of gains that are maintained over time. Dudley-Marling & Murphy (1997) criticize the Reading Recovery® program for maintaining the “status quo by protecting the structure of schools” (p 460).  A What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) report on the Reading Recovery® program identified 202 studies that investigated Reading Recovery® in relation to the reading skills of at risk beginning readers (U.S. Department of Education, 2013).  While only three of the initial five studies reviewed by Chapman and Tunmer (2015) met WWC evidence standards, Chapman and Tunmer still felt justified in suggesting “there is little empirical evidence to indicate that successful completions in Reading Recovery result in sustained literacy achievement gains.  On the contrary, there is strong evidence indicating students who have received Reading Recovery® benefit little from the program” (p. 6). 

However, 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.  This logic reinforces the published beliefs of Clay (2005):

Children who successfully complete early literacy interventions like Reading Recovery should operate in reading and writing in ways that put them on track for being silent readers with self-extending systems during the next two years at school. With good classroom instruction and moderate personal motivation that should be achievable. (p. 52).

            Teachers trained in Reading Recovery® procedures succinctly observe student literacy behaviors.  Running records and observation monitor the student’s changes in reading behaviors, what elements of literacy the student attends to, and how the student resolves problem during reading.  Teachers trained in Reading Recovery® procedures also focus on the child’s strengths while attending to areas needing development in the context of reading continuous text within real books and through writing authentic messages (Clay, 2005).

            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.

The 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. 

 Reading Rescue® provides 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 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. 

 Since 1973, the Project Read^® curriculum (Greene and Enfield) has provided an intervention program to be delivered in the regular classroom by the regular classroom teacher.  As such, Project Read^® can be considered for Tier 1 or Tier 2 RTI rather than primarily Tier 3 RTI.  The Phonics Strand of the program is based on the Orton-Gillingham method.  The Reading Comprehension and Written Expression Strands are based on three foundational principles:

1. Direct instruction of the concepts and skills of language

2. Presentation of concepts and skills in their dependent order, from simplest to most complex

3. Multisensory strategies and materials created specifically for each concept and skill

            The Project Read^®  curriculum has been successful for students in K-12, ESL/ELL, Special Education, and Title I Reading programs.  The Project Read curriculum strands include Phonics, Reading Comprehension, and Written Expression.  Using multisensory activities and direct instruction, the Project Read phonics program uses a systematic teaching approach for decoding, encoding, and reading comprehension strategies. 

            Related to its potential use as Tier 3 RTI, Project Read^® Phonology Strand was found to have no discernible effects on general reading achievement for students with learning disabilities (WWC, 2010).  The WWC review of the effectiveness of Project Read^® Phonology was based on Acalin (1995).  That study included 66 students with learning disabilities in kindergarten through grade 4 from five school districts.  As a result, the WWC considered the extent of evidence for Project Read^® Phonology on students with learning disabilities to be small for general reading achievement.

           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.

          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.

            Providing instructional leaders with the skills to advance these competencies and promoting professional development in the area of classroom assessment literacy will address the need to optimize learning and sustain success.  Professional development that promotes literacy instruction grounded in the philosophies and principles advocated by Marie Clay, Jeanne Chall, Richard Anderson, David Rumelhardt, Kenneth Goodman, and current contemporaries in reading theory will help an effective school reach its reading goals.  Such an endeavor exhibits the vision for excellence in education and promotes the mission of learning for all. 

            Undoubtedly, programs that utilize a phonemic and phonological awareness approach in a multisensory, systemic reading intervention model offer research-based Tier 3 RTI.  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).  It should be considered essential to plan for and implement 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. (September 30, 2021) Understanding dyslexia [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References;

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

Chall, J.S. (1983) Stages of reading development: McGraw Hill.

Clay, M.M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties: A diagnostic survey with recovery procedures: Heinemann.

Clay, M.M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled.  New Zealand journal of  educational studies, v22, 155-173.

Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading recovery: Heinemann

Coley, J.D. & Hoffman, D.M (1990). Overcoming learned helplessness in at-risk readers. Journal of Reading v33. n7 

    497-508.

 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.

 Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001) Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the national reading panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly 36 (3). 250-287.   http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/rrq.36.3.2

 Enfield M.L., (1976). An alternate classroom approach to meeting special learning needs of children with reading     problems (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1976).Digital Dissertations, DAI-A 37/12, p. 7632, Jun 1977.

 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: The Literacy Trust.

 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.

 Kim, Y.-S., Wagner, R. K., & Lopez, D. (2012). Developmental relations between reading fluency and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from grade 1 to grade 2. Journal of  Experimental Child Psychology , 113(1), 93-111. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.03.002

 Kletzien, S.B. & Bednar, M.R., (1990). Dynamic assessment for at-risk readers. Journal  of Reading v33. n7  528-533

Kruidenier, J. R., MacArthur, C. A., Wrigley, H. S. (2010). Adult Education Literacy Instruction: A Review of the Research: National Institute for Literacy.

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: National Institute for Literacy. 

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.

 Ouelette, G., & Senechal, M. (2008). Pathways to literacy: A study of invented spelling and its role in learning to read. Child Development, 79(4), 899-913.

 Remediation Plus System Teacher Training White Paper (2017) Retrieved from: https://issuu.com/remediationplus/docs/r__teacher_training_white_paper

 Roberts, T. A., & Meiring, A. (2006). Teaching phonics in the context of children’s literature or spelling: Influences on first grade reading spelling and writing and fifth-grade comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 690-713.

 Rosenthal, J., & Ehri, L. C. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 175-191.

 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.