help

The Print, Not the Pictures, Contains the Message

2023-07-11T13:35:10-05:00July 11th, 2023|Reflections and Commentary, Teaching|

By Laura Ramos & Mary Ann Arellano

Descubriendo la Lectura (DLL) is designed for first graders having difficulty learning to read and write in classrooms where literacy instruction is in Spanish. For more information, visit https://readingrecovery.org/dll/.


After reading bicicleta (bicycle) correctly in a new text, Juan stops and excitedly says, “Maestra, si quito cleta, dice bici. Yo siempre digo bici.” (Teacher, if I take the cleta away, it says bici. I always say bici). He then continues reading, proud of this new discovery.

Juan’s journey in DLL began in February of 2023. He entered DLL with a very primitive understanding of how print works. He was able to identify 58 letters, and he could write 18 simple (mostly 2-3 phoneme) high-frequency words. The numerous omissions of phonemes when attempting words that consisted of more than three phonemes indicated that listening for sequences of phonemes in longer or multisyllabic words was still in development. Juan scored 9/25 on the Concepts about Print task. His interactions with the CAP booklet revealed that he did not appear to understand that print contains the message and that he was still negotiating the concept of letter and word. His inability to attend left to right across a word made it difficult for him to detect any changes in word or letter order, and, as a result, he could not match 1:1 or read the level 1 text.

Given that his strengths were writing vocabulary and letter identification, his DLL teacher hypothesized that developing his ability to hear and record phonemes in sequence (phonemic awareness) while extending both his reading and writing vocabularies might be an entry point for Juan to engage with print more effectively.

In the first lessons after ‘Roaming around the known’, Juan learned to clap words and listen to their parts. He also learned how to say words slowly and attend to the sequence of phonemes independently. This prepared him for the introduction of Elkonin boxes. Juan quickly learned to manipulate counters while listening attentively to the sequence of sounds.

One day, while attempting fiesta in writing, Juan slowly articulated the word while moving his finger under the sound boxes.  He then quickly recorded “ fyesta.”  His uncomfortable gaze seemed to indicate that he was quite certain that something was amiss.

T:  ¿Qué piensas? (What do you think?)

J:  Pointed to the y and said, “No es la y.” (It’s not the y.)

T: “La y se oye bien pero no se ve bien.” (Y sounds right, but it doesn’t look right) “La /ie/ en fiesta se ve como la palabra bien que sabes escribir.” (The /ie/ in fiesta looks like a word you know how to write). This short interaction allowed Juan the opportunity to hear the diphthong and consider how it is similar to the /ie/ embedded in a word he can read and write. By slowing down to listen carefully to the sequence of phonemes, he was better equipped to consider both the sound sequence analysis and the visual letter analysis and come to understand what sequences are and are not possible in Spanish. “The brain is required to listen for and find the sounds and, in an instant, link these to appropriate letters.” LLDI pg. 93.

During the reading of a new text, Juan encountered the word brazos (arm). He initially attempted barri, possibly predicting (not guessing) barriga (belly) based on the context, dad’s chunky stature in the picture, and based on some of the print details. Juan appeared to detect that the sequence of letters in the text did not match the prediction in his brain. He quickly adjusted his response to match the word in the book. It appears that he was developing the understanding that it is important to check the sound sequences against letter sequences when evaluating his predictions in reading. “Cross-checking occurs when the child can hear the sounds in a word he speaks and checks whether the expected letters are there.” LLDI pg. 136.

During the reading of the running record, Juan predicted the word controló(control)/consolar (console). This initial substitution not only fit the context of the story, but it was also incredibly visually similar.  He immediately self-corrected at the point of error.

T: Curious as to what the child noticed, asked “¿Cómo sabes que ésta palabra no es controló?”  (How do you know that this word isn’t controló?).

 J:  Pointed to the s and responded, “No tiene la t.”(It doesn’t have a t) Clay reminds us, “They are not just guessing. They are computing the likelihood of the features that they recognize belonging to the word they have predicted.” LLDI pg. 145. This also seems to indicate that he carefully considered both sound sequences and letter sequences in order to verify his response since both words fit the context. He was effectively using print detail from left to right across the word. “A left to right scanning through a word is critical in reading because letter order matters.” LL pg. 147.

As Juan’s phonemic awareness skills became stronger, his DLL teacher noticed that his reading and writing vocabularies also began to expand. “And it is clear that becoming aware of phonemes is essential for becoming good at word recognition (Ehri & Sweet, 1991)”. LLDI pg. 93. These known words in reading and writing became useful in helping him solve unknown words.

While composing, Juan wanted to write audifonos.  Although he made the decision to put this new word in boxes, he was unsure of how to record the diphthong/au/.

T: “¿Haz escuchando otra palabra que se escucha como audífonos?” (Have you heard a word that sounds like audífono?)  “The child needs to hear how this new word sounds like a word he already knows.” LLDI pg. 105.

J:  ¡Auto!

T: “¡Si, audifonos empieza como auto!” (Yes, audifonos starts like auto!) T demonstrates the similarity in a familiar book with the word auto.

In this interaction, Juan was able to use a word he had read in a familiar book to help him solve a novel word in writing. “Massive practice with text reading also builds a network between letter sequences and sound sequences between what is seen and what is heard. This massive practice allows the visual perception to become quick, efficient, and automatic, allowing the reader to focus on context and read with fluency.”  LLDI pg. 112.

During the reading of a new text, Juan stopped at the word mientras. After failing to initiate a response, the teacher interjected and broke the word into syllables with a small card.

T: “¿Conoces una palabra que parece a ésta?” (Do you know a word that looks like this?)

J: Thought for a moment, then responded “İMielİ, İComo en el libro de Osito Marcos!” (Miel! Like in the Baby Bear book!)  Mien….tras! He went on to comment, “Y tras es como tres!” (And tras looks like tres!)

Two things were helpful. First, when Juan stopped at the new word, mientras, the teacher prompted him to look at the print, searching for something that he knew about that word. Second, the teacher broke the word into a useful cluster, allowing Juan an opportunity to access his personal core of known. This may have been particularly useful given that the word mientras has three consonants in the middle. The break made the syllables more accessible to Juan. The syllable break may have also contributed to Juan noticing the tras cluster in mientras and linking it to tres! How smart is that! “Knowing many high-frequency words increases the child’s resources for solving new words in both reading and writing by analogy with words he already knows,” LLDI pg. 153.

Twelve short weeks later, Juan read the text level 18 fluently. He demonstrated the ability to solve flexibly by using both the print and the context. For example, when he encountered the word transformo, he said trans slowly and then quickly segmented the for-mo. When he encountered the word aguantamos, he segmented a-guan-ta-mos quickly while integrating the meaning and structure. “When the child’s series of lessons ends and he is reading a text of appropriate level he should be able to solve a multisyllabic word (one that is new, not yet familiar, or unexpected) within continuous text without slowing up too much and by working flexibly with word parts and clusters of letters from an awareness of how words work.”  LLDI pg. 126.  On the writing vocabulary task, Juan wrote 46 words. He demonstrated the ability to manipulate phonemes in creative ways while working with similar spelling patterns. For example, he wrote: para-pero, mira-miro-mire, caminar-mirar, dos-los, veo-velo. Juan scored 22/25 on CAP. His almost perfect score and his interaction with the test booklet indicate that Juan clearly understands that print contains the message. In fact, he was so attentive to letter sequences that he quickly detected the changes in letter order (vool/voló, auga/agua).

In closing, Juan’s DLL lessons helped him learn to look at print in efficient and effective ways by incorporating phonemic awareness, phonics, and problem-solving behaviors that enabled him to decode unknown words in flexible ways while reading and writing authentic continuous text.


Laura Ramos and Mary Ann Arellano are both RR/DLL Teacher Leaders in Amarillo ISD.


Dr. Sam Bommarito interviews Dr. Billy Molasso, Executive Director of RRCNA

2023-06-24T11:39:56-05:00June 24th, 2023|General, Latest News, Reflections and Commentary|

Dr. Billy Molasso, Executive Director of RRCNA, discusses Reading Recovery and how research demonstrates that it really works: An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Republished with permission of Dr. Sam Bommarito, author of Dr. Sam 7, Seeking Ways to Grow Proficient, Motivated, Lifelong Readers & Writers: https://doctorsam7.blog/2023/06/24/dr-billy-molasso-executive-director-of-rrcna-discusses-rr-and-how-research-demonstrates-that-it-really-works-an-interview-conducted-by-dr-sam-bommarito/

Dr. Billy Molasso is the Director of RRCNA. In this interview, he talks about various issues dealing with Reading Recovery. He focuses on dispelling misinformation and myths about RR, which are currently being presented by the folks supporting the social media version of the Science of Reading. The facts are that Reading Recovery is research-based and has decades of research demonstrating that it works Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). Billy knows about that firsthand since he is the parent of two Reading Recovery children.

Dr. Sam’s thoughts about this interview:

In the past few months, I’ve discussed how many researchers and others have been pushing back against the social media version of the Science of Reading LINKLINK. Billy Molasso has been prominent among those folks. On the one hand, the positive effects of RR on students are well-documented LINK. However, when a study was published indicating that the long-term effects were negative, Billy stepped in and questioned that study’s conclusions. He pointed out that particular study had a very high attrition rate. The final conclusions are based on only 25% of the total number of students in the study. I wrote a blog around what Billy had to say on that point LINK. That blog also talked about what others were saying about the misdirections and misunderstandings being promoted by the incomplete story told by some social media pundits.

I have written about the positive effects of RR many times LINKLINK, LINK. I was trained in RR, taught RR, and found that the training has been invaluable to me throughout my education career. The Professional Development aspect of RR is sometimes overlooked, but it is powerful. RR-trained teachers learn various methods to help children (and yes that includes the various ways to teach phonics). RR-trained teachers are a valuable asset to any district. In the interview about her book Rubies in the Rubble, Jill Speering reported that the same folks who were trying to end a RR program at her district were concurrently trying to encourage teachers from that program to stay with the district because of the extensive literacy training those teachers had.

Let’s remember that RR isn’t for every student, but for those who it fits, it carries out its main function. That is to accelerate those students to catch up with the students in their building. When that happens, and the building has a working tier-one program, the effects of RR remain for the long term. Susan Vincent reported that fact in an interview I did with her LINK.

Recovery works. Recovery-trained teachers are an asset. Recovery has helped tens of thousands of children worldwide. I urge all educators to resist the attempt by some folks to eliminate their competition by outlawing recovery. Doing so will create a monopoly. Monopolies never help consumers. I hope everyone keeps all this in mind as we create legislation around the issue of how to teach reading. Thanks for listening.

Happy Reading and Writing.

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)

BTW more interviews coming up, including Jan Richardson, Gravity Goldberg and, later this summer P.D. Pearson

Copyright 2023 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

Thank You, Reading Recovery Community!

2023-02-08T18:07:55-05:00November 22nd, 2022|General, Latest News, Reading Recovery Teaching, Reflections and Commentary|

 

Thanksgiving is a time for reflection, togetherness, and gratitude. This year, we’re thankful for every member of the Reading Recovery Community. Thank you for working tirelessly to help children learn to read.

Browse our thank you note gallery below. Add a thank you note you received to the comment section in our community and social media and we’ll add it to this post! Bookmark this post for whenever you need a pick-me-up. Your commitment and passion is appreciated!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Open Letter to Principals Who Support the Reading Recovery Community

2023-02-08T17:56:39-05:00October 13th, 2022|General, Reflections and Commentary|

By Kathleen Brown

Dear Principals who support the Reading Recovery Community,

In honor of National Principals’ Month, the Reading Recovery Community wholeheartedly thanks you for supporting literacy teaching and learning for the most struggling readers and writers. 

Your guidance, leadership, and vision have helped grow and sustain literacy learning at your school sites and within your districts.

Your sense of urgency to intervene early is evident in your commitment to Reading Recovery and good first teaching in the primary grades.

Your fidelity to providing equal access for all students is commendable.

You helped strengthen the comprehensive literacy system at your sites by drawing on the strengths of the Reading Recovery teachers and utilizing them as coaches and staff developers.

Your participation and attendance at ongoing professional development sessions and help transporting students for the behind the glass lessons are appreciated and valued.

Your interest and involvement in understanding Reading Recovery data and utilizing the information to improve and refine instruction helps us better serve our students.

Your regular communication and collaboration with the Reading Recovery teachers and the literacy team make the teachers feel like their input is valued.

You regularly encourage our literacy team to work together to provide the best support systems for our students.

You serve as effective advocates and voices for the most struggling readers, their families, and caregivers. Thank you for being their literacy champions.

Many of your impactful contributions to Reading Recovery are listed above. However, while the little things or behind-the-scenes gestures may go unnoticed, they add up to something meaningful and beautiful. Please accept our deepest gratitude for…

  • Having an open-door policy
  • Finding humor and making things manageable during stressful times
  • Being a good listener and being open-minded
  • Believing in teachers and their heroic efforts
  • Guiding and supporting us through the uncertainties of the Pandemic
  • Taking the time to read with Reading Recovery students
  • Providing books in your office and other places around the school for students to read and enjoy
  • Acknowledging Reading Recovery students at award ceremonies and assemblies
  • Purchasing books and materials for classroom instruction and Reading Recovery
  • Securing funds for Reading Recovery teachers and classroom teachers to attend local, state, and national conferences, such as LitCon
  • Calling parents to discuss the importance of attendance
  • Supplying drinks and snacks at meetings
  • Including news about Reading Recovery in weekly bulletins and staff meetings
  • Stopping by to observe Reading Recovery lessons
  • Protecting our Reading Recovery lesson time whenever possible
  • Bringing visitors into the Reading Recovery room to observe the intervention in action
  • Promoting the importance of literacy at the school site through various activities and events and including parents and the community

The list above shows countless acts of kindness, dedication, and commitment to effective intervention and good first teaching.

Thank you from the Reading Recovery Community and the Reading Recovery students, parents, and caregivers.

In closing, let us reflect on the imprint, influence, and impact you have on ensuring all students receive the gift of literacy and the love of learning.

“For everyone, everywhere, literacy is, along with education in general, a basic human right.” Kofi Annan

With Kids in Mind,
The Reading Recovery Community


Kathleen Brown is a Retired Educator from the Long Beach Unified School District. She currently serves as the Secretary for the 2022 – 2023 Reading Recovery Council of North America Board of Trustees.

 


 

Opinion: Phonics is not a panacea for all struggling readers

2022-06-03T12:36:46-05:00June 3rd, 2022|Latest News, Reflections and Commentary|

by Maureen Downey

Originally published May 26, 2022. Republished with permission by Maureen Downey, author of the Get Schooled blog, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. https://www.ajc.com/education/get-schooled-blog/opinion-phonics-is-not-a-panacea-for-all-struggling-readers/4H52UELV4RANFP53YVILC46VTI/

 

Researchers: Dyslexia isn’t the only cause of reading challenges students face

In a guest column, three researchers delve into the reading wars that often pit whole language against phonics as the best approach for struggling readers.

David Reinking and David Yaden are former editors of the top reading journals, Reading Research Quarterly and Journal of Literacy Research.

A Distinguished Professor of Education at Clemson University for 14 years, Reinking has served as president of the National Reading Conference, now the Literacy Research Association. He was also a department head at the University of Georgia and is now an adjunct professor there in the Department of Language and Literacy Education.

An endowed Distinguished Professor of language, reading and culture at the University of Arizona College of Education, Yaden has also held appointments at Emory University and has been a principal investigator in the federally funded Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. He is now president of the Literacy Research Association.

A professor emeritus at the University of Georgia and frequent Get Schooled essayist, Peter Smagorinsky is a former editor of Research in the Teaching of English, which includes attention to reading.

By David Reinking, Peter Smagorinsky and David Yaden

 

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has reported that Georgia is awarding $1.5 million to train teachers to instruct students with dyslexia. This condition, according to some, affects as many as one in five students, suggesting a crisis that needs immediate attention in schools, and university schools of education.

Georgia is one of many states that have recently developed mandates to address the presumed dyslexia emergency. New York Mayor Eric Adams has recently revealed that he was born dyslexic and struggled to read until relatively late in life. New York, he believes, needs to invest $7.4 million to address the dyslexia epidemic that accounts for low reading scores. He says, “Dyslexia holds back too many of our children in school but most importantly in life. (It) haunts you forever until you can get the proper treatment that you deserve.”

 

Dyslexia is understood by Mayor Adams, and many others, to be a brain dysfunction that makes reading difficult. The New York and Georgia plans assume that dyslexia is an agreed-upon condition that can be overcome with intensive phonics instruction, an approach that emphasizes the connection between letters and words. Yet reading struggles follow from many causes.

 

For example, the health and nutrition consequences of living in poverty can interfere with learning to read. Narrowing all problems to a specific location in the brain is a lot simpler than making the water in the Flint River drinkable, or the schools in DeKalb County sanitaryUnsanitary environments affect school learning. By some estimates, one in six children in the U.S. is going hungry.

Kids can’t eat phonics. If there is a reading crisis because one in five kids is believed to be dyslexic, then surely there is a crisis when one kid in six is too hungry to focus on a reading lesson.

 

Understanding the range of challenges suggests the need for a large toolbox of strategies and approaches to teach all children, especially those experiencing difficulties, cognitive or otherwise. For instance, reading habits make a difference in reading development, and these habits often follow from motivation and engagement. It is well established that the gap between good and poor readers increases over time because poor readers read less. These are social factors with instructional implications that cannot be explained by a brain deficiency.

Meanwhile, the phonics emphasis has an uneven record in doing what its advocates claim that only phonics can do. Some of the most popular (and expensive) approaches have conspicuously failed to measure up.

 

The phonics-heavy Orton-Gillingham approach, long favored by dyslexia advocates and aggressively marketed to concerned parents, does not meet the U.S. Department of Education’s standards for research-based teaching. It is not included in the department’s What Works Clearinghouse.

 

There’s another problem: Dyslexia diagnoses are not always dependable, leading to the mislabeling of children and the over-reliance on phonics in early reading instruction. Like Mayor Adams, the children assigned this label and treatment then become saddled with the assumption that they have an inborn, incurable condition. The American Psychiatric Association has, because of the uncertainty surrounding diagnoses, demoted dyslexia from a diagnosable condition to a sign of a more general learning difficulty.

Concerned readers might ask, Don’t these people know that brain science has proven that dyslexia exists, and has identified its causes and the best practices for treating it? Don’t they know that “settled science” from the Science of Reading has provided the answers?

 

Yes, we’re aware of their claims. But we also listen to researchers who argue that brain research is in its infancy. Its recognized methodological limitations have been described for lay readers in Scientific AmericanScientific thinking is a quest that requires constant rethinking. It aims to reduce ignorance, not find a final truth. Notably as well, even some science of reading advocates admit that there is no reliable research connecting basic brain science with phonics instruction.

We are not rejecting phonics, except as a panacea. We — like the overwhelming majority of reading teacher educators — advocate for a key role for phonics. It has a significant role in learning to read for all students. Some will need more and some less. Finding claims about dyslexia to be questionable does not make us unfettered Whole Language enthusiasts, an approach whose assumptions we have also questioned.

 

Unfortunately, the Reading Wars have often forced teachers to choose between Science of Reading’s phonics emphasis, and Whole Language’s urgings to let readers develop naturally. The fact is, there is plenty in between and outside these binary positions to understand for teachers to address the range of issues that produce a struggling reader. In a national survey, most teacher educators and experienced teachers agreed that a balanced approach is advisable. Unfortunately, however, wars are fought to be won.

We share teachers’ concern for helping all children develop into successful readers. Teachers are not the dolts often presumed in political mandates to reduce all problems to one cause and one solution. They are mostly caring, thoughtful people who share parents’ hopes that their children will emerge from school equipped for life. Every day, they see the full complexity of children’s individual differences and circumstances and how they interact with their learning.

 

There is no single all-encompassing explanation for reading difficulties. There is no single teaching approach that works for all. Our kids, and their families, deserve more than a one-size-fits-all cure for a nebulous condition.