help

Search Reading Recovery

Search all of our online content from one place.

The Road Trip

2023-02-08T18:10:09-05:00March 17th, 2020|Reading Recovery Teaching, Reflections and Commentary|

by Lynn Newmyer

Every summer my husband and I look forward to choosing a destination, packing up the car and heading into a wonderful week of both wandering and purpose. We choose to have a plan but allow for the discovery of new places along the way.

Each school year, I challenge myself to learn something new to improve my practice. Much like my summer road trip, I choose an area to explore, gather my resources and ready myself to build on what I know while being open to discovering new things.

During the summer as I was doing some professional reading, I came upon a very intriguing quote. “If you want to truly understand something, try to change it.” (Bryk, Gomez, Grunnow, LeMahieu 2015) I am by no means an expert on the disciplined work put forth in the professional book in my hands, however, I felt that I could study what I wanted to improve and then consider what I could change that might have a positive impact on my students’ learning.

Dr. Mary Lose, our trainer at Oakland University, had been working with the Teacher Leader group on how we could increase teachers’ understandings of what it means for a child to know a word before putting it on the Weekly Writing Vocabulary Chart. I started wondering if what I was recording as known, was really known by my students. The following are reflections of what I learned while working with two of my students.

Clay states that “A child’s writing vocabulary consists of the words he or she knows in every detail and produces easily without help plus any new word he or she can construct correctly using existing strategies and knowledge.” (Clay 2001)

A key understanding is that ‘known’ is not as simple as ‘known’ and ‘not known’. Being more aware in order for a letter or a word to be known, there are two journeys that words and letters may take from new to known with degrees of known and from slow to fast production. (Clay 2001, Clay 2016)

Now it was time to change my practice. What if I paid closer attention at the beginning of the series of lessons for each of my students and noticed not just if they knew a word but how well they knew a word?

I decided to do a writing spree at designated points and notice if words were prompted or unprompted, fast or slow, correct or partially correct.

In addition, I planned to intentionally provide opportunities across the lesson for students to learn how to learn a word.
Discoveries using planned writing sprees were insightful. My students were engaged in the challenge of being able to visibly see what they could write and how many words were coming under their control. More words were written unprompted and were correct or nearly correct. If a prompt was given, the students started generating more of their own words.

Another surprise was the intensity of the students’ concern to get the words just right during the second writing spree.

Each student was beginning to monitor and self-correct their words. They crossed out some of their words and tried again. They were paying close attention to the details of print especially their letter formation and students used what was practiced to self -correct their attempts.

Changes in my learning, deeper understandings, and my teaching caused me to notice the following:
• Increase in known and easily produced words seemed to link to an increase in text level, but not always.
• Teaching for a writing vocabulary consistently resulted in an increased writing vocabulary. Intentionality and persistence was critical.
• Frequent writing sprees seemed to send a message to the students that this was important so more words were learned early on.
• Knowing what each student knew such as quick letter formation or partially known words or word parts contributed to ease of learning new words.

Every journey is an important one as the students I teach and their needs dictate which road trip is next.

Clay reminds us, “Every interaction in the daily writing segment is a teaching move – not a memory task, nor a practice attempt, nor an analysis of sounds, but carefully determined and astutely delivered teaching with a target that involves learning how to do something, do it better, do it faster, link it up to something, and prepare it for future independent use.” (Clay 2001)

References
Bryk, A.S., Gomez, L.M., Grunow, A., LeMahieu (2015) Learning to Improve How America’s Schools Can Get Better at Getting Better, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press
Clay, M. (2001) Change Over Time in Children’s Literacy Development Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. (2016) Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals Second Edition, The Marie Clay Literacy Trust Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

 

 

Lynn Newmyer is a Reading Recovery teacher leader from Walled Lake, MI.

Are You Ready for a Reset?

2023-02-08T18:10:09-05:00February 21st, 2020|Classroom Teaching, General Education, Reflections and Commentary|

by Connie Dierking

 

With the new year comes reflection. Many teachers spend their winter breaks reflecting on the days gone by and the days to come. A hot cup of coffee and a sunny patch of a well-loved couch provides the conditions for reset thinking. Resets in education allow teachers to return from the winter break with the intent to implement new routines, new ideas, and revised practices. Resets usually start off strong.

 

However, all the newness sometimes fades into February and the air becomes stale. It’s time to push the doldrums of winter out and bring the energy in to stay! Resets can and should remain alive!

 

The world out there is tough for kids. Poverty, health concerns, homelessness, and just plain meanness envelop the news and the environment of way too many children. Google search indicates that words like bravery, kindness, and gratitude have taken a 52% plunge. Teachers strive to counteract the negativity and create the conditions in which students feel safe and connected and open to learning.

 

Marie Clay’s work is steeped in the belief that a child’s contribution to his or her own learning is paramount. There are daily opportunities for building engagement, energy, and inspiration for every child every day. Reset reflection in the new year reminds us to use them!

 

Dr. Yvette Jackson in the forward of the book, Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain, by Zaretta Hammond, writes, “Neuroscience has substantiated a reality that we should relish: We are all wired for expansive learning, high intellectual performances, and self-determination.” Anyone who has watched a Reading Recovery lesson would not be surprised by that statement. Keeping the excitement and engagement alive so that these high intellectual performances can happen requires persistence and grit, by both the teacher and the child. Building lessons that provide the impetus for these stellar performances are within our reach. This is what I call keeping the reset alive!

 

Daily Opportunities for Building Engagement, Energy, and Inspiration

Start with a Hook
The hook happens in the first 15-30 seconds of a lesson. Offer up the key information from the start, just enough to generate interest. The hook is all about making a promise at the beginning of a lesson, enough to hook your students and fulfill that promise by the end.  A good hook should:

  • Connect to the emotions, what do your students care about?
  • Get personal, we are alike but we are all different in wonderful ways.

 

Design Your Lesson Like a Work of Art
The design of a lesson is an engineering work of art. Each part should be intentional and connected. The teacher has tools at his or her fingertips to engage, keep the energy going and inspire students to keep going!

  • Pacing – some parts of the lessons are fast and some are slow
  • Lean talk – teacher talk should be to the point. Clay cautions that teachers often “underestimate how complex children find…the things that teachers say.” Demonstrate in place of talk.
  • Use the voice of an actor – loud and soft, intonation varies, emphasis shifts
  • Bring on the tools – charts, post-its, notebook, pointers, colored pens
  • Use good technology – the internet, games, publishing
  • Use pop-culture/student interests – find out what they are…again
  • Use your own passions – when we bring our passions to our teaching we raise our energy which raises students
  • Remember to celebrate – nothing excites more than a celebration
  • Keep students active! MOVE IT!

 

Consider a Progression of Complexity
Any lesson should consider components that allow for students to ease into the learning. If we want students to persevere, we must allow students to engage in a progression of complexity. Lessons that are difficult and confusing will push students to abandon all attempt. Consider the following:

  • Begin with oral, talk it out first
  • Build interest in the topic with a photograph or a short text
  • Use a variety of text, i.e. video, photographs, songs, poems, picture books, chapter books, plays
  • Gradual release that includes time to practice with a partner and with and without the support of the teacher

 

Oral Language/Oral Rehearsal

  • Include a focus on the language structures students bring to the learning
  • Weave speaking and listening with reading and writing
  • Whatever you want students to write, require students to practice orally…many times
  • Ensure all students are heard
  • Think, talk, talk, talk, write, read

 

Movement

  • Add gestures or movement during all parts of the lesson
  • Allow students to meet with many students to talk and share together
  • Provide a common beat for students to emulate as they transition
  • Have students move as they engage with the content
  • Use music

 

Use the new year as a reminder to find opportunities to build engagement, energy, and inspiration. A famous quote of Marie Clay states, “If children are apparently unable to learn, we should assume that we have not as yet found the right way to teach them.” And that is the job of a reset!

 

Connie Dierking is a primary teacher, instructional staff developer, and curriculum writer for Pinellas County Schools in Largo, Florida.

She recently presented a session entitled “Teaching with Engagement, Energy, and Inspiration” at the 2020 National Reading Recovery & K-6 Literacy Conference.

It’s All About Expertise

2023-02-08T18:10:10-05:00January 30th, 2020|Reading Recovery Teaching, Reflections and Commentary, Teaching|

by Debra Zarling

Where do you go for help when you have a serious medical issue? Or when your car has a major breakdown? Or a pipe bursts in your home? Like many people, you might first try fixing things yourself but if the issue is significant you will likely need to consult an expert. We are currently embroiled in an era of renewed attacks on teachers and their expertise. Recent headlines have questioned the ability of teachers to teach children to read. Across the country, legislators are becoming more apt to pass legislation about the teaching of reading that does not reflect what the weight of research says and fails to honor the expertise of teachers.

 

The current attacks primarily appear to be focused on the role of phonics in learning to read but they also question the knowledge and expertise of teachers and in turn, may sometimes cause us to question our own judgment and capabilities. Nowhere is this truer than when working with students at risk of not being successful readers and writers.

 

Reading Recovery has not been immune to these assaults and recent posts on this blog have taken on some of those attacks about the research on which Reading Recovery is based (see recent posts by Williams and Schwartz). These ongoing challenges to teachers and their expertise have led some to question themselves, not in a way that encourages them to collaborate with colleagues and problem-solve the situation but in a way that causes them to question themselves and their ability to meet student needs. While it is good to regularly evaluate our instruction to determine whether what we are doing is working best for this student at this time, we need to rely on our expertise and the expertise of our colleagues to help us find the answers when the learning is not progressing. Others expect us to look to programs or products as holding the answers. Programs can provide content, perhaps a suggested scope and sequence but they can’t provide the expert knowledge of how to teach or how to be responsive to the individual needs of a child. As Scanlon illustrates, many programs are based on research, at least to some degree, but relatively few have any actual research supporting the actual effectiveness of the program. Her research and that of many others (Allington, 2002; Bryk, Hanushek, 2015; May 2016) confirms that the teacher matters more than programs.

 

Expertise doesn’t come from training in a particular program. A common criticism of programmed materials is that the more dependent teachers become on them, the less able those teachers are in differentiating and responding to student needs. At times, teachers themselves exacerbate the problem by downplaying their own expertise. When asked about the needs of a student, especially one who comes with a ‘label,’ they may downplay their own expertise, forgetting that a label doesn’t eliminate the need for expert, diagnostic teaching.

 

In an era where we see increasing recommendations for the use of scripted materials and computer programs for teaching and intervention, Reading Recovery stands out for its reliance on teacher expertise. There is no program, kit, or script that can be purchased, and no one profits financially from the intervention. Rather, the focus is on the initial and ongoing development of teacher expertise.

 

The online Cambridge dictionary defines expertise as “a high level of skill or knowledge.” For teachers of reading, that expertise comes from a deep understanding of the knowledge and skills needed to learn to read and experience in using that knowledge and skill to teach students.

 

The importance of this expertise was validated in the Reading Recovery i3 study. In addition to looking at student outcomes, May and colleagues looked for evidence of what made the difference between schools with higher outcomes and schools with lower outcomes. They found two characteristics that differentiated. In those schools that had the highest outcomes, the teachers demonstrated deliberateness and instructional dexterity to a higher degree than was found in schools with more typical outcomes.

 

In the study, deliberateness is defined as “an encompassing commitment to thoughtful practice.”

“Deliberate teachers engage in a particular set of behaviors, including:

  • purposeful analysis of students’ progress that is guided by close, carefully documented observation;
  • ongoing reflection on their own instruction; and
  • active engagement with their own continual learning, both individually and through participation in a community of practice.” (pg 92)

 

Instructional dexterity was defined as the flexible application of deep skill.

“The expressions of instructional dexterity we identify take place within the lesson itself and include:

  • supportive rapport that continually pushes the student toward maximal growth;
  • in-the-moment decision-making that draws on both prior understandings and real-time observations;
  • judicious use of language; and
  • a sense of urgency that is evident in the pace of the lesson and the efficiency of instructional moves.” (pg 95)

 

As teachers, we can’t be totally prepared for every eventuality, every variation students show. We need to hold on to our knowledge and expertise and apply it to each new situation that arises. Rather than backing away when faced with a new issue regarding student learning, expert teachers, such as those trained in Reading Recovery, are more likely to face it head-on using their own expertise as well as collaboration with colleagues to address those issues. As Clay repeatedly reminded us,

“If a child is a struggling reader or writer the conclusion must be that we have not yet discovered a way to help him learn.” (LL 2nd Ed., pg 165)

 

In a report on professional development, Darling-Hammond and her colleagues highlight how Reading Recovery exemplifies the seven characteristics necessary for effective professional development (pg. 5). In Reading Recovery not only has years of strong research to show how and why it works, but it also has substantial evidence to show that it does work. We all need to heed Scharer’s advice and advocate for the importance of teacher expertise.

 


Debra Zarling is a PK-5 Literacy Coordinator in the Oshkosh Area School District, Oshkosh, WI, and a Reading Recovery Site Coordinator with the Valley Area Reading Recovery Consortium.

Responding to the Reading Wars: Everyone’s Job

2023-02-08T18:10:10-05:00December 5th, 2019|General, General Education, Latest News, Reflections and Commentary|

by Patricia L. Scharer, Ph.D.

The Reading Wars have a long, long history. Over the past 100 years, adversaries have argued for and against numerous approaches: whole word, literature-based reading, look-say method, sight words, Initial Teaching Alphabet, balanced literacy, decodable texts, whole language, and phonics first. The wars have recently taken a new twist: the “Science of Reading.” This notion appears to be new when, in fact, literacy acquisition has been the subject of scholarship by many researchers with varying perspectives for many, many years. Reading blogs, tweets, and articles promoting the “science of reading” argue that only one type of study (experimental on phonics and phonemic awareness) qualifies as science and this science has been ignored by educators and scholars conducting other types of research. This is simply wrong. No one approach can claim “science” as theirs and only theirs. A range of research is, in fact, scientific, and we need all of it to inform our practice. Some research questions can be answered through random assignment; others must be answered through close observation, interview, and documentation. It’s up to educators to read widely and make decisions based on the evidence available.

Reading Recovery and the Reading Wars

Reading Recovery has scientific data on every student taught in the past 35 years and clear evidence that investing in training teachers in Reading Recovery not only brings 70% of the lowest first-grade students to grade level in 12-20 weeks but also positively affects literacy instruction in the building. Reading Recovery teachers have become literacy leaders given the intensity of their yearlong training and expert as observing student reading and writing behaviors. The recent federally-funded i3 research documented that success with both random assignment studies and qualitative studies (May, Sirinides, Gray, & Goldsworthy, 2016).

Despite solid, scientific research using a range of methodologies, Reading Recovery has been critiqued since its beginning in the U.S. 35 years ago with notions like “Reading Recovery is just whole language” or “Reading Recovery doesn’t teach phonics.” For many years, our leading organizations, the North American Trainer’s Group (NATG) and the Reading Recovery Council of North America (RRCNA) have tried to inform critics and counter their claims through white papers in response to every critic. The critiques and responses can be found on RRCNA’s Responding to Critics webpage. Historically, our leadership has taken the “high road” by trying to focus on the positive message we have about the success of our Reading Recovery students and teachers and have avoided direct confrontations. More recently, however, even with the strength of the i3 federal research, using an experimental design, critics are taking an even more aggressive approach to promote the “simple view of reading,” the “science of reading,” and systematic, intensive phonics while arguing against Reading Recovery.

In 2017, however, when a negative, uninformed article appeared as in Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, the Reading Recovery leadership took a more aggressive stance demanding that the journal editors take down the negative article which was the only one offered for free online and print our response, The Truth About Reading Recovery, both online and in the journal. The article in Learning Disabilities was full of misrepresentations, incorrect information, and concluded that “Reading Recovery teachers are not trained to provide explicit and systematic instruction in the essential and foundational components of reading” (Cook, Rodes & Lipsitz, 2017, p. 19). Based on these inaccurate assumptions, the authors “strongly recommend[ed] that schools not adopt the Reading Recovery program” (p. 19). This conclusion is simply wrong. In fact, Reading Recovery teachers are taught how to document students’ knowledge of phonemic awareness and phonics so they can explicitly teach an awareness of the sounds of English and the relationship to letters. Every lesson clearly attends to phonics instruction. I would argue that this instruction is both intensive and systematic.

Emily Hanford and the “Science of Reading”

Most recently, Emily Hanford, Senior producer and correspondent for APM Reports, has produced a series of blogs, tweets, and videos with two main messages: the education community has ignored the “science of reading” and teachers are not well-prepared to teach reading in colleges of education. Her arguments come from research done by psychologists using an experimental design to study pieces of the reading process and are void of studies of real children in real teaching settings.

In 2017, Ms. Hanford requested information about Reading Recovery and was invited to attend the 2018 National Conference as our guest. I was asked to design a schedule for her and accompanied her to many sessions over the 3-day conference where she was able to talk with teachers, teacher leaders, and trainers. I also arranged for her to see lessons behind-the-glass so that teacher leaders could help her understand our understanding of how to support children who struggle. She also interviewed and video-taped several Reading Recovery professionals during the conference. We expected her to write an unbiased report about Reading Recovery. We waited for the article to come out. It never did.

Instead, she has focused her attention on the “science of reading” with titles of web-casts such as “At a loss for words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers” which posed many flawed ideas about Marie Clay and the cueing systems. Ms. Hanford had contacted RRCNA on a Friday that her article about the cueing systems was in preparation and asked for our response—by Monday. We sent a well-referenced, thorough reply by the Monday deadline along with a copy of an important article done by Marilyn Adams in 1998 which disproved a number of Hanford’s assumptions. Little of the information we prepared appeared in her final article.

Recognize and Respond: A Call to Action

I find it frustrating that the voices of educators who actually work with children who struggle are being silenced by a professor in a laboratory or a reporter. We need to recognize and respond to the messages described above which are prevalent in social media, podcasts, and webcasts. These critics do not understand how Reading Recovery supports children to develop a strong literacy processing system. Their “science of reading” and “simple” views are tightly held leaving them unable to grasp the complexity of what Reading Recovery teachers and students grapple with every day.

As a community of educators, we cannot leave advocacy to others, assuming that someone else is doing that job. It must be a part of every Reading Recovery professional’s job to be visible in social media, work with local news organizations, and get the message out that reading is not simple and our lessons ensure that the individual needs of every child are met.

How are you advocating for what you know is best for children who struggle?

 

References

Adams, M. J. (1998). The Three-Cueing System. In F. Lehr and J. Osborn (Eds.), Literacy for all issues in teaching and learning, pp. 73-99. New York Guilford Press.

Cook, P., Rodes, D. R., & Lipsitz, K. L. (2017). The reading wars and Reading Recovery: What educators, families, and taxpayers should know. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(2), 12–23.

May, H., Sirinides, P., Gray, A., & Goldsworthy, H. (2016). Reading Recovery: An Evaluation of the Four-Year i3 Scale-Up. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.


Patricia L. Scharer, Ph.D. is a Professor Emeritus at The Ohio State University in Columbus, OH.

What’s the Story?

2023-02-08T18:10:10-05:00October 23rd, 2019|Classroom Teaching, General Education, Latest News, Reading Recovery Teaching, Reflections and Commentary, Teaching|

by Amy Smith

At the center of all advocacy work is a story. Reading Recovery has a rich tapestry of stories with compelling themes like renewal, transformation, and hope. Our data tells one piece of the story, but it obfuscates the human story. In the end, that’s the true story of Reading Recovery.  As a teacher leader, I understand the importance of advocacy. This year, my goal is to give teachers a more organized (and doable) way to collect the richest stories possible about their children. 

Teachers as Storytellers: The Sign Project
The teachers I work with are diligent, creative storytellers. In 2014, one of them, Alicia Kelley, came up with a brilliant idea based upon a Facebook campaign that shared personal stories of cancer survivors. Our teachers located over 200 current and former Reading Recovery students (from 1st grade to college senior) and asked them to describe something about their Reading Recovery experience. These messages were transcribed onto 8.5 x 11 signs and we photographed the children holding these. The Sign Project told their stories and helped us understand how profound our impact had been. We compiled all 200 stories into a book and used many in a video we shared with our school board, legislators, and community groups. This summer, I happened upon the book and stopped on the page with a beautiful, smiling child whose sign said “I can read, now.” Although I had seen that picture dozens of times, this time I realized part of this child’s story is missing. My mother (who is obsessed with renovation shows on HGTV) deserves the credit for my epiphany. Watching these shows with her helped me understand the most compelling part is the change, not the outcome. Think about it. Without seeing the house before the renovation, you miss the transformation. We need a way to tell the story of change, from the child’s perspective. 

As I thought about how to accomplish this, I looked for guidance from one of my trainers, Dr. Lindy Harmon. Her dissertation focused on the potential of Reading Recovery to shape children’s literate identities; a facet of our story we haven’t told well. Dr. Harmon and I adapted some of the data collection protocols from her study in order to capture children’s perceptions of themselves before, during, and after Reading Recovery.  We’re calling this effort, the Identity Project. 

2019-2020 Advocacy Work: The Identity Project
This year, teachers affiliated with Madison and Fayette County Reading Recovery sites in Kentucky will ask each child to draw a picture of themselves illustrating how they feel when they engage in reading in their classrooms. Then, using the adapted interview protocol, they will have a conversation with the child and record the responses. Although this is a work in progress, we plan to repeat this process in weeks 1, 5, 10 and at the end of the program. We are very aware that our children have unique paths, but selected these intervals to give teachers an organized process. I asked my teacher, Alicia, for her feedback on our plan. She suggested we also video our students reading at the same intervals to capture parallel changes in reading strength and feelings about the task. She said, “We have the artifacts that show their writing development and can show change with texts, but showing a child reading is much more compelling than the book itself.” Alicia is right! 

To organize this data, our teachers will upload scans of the children’s drawings, their interview responses and video clips to our Team Drive. Although analyzing qualitative data is complex (and we are grateful to OSU trainer, Lisa Patrick, for offering to support our analysis) I am excited to learn from the themes our teachers find! 

This is a single, tentative example of an effort to communicate the transformational potential of Reading Recovery. If you are reading this blog, I am certain you have additional ideas and examples to enrich this project or innovative ways we might share our story with stakeholders. Afterall, stories only resonate when they reach an audience. As an example, I was inspired by Michigan teacher leader, Maeghan McCormick, who shared that Michigan teacher leaders displayed posters with student stories in a gallery format during their regional conference. This Literacy Walk, arguably a much more poetic name than Sign Project, immersed conference attendees in the stories of their children. While I originally envisioned compiling another book of student stories, I’m suddenly thinking bigger about the eventual display! Maeghan’s willingness to share Michigan’s work led me to realize that even though the topic of this post is advocacy, the subtext is the importance of collaboration. Without colleagues like Maeghan, Dr. Harmon, Dr. Patrick, the Fayette County Teacher Leaders (Beth Magsig and Amy Emmons), and my always-thinking teacher, Alicia, our idea would be much less rich and exciting. 

Telling OUR Collective Story
As Reading Recovery professionals, we must be more intentional about sharing our ideas with one another. Imagine the tapestry of stories we can create with our collective voice. I encourage you to share your ideas by writing your own blog post. You can find more information about submitting a blog at Reading Recovery Connections. You can also share your ideas on advocacy with RRCNA Advocacy Committee Chair, Kelly McDermott.  And, if you decide to replicate the (still tentative) process described in this post, please share your findings with us.

 

Dr. Amy Smith is a Reading Recovery teacher leader in Richmond, KY. She has served as Chair of RRCNA’s Advocacy Committee and currently serves as RRCNA’s President Elect.

© Copyright 2023 Reading Recovery | Reading Recovery ® and Literacy Lessons ® are Registered Trademarks.
Website by TriAd