help

Search Reading Recovery

Search all of our online content from one place.

The Three Cueing Systems in Beginning Reading Instruction: Good Idea or Hoax?

2023-02-08T18:10:10-05:00September 30th, 2019|Latest News, Reflections and Commentary|

by Robert Schwartz

A main skirmish in the Reading Wars centers on phonics first or building on the strengths a child brings. In his blog, Dr. Tim Shanahan, a knowledgeable and highly respected literacy researcher and educator, offers a well-reasoned and completely incorrect analysis of cueing systems. He maintains that they have no value in initial reading instruction and that their advocates are spinning a magnificent fictional hoax.

What makes this a hoax? Tim claims that the research evidence shows that skilled readers don’t use meaning or syntactic cues to recognize words. I agree. The research evidence is clear. It is also clear that skilled readers don’t sound out words letter-by-letter and then blend the sounds.

So, we need to consider how different approaches to beginning reading instruction can support the transition from slow, effortful word recognition to the fast, automatic recognition of skilled readers. Tim uses a golf analogy to make his case for phonics instruction. I’d rather use a bike riding analogy.

We could look at skilled cyclists for clues about how to teach bike riding, but I think most parents would still think training wheels are a good idea for many beginners. Starting with training wheels doesn’t require the balance that all skilled cyclists display, but it does let the novice apply what they know about pedaling, breaking, turning, and maybe even balance as they enjoy the freedom of movement and independence that motivates further learning. With training wheels, the novice can learn to coordinate what s/he knows with some new elements of the task while avoiding injury and embarrassment that might put an end to interest.

Little books with simple repeated language structures and picture support for important content words are the equivalent of training wheels for novice readers. Consider this example: On the first page there is a picture of a man holding a bunch of colored balloons and handing a red balloon to a child. Told that the text says, I like red balloons, the novice will likely be able to read the rest of the book as the child is handed different color balloon on each page and begins to float away with his collection.

Is this real reading? Educators call it emergent reading to stress the fact that it builds on what the child already knows about oral language and might know about how reading works. The novice can apply what they know about where the text starts, which direction it goes, what a word in written language is and how it differs from a letter, how to match words in oral and written language, maybe even how the letters relate to the sounds in these words as they enjoy the independence of reading a book with an amusing, if somewhat simple plot.

With this type of emergent literacy approach, educators don’t need to teach children to use meaning and language structure (two of the three cueing systems) to read unfamiliar content words, they just need to make it possible to use what the child already knows about oral language in books that are partially familiar. As a novice reader learns more about letters, written words, and their connection to sounds they begin to combine this visual cueing system with meaning and structure to generate and check their word recognition attempts (McGee, Kim, Nelson, & Fried, 2015; Schwartz, 1997, 2005, 2015).

In his book, Thinking Fast and Slow, this is what Daniel Kahenmann calls least effort strategies. Adults use these least effort approaches in all sorts of novel and complex tasks. Why wouldn’t we expect a 5 or 6 year old to use this type of least effort approach when reading their first books? Sounding out words letter-by-letter is not a least effort strategy, especially for novice readers.

As Tim argues, why teach children to do what skilled readers don’t do? Skilled beginning readers can sound out words letter-by-letter but they only do this if forced to work at this level with texts that don’t make sense, like early decodable readers, nonsense words or unfamiliar word lists. Even with these materials, skilled readers will try to work with larger units of print and sound like initial consonant clusters (onsets) and vowel patterns (rimes).

As children engage in reading, writing, and word study activities they build the orthographic and phonological knowledge that makes fast, automatic word recognition possible. Using visual cues becomes their least effort strategy for word recognition with meaning and language structure serving as a way to check these word recognition attempts and construct their understanding of the text.

Children who struggle with early literacy learning take more time to learn and coordinate all the elements that support proficient reading. The goal is the same, but the path they take to this goal will differ depending on the knowledge and strengths they bring (Clay, 2014). As novices, they all need to learn phonics, but doing this while building on their strengths will avoid injury and embarrassment that often puts an end to their interest and effort to learn.

 

Clay, M. M. (2014). By different paths to common outcomes. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

McGee, L. M., Kim, H., Nelson, K., & Fried, M. D. (2015). Change over time in first graders’ strategic use of information at point of difficulty in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 263-291.

Schwartz, R. M. (1997). Self-monitoring in beginning reading. The Reading Teacher, 51(1), 40-48.

Schwartz, R. M. (2005). Decisions, decisions: Responding to primary students during guided reading. The Reading Teacher, 58(5), 436-443.

Schwartz, R. M. (2015). Why not sound it out? Journal of Reading Recovery, 14(2), 39-46.

 

Dr. Robert Schwartz is an emeritus professor in the Department of Reading and Language Arts at Oakland University in Rochester, MI. He is a past president of and research consultant for the Reading Recovery Council of North America. His research interests include self-monitoring in beginning reading, early literacy intervention, research design, and professional development for literacy teachers. In the What Works Clearinghouse 2007 review of 887 studies from 153 beginning reading programs, Dr. Schwartz’s Reading Recovery research was one of only 27 studies that met WWC’s standards without reservations.

The Stories We Tell Ourselves: Reading Recovery and the MSV Myth

2023-02-08T18:10:10-05:00August 21st, 2019|Classroom Teaching, Latest News, Reading Recovery Teaching, Reflections and Commentary, Teaching|

by Jeffery Williams

Every culture across time has developed a set of stories, tales, and myths that were designed to help explain the complexities of the world.  Such lore is handed down across generations to explore how human strive for love, what happens when jealousy takes over, or to try to make sense of natural disasters or phenomena.  These stories, usually orally presented and often borrowed from others, evolve and change over time, helping to bring the wisdom of the ages to those who have had less time to ponder or less experience to gather from to understand the complexity around us.

We, as a Reading Recovery community, have one such tale in the oft cited myth that there are three cues readers use, meaning, structure, and visual, or that Marie Clay herself created this theory and the corresponding three-circle depiction that is familiar to most teachers.  Perhaps it originally was used to water down the complexity of the reading process for new teachers, in classrooms and in Reading Recovery, to make it easier to understand.  The purpose of this blog is to explore what Clay actually said and to remind us that such myths, though they may have been purposefully utilized at one time, also need to be checked against reality and not just adhered to because it is a story we have heard before that must be true.

 

“Three Cueing Systems”
Though other researchers have pondered the proliferation of the three cueing systems model, the most notable and thorough pondering came from Marilyn Adams’ 1998 chapter called, The Three-Cueing System.  In this piece, Adams examines the origins of the theory (finding that idea did not originate with Clay) and also discusses the pervasive misunderstanding that the three cues are not equal or that the visual system is somehow less important than meaning or structure. I agree that the view presented with the “three cueing systems” is limited for several reasons. Firstly, Clay did not advocate the idea that there are only three sources of information:

“According to the theory of reading behind these recovery procedures there are many sources of information in texts” (Clay, 2016).  Furthermore, she did not advocate the use of any one source as the sole basis of reading or making a word attempt, stating: “Different kinds of information may be checked, one against another, to confirm a response or as a first step towards further searching.” A careful reading of this statement uncovers that one source may be a first step towards further searching and that searching would always involve a close look at letters and sounds.

According to Adams (1998), the notion that the reader constructs the meaning of the text as jointly determined by lexical, semantic, and syntactic constraints had been a theme of the reading literature since the late 1970s.  She found that the problem was not with the three cueing systems schematic but with some interpretations that had become attached to it. For example, a common misinterpretation is that the position of graphophonic information in the Venn diagram with 3 circles as below the other two somehow diminishes the value and use of such information while reading. From a Reading Recovery perspective, we disagree with this interpretation and Clay spends an entire chapter on learning to look at print and states vociferously in the opening that:

Reading begins with looking and ends when you stop looking. Reading begins with passing information through the eyes to the brain. But the eyes do not just take a snapshot of the detail of print and transfer it to the brain,

  • The child must learn to attend to some features of print,
  • the child must learn to follow rules about direction,
  • the child must attend to words in a line in a sequence, and
  • the child must attend to letters in a word in left-to-right sequence.

    (Clay, 2016, p. 46)

Although Reading Recovery teachers analyze daily running records using meaning, structure, and visual, our analyses go well beyond MSV as we closely examine the records to better understand students’ strengths, to identify teaching goals, and plan the next lesson. To learn how to do this, as Reading Recovery teachers, we take weekly graduate coursework for an entire year during initial training and continue our learning through ongoing annual professional development six times per year. The depth of this training and the ongoing nature of a university support system enables us to identify the complexity of student behaviors and plan precise teaching to support increasingly complex reading and writing that goes well beyond just MSV.

 

Teaching Phonemic Awareness and Phonics
Perhaps because of the myth of the three-cueing system, critics have often supposed that visual information is not emphasized or taught in Reading Recovery lessons. This is quite untrue and is supported by nearly four decades of empirical research which show Reading Recovery’s strong effects across all domains, including phonics, phonemic awareness, and comprehension. For more information on some of these studies, please see the What Works Clearinghouse website. Also, on the What Works website is a recent 2016 publication from IES, Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade, with Barbara Foorman as the chief author. It was commissioned to present recommendations “…that educators can use to improve literacy skills in the early grades…based on the best available research, as well as the experience and expertise of the panel members” (Foorman et al., 2016, p. 1). Research from Reading Recovery is cited 117 times by the authors in support of the panel’s four recommendations.  To demonstrate the alignment of some of Foorman’s key recommendations with typical Reading Recovery lessons, citations from Foorman (2016) and Clay (2016) are shown below:                                       

Foorman Recommendations Foorman Citations Clay Citations
Using Elkonin boxes in writing to develop phonemic awareness pp. 24, 26, 27 pp. 98, 100, 107
Procedures for learning letter-sound relationships through segmentation p. 19 pp. 58, 98, 100, 106, 107, 173
Procedures for using manipulatives such as magnetic letters for learning how words work pp. 19, 24 pp. 40, 58, 63, 68, 72, 91, 149, 151, 175
Teaching breaking words by syllables pp. 15, 16 pp. 95, 107, 149, 173
Teaching onset/rimes pp. 15, 16, 19 pp. 58, 107, 150, 153, 156, 160, 173
Teaching meaningful parts pp. 27 pp. 73, 107, 152
Teaching how to isolate and blend word parts smoothly p. 24 p. 96
Using writing to help with analogies with spelling patterns p. 26 pp. 90, 105
Within text blending by chunking or in smaller units within text p. 23 pp. 96, 144, 175
Avoiding guessing strategies p. 34 pp. 48, 101, 118
Reading connected text daily pp. 1-3, 22, 28, 32 pp. 20, 110-165

 

Interestingly, the Foorman document states, “When students encounter words that they find difficult to read, remind them to apply the decoding and word-recognition skills and strategies they have learned and to then reread the word in context … using prompts such as: ‘Look for parts you know.’ ‘Sound it out.’ ‘Check it! Does it make sense?’” (p. 34). These prompts are almost verbatim to Reading Recovery prompts (Clay, 2016) and seem to suggest that research favors using multiple sources of information to cross-check one against another and does not favor the use of any one source solely. 

A recent document for parents from RRCNA (2019), outlines how phonemic awareness and letter/sound relationships are taught in Reading Recovery:

  • Phonemic awareness is initially established with structured instruction during the writing component of the lesson.
  • Letter identification is taught using multisensory approaches and reinforced throughout the series of lessons to ensure fast, accurate recognition and discrimination.
  • Applying known letter sound associations and linking sound sequences to letter sequences is addressed in both reading and writing.
  • All new learning is applied and observed/analyzed in reading and writing every day.
  • Fast visual processing is supported as the child analyzes unknown words in stories by taking them apart on the run.
  • Your child will develop the advanced analysis skills needed for decoding multisyllabic words and will profit from classroom word work and study.
  • The teacher monitors your child’s daily progress in word analysis and re-teaches as needed. Many opportunities for applying new skills are provided daily across multiple reading and writing activities. (p. 3)

These references might clear up misunderstandings about Reading Recovery, particularly for those who think that Reading Recovery students are not taught phonics or phonemic awareness.

 

Value of Reading Connected Text
Reading Recovery’s daily use of connected, continuous text, where children cannot afford to rely on any one source of information entirely, is clearly an advantage  and is supported by Foorman’s report on the research: “Having students read connected text daily, both with and without constructive feedback, facilitates the development of reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension and should begin as soon as students can identify a few words” (p. 32).  Two other recent publications—one from the International Literacy Association (ILA) and another from the International Dyslexia Association (IDA)—also offer suggestions that are supportive of the idea that reading continuous text daily, again because it demands that the reader not be able to rely solely on any one source of information, may be advantageous:

Students progress at a much faster rate in phonics when the bulk of instructional time is spent on applying the skills to authentic reading and writing experiences, rather than isolated skill-and-drill work. At least half of a phonics lesson should be devoted to application exercises. For students who are below level, the amount of reading during phonics instruction must be even greater. (Blevins, et al., p. 6)

And, in discussing the problem of “treatment resistant literacy difficulties” for students who have had a structured literacy approach and not shown evidence of success, IDA offers the following recommendation:

Another way to address this problem could involve placing a greater emphasis on text reading in intervention, which scientific investigators widely agree is an important aspect of intervention (e.g. Brady, 2011; Foorman et al., 2016; Kilpatrick, 2015), to help increase children’s exposure to real words.  This last idea might be effective if done early, before decoders have accumulated the enormous gap in reading practice characteristic of older poor readers in the upper elementary grades and adolescence (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998; Torgesen, 2004).” (International Dyslexia Association, 2019, p. 13)

 

Reading Recovery Research
While no single approach works for every child, Reading Recovery has the strongest evidence base of any of the 228 beginning reading programs reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse. Because of Reading Recovery’s impressive research base spanning decades, in 2010 the Department of Education provided $46 million to fund a 5-year scale up of Reading Recovery in schools across the U.S. In 2016, an independent research study of this scale-up was published by the Center for Policy Research in Education. The study was the largest randomized controlled trial “and one of the most ambitious and well-documented expansions of an instructional program in U.S. history” (May et al., 2016).

The results demonstrated Reading Recovery’s impressive effect sizes on comprehension and overall reading achievement. These effect sizes were replicated four years in a row and authors noted that “these are large relative to typical effect sizes found in educational evaluations. This benchmark suggests that the total standardized effect sizes…for Reading Recovery of 0.37, was 4.6 times greater than average for studies that use comparable outcome measures” (May et al., p. 42). This has been proven in both urban and rural settings, as well as with English learners. School districts invest in Reading Recovery training for teachers because of these documented successes for the past 35 years.

 

Myth or Reality?
The myth that Marie Clay was the origin of the three-cueing system model is certainly false as the readings of Clay demonstrate and as Adams confirmed.  And, the myth that Reading Recovery does not teach phonics or phonemic awareness, because the visual system is somehow less important, is also false.  So why then are these stories so closely linked to Reading Recovery?  I know that I saw a diagram of the three-cuing systems in my training nearly two decades ago.  I know that I have used a similar diagram when introducing running record analysis with classroom teachers.  I never intended it to supplant the idea of complexity, but perhaps had forgotten the essence of Clay’s warning when she wrote, “If literacy teaching only brings a simple theory to a set of complex activities, then the learner has to bridge the gaps created by the theoretical simplification” (2015, p. 105).  She was not only talking about children’s learning but our learning as well.  When diagrams or explanations water-down the complexity, we run the risk of learners ‘bridging the gaps’ on their own—filling in what is unclear with their own thinking or ideas that were never intended and that may or may not be helpful.  Clay believed that teachers wanted and needed exposure to the complexity of theory and research and once said, “…the challenge for me is to write those theoretical ideas for the academics and researchers but also for the teachers. I think they have a right to be able to read those in terms that they understand.  This has been one of my particular challenges…”  We must likewise refrain from over-simplifying the complexity of becoming literate with myths and stories for our explanations.

 

References
Adams, M. J. (1998). The three-cueing system. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp.73-99). New York: Guilford Press.

Clay, M. M. (2016). Literacy lessons designed for individuals (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (2015). Change Over Time in Children’s Literacy Development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov.

International Dyslexia Association (2019). Structured literacy: An introductory guide.  Retrieved from the International Dyslexia Association website: https://dyslexiaida.org/structured-literacy-works-but-what-is-it-introducing-idas-new-structured-literacy-brief/

International Literacy Association. (2019). Meeting the challenges of early literacy phonics instruction [Literacy leadership brief]. Newark, DE: Blevins, et al. Retrieved from the International Literacy Association website: https://www.literacyworldwide.org/get-resources/position-statements

Reading Recovery Council of North America (2019). How Reading Recovery helps your child learn. Retrieved from the RRCNA website: https://readingrecovery.org/supporting-struggling-readers/

 

 

Jeffery Williams is a Reading Recovery Teacher Leader and K-12 Literacy Teacher Leader from Solon City Schools, Solon, OH.

Writing Workshop: Potential and Possibilities for Cultivating Purpose, Power, and Passion

2023-02-08T18:10:10-05:00February 6th, 2019|Classroom Teaching, General, General Education, Reading Recovery Teaching, Reflections and Commentary, Teaching|

by Wendy Sheets

Writing Workshop is a context that has the potential to help students develop as writers within a literate community. As students learn to live as writers, building a repertoire of tools and strategies, teachers have a role in cultivating purpose, power, and passion in meaningful ways. All three are necessary and impactful elements of an exceptional, gratifying Writing Workshop.

Purpose
First, as teachers, we must consider the purpose of the workshop. Let’s face it: Our hope is for students to become increasingly better writers who create thoughtful, interesting, well-crafted pieces of writing, and who love doing it. Our purpose, then, is to provide daily, momentum-building opportunities for writers to experience something new so they may extend their repertoire of generative tools related to craft and conventions.

For our writers, their work only becomes relevant when there is a purpose for writing. Writing provides an outlet for writers to share thinking that is meaningful to them in some way. Purpose increases the level of investment. Therefore, writers need to have freedom and flexibility, along with guidance, to make choices about their topics, the genre and structure that best communicates their message, their audience, the research necessary to plan for their writing, the details they include, the paper, graphics, text features, font, and decision to publish. If a goal is for students to become lifelong writers, their writing should fit them personally, with ties to their own lives, experiences, and interests. As members of a writerly community, students learn about one another and more readily share what is personally meaningful as well. Within this context, writers engage with purpose each day as they work on creating that which is meaningful to them.

Power
Within the Writing Workshop, students gain power as their writing process is strengthened. This happens through experiences that include daily writing minilessons, independent writing and the use of a writer’s notebook, writing conferences, and share time.

Daily, whole-group writing minilessons provide explicit strategies for writers to extend their understanding about craft and conventions. Craft minilessons may be related to organization, idea development, language use, word choice, and voice, and all serve in making writing better and more captivating. Conventions minilessons may include any aspect of writing mechanics and grammar, allowing for writing to be understood and appreciated by an audience. Mentor texts enable authentic, meaningful demonstrations of craft and conventions. As writers take on new learning about craft and conventions, they add to their repertoire of possibilities to potentially try out with every piece of writing. Check out some examples I share in chapter 18 of the text Responsive Literacy (Sheets, 2018).

When writers plant seeds within their writer’s notebooks or apply new learning from minilessons to their own pieces of writing, they gain power and agency in constructing their work. Writing conferences support the thinking of each writer as instruction is differentiated during a writer-to-writer conversation. With opportunities to provide feedback, teach something new, coach as the writer gives it a go, and make explicit links to ways the writer may apply the learning to independent work, the instructional possibilities are endless. While writers gain power as their teacher comes alongside them to lift their thinking about one focus at a time, conferences offer additional benefits. According to Carl Anderson (2018), ““The relationships that grow out of writing conferences are not the by-product of conferring – they are one of the important goals, since these relationships are so central to students’ growth as writers” (p. 10). As students gain power as learners and also find meaning in discussing their work with you, their teacher, they are positioned as writers who have agency in making important decisions. The share time at the end of the workshop offers another opportunity for writers to share their work, learn from others, and for you to glean important insights that further inform your instructional decisions.

Passion
When writers engage with purpose and continue to develop in powerful ways, they often find themselves passionate about their work. Writing should be a joyful occasion. When it is viewed as drudgery or simply a school task that must be completed for the teacher, it is difficult for students to feel invested. I find that the reciprocal nature of reading and writing is important to tap into for many reasons, including building passion. When sharing and discussing a variety of high quality texts during Interactive Read-Aloud or Guided Reading, learners begin to engage differently. As they think deeply about texts – literally, inferentially, and critically – they may read with the eye of a writer. For instance, if I appreciate the way Ralph Fletcher uses the craft of metaphor in Twilight Comes Twice, I can try it out in my own writing. That’s exciting!

Passion develops when writers have choice, share the stories that are meaningful to them, and explore options for improving the craft of their writing. All of this is in service of communicating their message to their audience with purpose and power. Remember that hope I mentioned earlier in this article? Writing Workshop as a time and space where purpose, power, and passion are cultivated does offer the potential for students to become increasingly better writers who create thoughtful, interesting, well-crafted pieces of writing, and who love doing it. It’s up to us to cultivate – fertilize, plant, sow, grow, develop, and foster – that purpose, power, and passion. Think of the possibilities you’ll reap!

Anderson, C. (2018). A Teacher’s Guide to Writing Conferences: Classroom Essentials. Heinemann: Cambridge, MA.

Fletcher, R. (1997). Twilight Comes Twice. Clarion Books.

Sheets, W. (2018). Writing workshop for grades 3-6. In P. L. Scharer (Ed.), Responsive literacy: A comprehensive framework (pp. 262-280). New York: Scholastic.


Wendy Sheets is an Intermediate & Middle Level University Trainer with Literacy Collaborative at The Ohio State University.  She will present two sessions during the upcoming 2019 National Reading Recovery & K-6 Literacy Conference in Columbus, OH: Coaching Around the Reading Process on Sunday at 1:30 pm and Literate Identities: The Power of Classroom Interactions on Monday at 3:00 pm

Who Owns the Learning? The Importance of Adopting a Facilitative Stance

2023-02-08T18:10:10-05:00January 22nd, 2019|Classroom Teaching, General, General Education, Reading Recovery Teaching, Reflections and Commentary, Teaching|

by Maria Nichols

Henry: No!! They gotta go the other way!

Ella: To the waves!

Teacher: Angel? You have that look …

Angel: [nodding] Yeah – I’m trying to – like, why do they go all wrong?

Sara: Yeah – they get all confused. It’s really, really sad.

Angel: But – like, why?

Teacher: What are you all thinking?

Marceline: It said the lights – I think they’re all glowy. Sorta like stars or something.

Josue: Oh – maybe …

This bit of talk comes from a class of second graders engaged with Philippe Cousteau’s Follow the Moon Home: A Tale of One Idea, Twenty Kids, and a Hundred Sea Turtles. The children were wrestling with the perils that await the newly hatched turtles, including confusion caused by the lights of beachfront homes. Their talk is understandably tentative as they construct, and their teacher’s actively leaning in, watching, listening, and nudging.

Brian Cambourne speaks to the critical nature of engaging children in thinking and talking together in this very way, reminding us that “… learning, thinking, knowing, and understanding are significantly enhanced when one is provided with opportunities for ‘talking one’s way to meaning’…” (1995). This process actually shifts children from passively, compliantly absorbing the teacher’s thinking to actively constructing ideas that are bigger and bolder than possible inside a single mind alone.  And, when children construct in this way, they truly own the learning.

In Comprehension Through Conversation (Nichols, 2006), I explored specific talk behaviors – drawing in a range of voices, growing ideas and negotiating meaning – that are foundational to engaging children through talk. But, there’s another critical piece to the process—one that involves a deliberate shift in our own instructional stance.

In the bit of talk about Follow the Moon Home, you may have noticed that the teacher’s interjections were brief, yet powerful. She’s not leading the talk – she’s facilitating the talk. A facilitative stance differs from traditional, teacher-driven instruction in that it doesn’t funnel children’s thinking or attempt to corral their process. Rather, facilitation opens space for children to engage in an honest flow of talk and meaning making.

Thoughtful facilitation has four overarching qualities (Nichols, 2019):

Facilitation Is Invitational
Our facilitation should invite all children’s voices into the meaning making process. We hear an invitation from our 2nd grade teacher when she uses the signs of thinking on Angel’s face to draw him into the conversation, and when she creates space for others to respond to his question. Invitational facilitative moves may sound like this:

  • What are you thinking?
  • Is anyone wondering ___?
  • I’m noticing a look on your face …

Facilitation Is Responsive
As we facilitate, we listen intently to the flow of children’s talk, alert for constructive possibilities. We may nudge specific lines of thinking to deepen and broaden them, or we may nudge towards new lines of thinking – but always in ways that honor the children’s process. Notice that our teacher responds to Angel’s question and Sara’s thinking, nudging for thoughts about their noticing and wondering as opposed to layering in her own predetermined questions. Responsive facilitation may sound like this:

  • That’s interesting. Why do you think … ?
  • Can you say a little more about that?
  • What do others think about this? 

Facilitation Is Agentive
Our facilitative language speaks to relationships in the meaning making process, and lays bare our beliefs about children’s capabilities. Language such as, “Now, who can tell me…?” positions us as central to the process, while language such as, “What are you all thinking?” positions children as capable thinkers and collaborators who are central to the process. Agentive facilitation may sound like this:

  • What are you thinking?
  • Have you considered…?
  • How is that thought settling with you?

Facilitation Is Meaning Driven
To support children as they construct understanding together, we attend to the ebb and flow of meaning making, tailoring our facilitation to their needs. We lightly support when meaning is flowing and nudge a bit more if it’s faltering. We might refocus children on a confusing part of the text, encourage them to notice more in a particular passage, or support them as they connect bits of thinking— but always remembering that the meaning needs to be their own. Our teacher’s move to position Angel’s question as a springboard for the children’s thinking communicates exactly this. Meaning-driven facilitation may sound like this:

  • Does this thinking seem to make sense…?
  • Let’s reread a bit, and see if …
  • How do these thoughts fit together …?

When facilitative support is invitational, responsive, agentive, and meaning centered, children come to realize the power and potential of their voice—both individually and collectively. In these classrooms, children truly own their learning.

 

References
Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty years of inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 49(3),182-190.
Costeau, P. (2016). Follow the moon home: A tale of one idea, twenty kids, and a hundred sea turtles. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.
Nichols, M. (2006). Comprehension through conversation. Portsmouth, NH:   Heinemann.
Nichols, M.  (2019). Building bigger ideas: A process for teaching purposeful talk. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

 

Maria Nichols is a literacy consultant and Director of School Innovation for the San Diego Unified School District. She is the author of Comprehension Through Conversation. Maria will be a featured speaker at the 2019 National Reading Recovery & K-6 Literacy Conference, February 9-12, in Columbus, OH. Her session entitled “Talk Matters! Supporting English Learners in the Dialogic Classroom”  will be presented on Sunday 3:30-5:00 pm and Tuesday 8:30-10:00 am

Do It All and Do It Now

2023-02-08T18:10:10-05:00January 8th, 2019|Classroom Teaching, General, General Education, Reading Recovery Teaching, Reflections and Commentary, Teaching|

by LeeAnn Lewellen

As an instructional coach, I hear so many “buzzwords” when administrators and district personnel discuss teacher effectiveness after a brief classroom observation. Engagement, rigor, cultural responsiveness, high yield strategies, assessment… the list goes on. But as a teacher, how do I attack ALL of these things right now?! I feel the sense of urgency to improve in all areas right away, or I will witness the failure of the students and the demise of the education system. How can I attack ALL of these things right now? The answer – I can’t. It brings to mind the leader of the Roman Empire, Augustus, and his phrase, “Festina Lente…” – make haste, or go slow, to go fast.

What if, instead of fixing every little thing that needs attention in the classroom, I choose one area to improve?  Just one. What one thing could I change about my teaching to improve student learning? Isn’t that what I would do to help grow my students? As a Reading Recovery teacher, when I hear a struggling reader read a text, I make a mental note of all the problems I hear and see. In one reading, I might notice visual errors, lapses in meaning, incorrect structures, and more. But if I try to address ALL of those things, I will have confused my reader! I think about what will move the child forward in his or her processing, and I pick one thing to address.  As a teacher, I need to afford the same opportunity for learning to myself.

So that is what I will do. I will think of one way to improve my craft that could make a positive, lasting impact on my students. Does the day seem long and monotonous to me? Then I need to improve my engagement strategies! Could nearly every student finish every activity with 100% accuracy before I even began instruction? Then I need to improve the rigor of the activities. (or move on to a new topic!)

I will cease the practice of rushing through everything without mastering anything; I will go slow to go fast. I will develop a proper balance between urgency and diligence; I will go slow to go fast.

Join me, colleagues. Choose a path, work hard to improve, take a little at a time, and watch you AND your students flourish.

LeeAnn has 17 years of experience in the field of education. She is a Reading Recovery teacher and an instructional coach for her building. LeeAnn, along with Shawna Wilkins and Kelsey Wharton will present a session during the 2019 National Reading Recovery & K-6 Literacy Conference entitled “Deconstructing the Data: What Your Readers Need Now”.

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