Penny Slater & Kathy Roe talk about the amazing impact of teaching prosody: An Interview by Dr. Sam Bommarito

My regular readers know I am a huge fan of Tim Rasinski. He is one of the world’s foremost authorities on teaching reading. I always encourage my readers to become aware of his ideas LINK, LINK, LINK. This past week I had the pleasure of interviewing two teachers from England. They work for HFL Education. HFL Education is the largest school company in the UK. It provides school improvement and business support products and services that enable schools, academies, and educational settings to deliver a great education. In this interview, Penny and Kathy talk about how they used Tim Rasinski’s prosody work to help students do more than just read with their eyes. They help students to read with prosody. That means they become readers who read with their eyes, ears, mind and heart. Penny and Kathy turn the usual ideas about teaching prosody on their head. Instead of waiting for readers to become fluent before teaching prosody, they teach students prosody skills early on. They’ve found doing so has had amazing results with the student’s reading comprehension and fluency. They have seen more than 1 ½ years of growth in comprehension/fluency in just eight weeks of small group instruction.

Listen carefully to the interview to gain some of their many insights about effective ways to improve fluency and comprehension. It’s done using what is often called the missing element of reading instruction. That element is the early direct and explicit teaching of prosody.

Here is some information about Penny and Kathy and their background:

Here is a link to the YouTube interview:

Here are the Talking Points and Questions from the interview:

More information about HFL:

HFL Education is the largest school company in the UK. We are a leading provider of school improvement and business support products and services that enable schools, academies, and educational settings to deliver a great education. Homepage LINK.

Accessing Project Training:

Our next training event takes place on 2^nd October 2023. This training is fully remote. Don’t worry if you cannot attend the live training webinars: a recording of the sessions will be made available to all delegates who have booked a place and will be accessible for two weeks after the live webinars have taken place.

HFL Reading Fluency Project – A synopsis for Key Stage 1 & 2 (hfleducation.org)

This CPD event will provide an overview of the transformational teaching strategies skilfully woven throughout the HFL Reading Fluency Project, including modelled expressive reading, echo reading, repeated reading, performance reading, text marking, challenging text selection and modelling of comprehension skills.

About HFL Education’s Reading Fluency Project:

HFL Education’s Reading Fluency Project is designed to support struggling readers to make swift progress towards reaching age-related expectations. The transformational teaching strategies used in the project are based on a combination of well-evidenced methods, including:  

• modelled expert prosody
• repeated reading
• echo reading
• text marking
• performance reading
• modelled comprehension

KS1 (7-9 year olds) Programme outcomes following the 8-week intervention:

Average 17 months progress in reading comprehension age;

Pupils gained an average increase in reading accuracy of 11 months.

Watch the transformation of one of our KS1 project pupils here.

KS2 (9-11 year olds) Programme outcomes following the 8-week intervention:

Average 2 years and 3 months progress in reading comprehension;

Pupils gained an average increase in reading accuracy of 13 months.

Links to more information about HFL Education’s KS1 and KS2 Reading Fluency Project

Key Stage 1 (KS1) Reading Fluency Project (hfleducation.org)

Key Stage 2 (KS2) Reading Fluency Project (hfleducation.org)

Click to access Herts_Reading_Fluency_blog.pdf

Who to contact to find out more:

readingfluency@hfleducation.org

My thoughts about this interview

This week I’ve been telling many of my literacy friends that I am blown away by the work being done in this project. One of my takeaways has to do with kids I’ve called the forgotten children of the reading debate. Those children are the Word Callers LINK, LINK. As Penny and Kathy described how many of the children they work with were reading at the beginning of the project, I thought to myself, those children from the project are classic word callers. They can read the isolated words quite accurately. But they break down when it comes to reading text that is sentence length or longer. They decode but don’t remember. Yet after doing activities like those listed below, their reading got measurably better in just eight short weeks. Here are some things the HFL program provides during small group instruction:

At conferences, I am often asked what teachers can do for the older reader who is not progressing. My answer now is to use research-based methods like HFL is using. BTW these methods work with younger children too. I also think that one size fits all/phonics first schemes don’t provide the children the skill set they need to read (instead of decode). Even after years of synthetic phonics (the flagship of the SOR fleet), many of these children in England are not reading with prosody and comprehension. That is a red flag. Perhaps beginning reading programs need to take a long hard look at HFL’s success and revise their very beginning reading programs accordingly. Perhaps it’s time to include the missing link of prosody instruction in all of our literacy programs.   

In the next few weeks, I will continue to do interviews. Next week I will be interviewing Dr. George G. Hruby. His video about the Science of Reading went viral LINK. He just co-authored a journal article on the topic of legislating phonics LINK. Coming soon will be an interview with a former colleague (we taught together for almost two decades). She’s written some interesting children’s books. She loves science, and her books reflect that. I continue to prepare for my talk with P.D. Pearson. All in all, it’s going to be a very busy and productive end of the summer. So until next week:

Happy Reading and Writing.

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

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.

Something old/Something new: Gravity Goldberg talks about two of her many professional books- An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

This week it was my pleasure to talk to Gravity Goldberg about two of her professional books (hint- there are many of them to pick from). Picking just two was a formidable task. Here is how we proceeded.

Something Old: One of the books we picked was one we thought had great advice for teachers of any grade. The book’s name is Teach Like Yourself. Like many of Gravity’s books, it contains tons of useful activities and ideas that teachers can use in almost any grade. That is a handy thing to have as we get closer to the beginning of the school year.

Something New: Gravity has a brand-new book focusing on ideas for Middle School/High School teachers. The book is Active Learning:40 Teaching Methods to Engage Students in Every Class and Every Subject, Grades 6-12. Let me explain why this book was chosen as the second one to talk about.

As some of you know, I have presented at the Write to Learn conference for a number of years. I also run the Twitter account for that site. Here is a  LINK. The site is not yet updated for 2024. However, we expect to set a save-the-date announcement right after the school year begins. If you want to know about speakers and when registration will begin, a link on the current site lets you sign up for our mailing list. Because of my experience with the WTL conference, I know many teachers of older children are very interested in activities that enhance literacy instruction for the older child. That is why I thought asking Gravity to talk about her new book would be a good idea. BTW,  I also think any teacher of kids in grades K to 5 would be able to adapt some of the things she says about kids in the upper grades to their own students. Again, the book has many useful activities and teaching ideas teachers can use in the fall.

Here is some information about Gravity:

Here is a link to the YouTube interview:

Here are the Talking Points and Questions from the interview:

Books:

Teach Like Yourself https://us.corwin.com/books/teach-like-yourself-262868 (It is also available as an audiobook https://www.audible.com/pd/Teach-Like-Yourself-Audiobook-Audiobook/B0B7QJHMQP

Active Learning https://us.corwin.com/books/methods-for-active-learning-268316

Link to Gravity’s website LINK

Link to Gravity’s Facebook page LINK

Follow Gravity on Twitter @drgravityg, @drgravitygLLC

Final Thoughts About This Interview.

In the past few weeks, I’ve been involved in several discussions about literacy on Twitter and my blog, LINK, LINK. The guest blog I posted from Jan Richardson had over 7,000 hits LINK. People are interested in the whole topic of Balanced Literacy vs SOR. Part of what I have concluded about all this is looking at literacy issues using dichotomies like that is counterproductive. Some researchers have come to similar conclusions LINK. I think a more useful use of our time would be to explore ideas from all sides and to find practical research-based ideas that all teachers can use regardless of whose “side” it comes from. It is in that spirit that I present these two books from Gravity. They contain things that have worked, things that are supported by research. I invite readers to look them over and find the ones they think are research-based and fit your kids best.

In the next few weeks, I will continue to do interviews. One of them will be with some folks from England (they live near London). Their project is called the KS2 Reading Fluency Project. Another interview will be with a former colleague (we taught together for almost two decades). She’s written some interesting children’s books. She loves science, and her books reflect that. I continue to prepare for my talk with P.D. Pearson. All in all, it’s going to be a very busy and productive rest of the summer. So until next week:

Happy Reading and Writing.

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

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.

This week I’m posting a Guest Blog from Dr. Jan Richardson.  She gives a well-researched response to criticisms made about a webinar that she and Michele Dufresne did last December.  I’ve said many times that we must use ALL the research and listen to the WHOLE STORY when making decisions around literacy issues. I want to thank Jan for allowing me to post this very informative article. Please listen to what she has to say. Dr. Sam

My Side of the Story, by Dr. Jan Richardson

On December 8, 2022, I did a webinar with Michele Dufresne on Getting the Facts Straight on Guided Reading. In response to the webinar, there have been numerous attacks from social media, seeking to convince guided reading teachers that their method of teaching reading is not aligned with reading science. Much of the criticism is based on inaccuracies (e.g., confusing Pre-A readers who don’t know letters and sounds with Emergent Readers who know their letters and sounds).

I‘ve prepared a white paper explaining in detail how my “Next Steps” approach to small group instruction aligns with reading science. In a nutshell, these are areas where we agree:

• The Science of Reading (SOR) is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Children will need different kinds of instruction to meet the common goal of becoming proficient, engaged readers.
• The SOR is an evolving body of research, not a reading program that can be purchased. Although many districts are searching for a “Science of Reading Program,” there is no such thing.
• There is a difference between obtaining information from the media and choosing to read the research. Unfortunately, too many well-meaning reading enthusiasts simply repeat what they have heard on social media and don’t consult the research.
• The term “guided reading” is used in a variety of contexts. It does not have an agreed-upon definition (Shanahan). This is my definition: During guided reading, a teacher meets with a small group of students and differentiates instruction by targeting specific learning needs, providing appropriate scaffolding, and gradually reducing support to promote independence. My lesson framework aligns with the basic tenants of effective reading instruction as described by Structured Literacy. It also explicitly teaches the key elements of reading defined by the National Reading Panel Report.
• Children need to use letters and sounds to decode words.
• The phonics activities included in The Next Step Forward in Guided Reading (2016) and the Next Step Forward in Word Study and Phonics (2019) are research-based.
• Reading Instruction should meet a student’s needs and be based on formal and informal observations and assessments.
• Guessing words is not an acceptable reading strategy. Teachers should never encourage a student to guess at a word. Children should integrate multiple sources of information to get the precise message of the author.
• Phonics is essential, but not sufficient. There are several key elements that children need to learn to become proficient readers. In addition to phonics, children need instruction in decoding (the application of phonics), phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing.

Phonics should be taught explicitly and systematically. All the books I have written include a phonics scope and sequence aligned with the developmental stages supported by decades of research (Bear et al., 2019; Ehri, 2022; Ganske, 2013) and a variety of effective, engaging, and research-based procedures that explicitly teach letters, sounds, sight words, spelling patterns, inflectional endings, and morphemic units.

• Decodable texts can be useful for helping students practice a phonics skill.
• Orthographic mapping (forming letter-sound connections to bond the spellings, pronunciations, and meanings of words) (Ehri, 2014) helps child expand their sight word vocabulary.

The following paragraphs present my position on the use of decodable texts and the three-cueing model, two major areas where SOR extremists have attacked guided reading. My position is strongly supported by reading science research.

Decodable books

I have personally taught thousands of small group reading lessons and used a variety of instructional texts, including decodable texts, leveled books, basal stories, newspaper articles, chapters from novels, and sections from textbooks. I’ve even taught guided reading to advanced middle school readers using a chapter from a physics textbook! One of my favorite genres for guided reading is poetry. My point is you can use my small group lesson framework with any text. My framework is simply a way to integrate reading, writing, and phonics to bring about greater acceleration. It does not mandate or exclude any type of text.

The current debate about whether to use decodable texts or leveled books centers on emergent readers (reading levels A-C). Books published for emergent readers differ according to the publishing company. Some beginning books are highly patterned and repetitive; some are highly decodable. Still others use multi-criteria, which includes high-frequency words, decodable words, and meaning.

Despite the enthusiasm for using highly decodable texts, the research on using them is inconclusive (Mesmer, 2000; Lindsey, 2022; Shanahan). Some studies favor decodable texts (Cheatham and Allor, 2012; Compton, 2005; Mesmer, 2005), while others favor multi-criteria texts (Juel and Roper/Schneider, 1985; Jenkins, Peyton, Sanders, and Vadasy, 2004; Menon & Hiebert, 2005; Mesmer, 2010; Price-Mohr and Price, 2019).

My position is similar to Shanahan’s. He writes, “I think it’s okay to use decodable texts as part of phonics instruction, but such practice should be severely limited, and even beginning readers should be reading more than decodable texts.”  In another of Shanahan’s blogs on decodable texts, he says it is reasonable to use decodable texts to practice a phonics skill, but “kids are likely to be best off in classrooms that provide them with a mix of these text types rather than a steady diet of any one of them.” He goes on to say, “Personally – based on my own experiences as a primary grade teacher—I would use all of these kinds of text.”

Shanahan is critical of using predictable texts, and so am I. Predictable, patterned books offer emergent readers an opportunity to learn print concepts and simple English language structures, which supports the development of phonological and decoding skills(Scanlon & Anderson, 2020; Mesmer & Williams, 2015.  However, once children control early print concepts and know the letter sounds, teachers should avoid patterned text and use decodable texts along with multi-criteria texts so the students can develop a “mental set for diversity” (Shanahan).

Although we might disagree on some aspects of decodable texts, I hope we can agree on these points presented by (Mesmer):

• Use them (decodable texts) at the right developmental window, which Mesmer defines as when children are solid with the concept of a word, know all letter sounds, and are ready to decode words. She states, “I suggest that children be able to decode a simple c-v-c word prior to using decodables.”
• Use after a phonics lesson to practice a target word family or sound. In my recent reading intervention program called RISE, I wrote decodable texts for each lesson so children could practice the sight words and phonics skills that were taught in the lesson.
• Do not use decodable texts exclusively. Children benefit from also using multi-criteria texts that target high-frequency words, decodability, and meaningfulness.
• Pay attention to the level of decodability. There are times when highly decodable texts may be appropriate, but if the reader is having to sound out every third word, the book probably contains too many decodable words.
• Know when to stop using decodable texts. Mesmer recommends ending the use of decodable texts after children can easily blend c-v-c and c-c-v-c words. Most children master this skill in the spring of kindergarten or fall/winter of first grade.

Three-cueing system (MSV)

I think we can agree that readers use multiple sources of information to make sense of print – semantics (Meaning), syntax (Structure), and graphophonics/letter-sound relationships (Visual).  

Many teachers, myself included, use MSV as a tool for analyzing student errors and self-corrections. The coding helps teachers decide which sources of information students are using (and ignoring) so the teachers know how to prompt the student during reading. When a reader makes an error that ignores phonics, teachers should prompt the student to look more closely at the word, sound it out, or break it into parts. If the reader tries to sound out the word but ignores meaning, then teachers should prompt them to crosscheck the visual (phonics) with meaning. You used all the sounds, but what word would make sense? (Clay, 2016; Bates, McBride, & Richardson, 2020, Shanahan. Research has shown that teachers who prompt students to attend to the cues the students are ignoring tend to be more effective (Scanlon & Anderson, 2020). The goal is for the reader to integrate multiple sources of information to read the exact words in the text.

The current controversy surrounding the three-cues is fueled by an assumption that if children are prompted to use meaning-based strategies, they will learn to guess at unfamiliar words (Hanford, 2019, 2022). Ehri (2014) has shown that children with partial alphabetic word knowledge often use initial letters plus pictures to anticipate what a word might be. I don’t consider this guessing. It is part of the developmental process of word solving and learning. The goal, of course, is for these children to acquire more letter sound knowledge so the teacher can direct the student’s attention to using all the letters in the word for accurate word identification.

I agree with Scanlon and Anderson (2020) that children can use both meaning and visual information right from the start: “We do not view the use of context and decoding within an either/or framework, but rather encourage the interactive and confirmatory use of both code-and meaning-based strategies during word solving, within an instructional approach that is also responsive to the needs of students as they develop skill with the alphabetic code” (p. S20).

By the way, there is widespread misunderstanding among SOR proponents that the V in MSV means pictures. They suggest it is a way of encouraging children to guess at words. See Hunts Institute Virginia Education Summit, 2:50:16ff.  That is totally false — yet I have heard presented numerous times.

Page 31 of the Science of Reading Defining Guide says that in order to be good citizens of a science and practice community, educators should fairly evaluate all evidence “regardless of whether the conclusions are inconsistent with your beliefs.” It also says we should “acknowledge differences and discuss them with respect and decency.” Unfortunately, I seldom see this kind of respectful debate on social media posts. I sincerely hope we can find common ground on the essentials of effective reading instruction, and when we disagree, we can do so with respect and professionalism.   

 

Want to hear more about Jan’s ideas? Here is a link to an interview I did with her last year. LINK

Several important interviews and blog posts are lined up in the next few weeks. We will start next week with an interview with Gravity Goldberg. In addition, P.D. Pearson has agreed to be interviewed. I am working on setting up that interview late in the summer or early this fall. Until then:

Happy Reading and Writing.

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

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.

Tom Loveless Debunks Social Media’s Three Biggest Myths about Reading Scores: An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Tom Loveless, Ph.D., is an education researcher and former senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (1999–2014). From 2000 to 2017, he authored The Brown Center Report on American Education, an annual report analyzing important trends in education. Loveless has published widely in scholarly journals and appeared in popular media to discuss school reform, student achievement, and other education topics.

Loveless holds a Ph.D. in education from the University of Chicago, an MA in special education from California State University, Sacramento, and an AB in English from the University of California, Berkeley. From 1979 to 1988, Loveless was a classroom teacher in the San Juan Unified School District, near his hometown of Sacramento, California. From 1992 to 1999, Loveless was an assistant and associate professor of public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. At Brookings, Loveless served as director of the Brown Center on Education Policy from 1999 to 2008.

From 2004 to 2012, Loveless represented the United States at the General Assembly of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, a sixty-nation organization that governs international testing. From 2006 to 2008, he was a member of the president’s National Mathematics Advisory Panel.

Link to Tom’s Vita  LINK

Here is a link to the YouTube interview:

Here are some of the talking points from the interview:

Here is a link to buy Tom’s books LINK

Link to Tom’s Blogpost about the inaccuracies of claims made on social media LINK.

You can follow Tom on Twitter: @tomloveless99.

KEY SLIDES FROM THE INTERVIEW:

KEY SLIDE ONE

KEY SLIDE TWO KEY SLIDE ONE

KEY SLIDE THREE

Shakeel, M.D., and Peterson, P.E. (2022 Education Next, 22(4), 50-58.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1359326

A Half Century of Student Progress Nationwide

Final Thoughts About This Interview.

I’ve written several times pushing back on the incomplete and misleading stories being told on social media LINK, LINK, LINK. This interview is an important addition to the growing pushback on those social media stories. The size of the problems within reading is being exaggerated. Social media says about two-thirds of kids are reading below level. They make that claim based on an incorrect interpretation of the NAEP scores. Dr. Loveless indicates the actual figure is about 1/3. That figure has remained constant, and that lack of change includes the current era of reforms involving mandating SOR. I do not in any way want to give the impression that 1/3 of all students reading below grade level is unimportant. But as Dr. Lawless points out, looking at what the data is actually telling us requires a very different fix than the simplistic ones being advanced by SOR advocates. The discussion on what the best policy should be needs to be made using all the research. It needs to draw on practices from all sides. That discussion needs to begin in every state legislature considering changes in the laws around literacy, especially early literacy LINK. I believe the current changes are doomed to failure because they are based on false premises and fail to consider all the research. That point will be a recurring theme in my future blogs.

A good way to end this blog post is to call your attention to Paul Thomas’s latest letter about this topic. He is one of many advocates encouraging the proper reporting of all the research and the use of all the research to inform our decisions on this crucial topic. Here is a link to his open letter to the Biden Administration et. al. LINK

Several important interviews and blog posts are lined up in the next few weeks. Included will be an interview with Gravity Goldberg and a guest blog post by Jan Richardson. In addition, P.D. Pearson has agreed to be interviewed. I am working on setting up that interview late in the summer or early this fall. Until then:

Happy Reading and Writing.

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

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.

Leah Mermelstein talks about her book We Do Writing: An Interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

This blog post is a repost of an earlier blog I did about Leah Mermelstein and her book We Do Writing. Leah is currently doing a FREE book study around this book. I will attend that book study and want to promote it! Contact her at leahmermelstein8@gmail.com  for more information and to sign up for the next book study session. The next book study will be on August 9^th at 7:00 pm, and Leah will be there!

Here is some information about Leah taken from her website:

I found out that Leah was a staff developer for Lucy Calkin’s project around the same time I did my own 4-year stint learning about writing workshop. I have already purchased my copy of Leah’s book. That is because I plan to resume helping my 3rd grade teachers implement workshop in the fall. BTW- that is because they asked me back. They loved workshop!  

Leah’s methods are grounded in the workshop model. What she brings to the table are ways to simplify workshop teaching and to help teachers to help kids write more. Her ideas also help them love writing. During my own training I remember Katie Wood Ray telling us to have kids write more- make more stuff! I know with the help of the ideas from this book, next year my 3^rd graders will be doing just that. I highly recommend this book.

Now it is time to have a look at the interview. Here are the topics we discussed. They are time stamped.

1. Tell us about yourself. Tell about how to create simple tools for complex work.  01:00

2. What made you decide to write this book? 04:00

3. Can you share the major parts of the “We-Do” writing model with us? 08:23

4. What research did you lean on while creating the “We-Do” model? 15:10

5. Any final thoughts? 23:00

Here is the YouTube interview:

Here is some additional information about Leah, including several important links:

Link to her web page:  Web Page:  www.leahmermelstein.com

Link to purchase book:  Leah’s Book

THE WE-DO MODEL

Link to join her  “We-Do”  Facebook group.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/3458003700963828

Link to her blog: https://www.leahmermelstein.com/blog

Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/wedowriting/

Twitter: @MermelsteinLeah

Linkedin:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/leah-mermelstein-042a8a18

My thoughts about Leah’s book/ My upcoming Interviews this summer.

Workshop works (despite what you might have heard on social media). In this book, Leah provides research to support the use of workshop. Most of her book is about how to implement her model of teaching writing. It provides a treasure trove of practical ideas about teaching writing effectively and developing a lifelong love of writing in your students. This is one of my go-to books when teaching teachers about the art and science of teaching.

For the rest of the summer, I will do several blog posts/interviews I think will interest you. Next week Dr. Tom Lawless will talk about the social media’s version of the current state of the reading world. He will give extensive explanations about the whole story behind test scores. It is not at all the same as the story told by some social media pundits. By the way, this story is being told by a former Harvard professor of public policy and a professor who preceded his university career with a 10-year career in the classroom. We’ll also have a guest blog from Jan Richardson, where she tells the whole story of what she has said about teaching reading. Again, it is not at all the story being told by her social media critics. Toward the end of summer, I’ll interview P.D. Pearson about literacy. Again, a chance for you to hear the full story about our progress in literacy. Remember that Pearson is the architect of the widely used gradual release model of instruction and has decades of experience publishing in the top reading research journals in the literacy field.

So- Have a wonderful 4^th of July. I’ll “see you” next week.

Dr. Sam (the guy in the middle happily taking flak from both sides)

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