Pennington Publishing Blog

Close Reading? A helpful, time-tested reading strategy, which was brought back to life in 2009 with the advent of the Common Core State Standards and the evangelical zeal of Common Core lead authors of the English-language Arts Standards, David Coleman and Susan Pimental. For those still getting re-acquainted with close reading, this definition should suffice from noted U.C. Berkeley reading-rearcher David Pearson (now a constructive critic of how the close reading strategy is currently being implemented) and co-author Margaret Gallagher:

Close Reading of text involves an investigation of a short piece of text, with multiple readings done over multiple instructional lessons. Through text-based questions and discussion, students are guided to deeply analyze and appreciate various aspects of the text, such as key vocabulary and how its meaning is shaped by context; attention to form, tone, imagery and/or rhetorical devices; the significance of word choice and syntax; and the discovery of different levels of meaning as passages are read multiple times. The teacher’s goal in the use of Close Reading is to gradually release responsibility to students—moving from an environment where the teacher models for students the strategies to one where students employ the strategies on their own when they read independently

P. David Pearson and Margaret C. Gallagher, “The Instruction of Reading Comprehension,” Contemporary Educational Psychology 8, no. 3 (July 1983) 317-344.

Specifically, the first and last C.C.S.S. Reading Anchor Standards address the importance of close reading:

1. Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions
drawn from the text.

10. Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently

As Pearson now notes, “We need a mid-course correction with close reading.”

CLOSE Reading Narrative Worksheet

My criticism of the how a good reading strategy (close reading) needs revision is three-fold:

1. Pre-reading strategies and pre-teaching are frowned upon in the new permutation of close reading. With our diverse student population, beginning a cold read or rigorous text borders on educational malpractice. Reading comprehension builds upon reading comprehension. The into reading step has a solid research base and can be teacher-led or student-researched. Now I’m not advocating a return to the counter-productive “Give students the Cliff’s Notes version of the reading prior to the first read” practice of the 1980s. We do want to promote Reading Anchor Standard 10 and its focus on developing reader independence.
2. I do applaud the focus on text-dependent questions to analyze expository and narrative text (Who wants to return to the beyond reading focus of constructing one’s own meaning from the author’s words?); however, in addition to some teacher or publisher questions, we need to return to the emphasis of interactive reading based upon reader (self)-generated question strategies. We need to bring back talking to the text to improve reading comprehension and to develop independence. Even the best teacher-generated questions lead students to a skim to find the answers approach to reading.
3. Again, I’m thrilled that the Common Core has renewed our focus on expository text. But, narrative has a place, too. And short selections of novels, as well as short stories, can serve as rigorous close readings. Close readings are not confined to articles. At the end of this article, I provide a FREE resource download of a Close Reading Narrative Worksheet.

Will These Mid-course Corrections Be Adopted?

Revision tends to take more time than wholesale change. Whether teachers will gradually buy into some of these mid-course corrections remains to be seen. We teachers can be an impatient bunch, and we often jump onto the bandwagon of new and improved education approaches which are neither new nor improved.

Most teachers have been in professional development settings in which the speaker advocated the necessity of gradual course changes. The speaker may even have trotted out the example of how long it takes an aircraft carrier (or a cruise ship) to turn around in the middle of the ocean. I looked up this metaphor and found an interesting response from naval seaman assigned to the carrier, George W. Bush.  This quote bears reading closely. He responds to the question of how long it takes a carrier to make a 180 degree turn (emphasis mine):

Few people will notice 1 degree per second which is easy to do at 30 kts, so 180 degrees would take about 3 minutes and operations could continue. This is a very realistic answer as the carrier must counter sea currents which may need 1 degree/sec of rudder. If nothing is loose on deck, MUCH more agressive [sic]turns can be taken as the deck will tilt 30 degrees into the turn. Anything not tied down will roll off into the ocean, i.e. equipment, airplanes, people, etc, and no planes could land or take off with such a turn in progress. These turns are done on first sea trials to prove that the rudder can handle the stress of a tight turn at max speed. Here I would estimate a full U turn (180 degrees) in well under 60 seconds, probably 30 seconds, but you’d want to hold onto something.

Now that we’ve finished our first close read, most of us found the main ideas and key details and were able to answer the BIG question: How long does it take an aircraft carrier to turn around? 

Let’s do our second close read, looking for craft and structure…

The naval seaman crafts his answer beginning with the usual and moving to the extraordinary. He moves from the impersonal “Few” in the first sentence to the personal “you’d” in the last. He uses two cause and effect structures: the first being the slow turn and its results; the second being the fast turn and its results.

Let’s do our third close read and mark up the text with marginal annotations, preparing to apply, discuss, and properly cite the information…

KEY RESULTS OF FAST TURN “Anything not tied down 1. will roll off into the ocean, i.e. equipment, airplanes, people, etc, and 1. no planes could land or take off with such a turn in progress” (Jones).

My take regarding the mid-course corrections of the close reading strategy is that a slow turn will produce greater long-term effects than a fast turn and will produce fewer casualties. We’ve made some significant progress in improving reading instruction during the last decade. Far fewer elementary and secondary teachers are solely teaching novels. Less class time is now devoted to unguided, free choice independent reading. More time is now spent on expository reading and research. Less whole language strategies, a.k.a. reader response, which focus on filtering and applying the ideas of text through the lense of personal reader experiences, are being taught, such as with dialectical journals. I’d hate to see close reading change into a passing fad (as it has before in the 1960s).

Teachers do need to pre-teach (the “into step” of reading) and/or have students pre-research the topic (if an expository close reading) or the author, context and/or genre (if a narrative close reading), especially with rigorous reading-level close readings. Having students access prior knowledge and gap-filling with our diverse learners via pre-teaching strategies (Marzano) improves comprehension and does not turn our students into teacher-dependent learners. Indeed, comprehension builds upon comprehension and enables students to independently access text. The reading research of the last sixty years is quite extensive regarding the positive impact of pre-reading strategies.

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary, Study Skills close reading, close reading strategy, Common Core Standards, literary analysis, Reading Anchor Standards, reading comprehension, reading strategies, reading worksheets, text dependent questions

I hesitate to criticize a good thing too harshly. We teachers tend all-too-often to abandon something that works for the new latest and greatest educational fad.  This is certainly not my intention in criticizing aspects of the close reading strategy and suggesting revisions.

By way of reminder, close reading is a multi-level strategy to encourage readers to access meaning independently.  Close reading advocates achieve this end by avoiding pre-reading strategies and using text-dependent questions to complete three reading tasks: during the first read, students focus on gleaning key ideas and details. In the second read, students focus on how the author has designed the text (craft and structure). In the third reading, students focus on the integration of knowledge and ideas, such as preparing to use the text in discussion, writing, and comparisons with other texts. Close reading is certainly nothing new and is only one means of helping students become more analytical readers, as I describe in a related article., “Close Reading: Don’t Read Too Closely.”

Close Reading: Don’t Read Too Closely

Since the advent of the Common Core Standards and the concurrent re-popularization of the close reading strategy by the Common Core authors, teachers have been teaching more rigorous, expository text (a good thing). Teachers are training students to dig deeply into text and read for meaning (a great thing). Teachers have abandoned pure reader response, a.k.a. whole language, activities which focus more on what the reader brings to and gets out of the text rather than what the author has to say (a radical paradigm shift). Wahoo!

However, as noted U.C. Berkeley reading researcher, David Pearson, comments about close reading : “We need a mid-course correction, not a pendulum swing… but with BALANCE in mind… (making) sure that it applies to several purposes for reading (and will) encompass literal, interpretive, and critical reading tasks” (Pearson).

Mid-course Corrections: Two Proposals

1. Close reading advocates are wrong about avoiding pre-teaching. Cold reads in-them-of-themselves do not develop independent readers. Teachers do need to pre-teach (the “into step” of reading) and/or have students pre-research the topic (if an expository close reading) or the author, context and/or genre (if a narrative close reading), especially with rigorous reading-level close readings. Having students access prior knowledge and gap-filling with our diverse learners via pre-teaching strategies (Marzano) improves comprehension and does not turn our students into teacher-dependent learners. Indeed, comprehension builds upon comprehension and enables students to independently access text. The reading research of the last sixty years is quite extensive regarding the positive impact of pre-reading strategies.

2. Close reading advocates over-emphasize the value of text-dependent questions. Now, I certainly agree that we don’t want to return to non-dependent text questions, such as “How does this make you feel?” “How does this apply to your life?” How does your life apply to what the author says?” Aargh! My point is that text-dependent questions foster teacher-dependence during the reading process itself. The goal of reading becomes answering the teacher’s questions. Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t add insight and provoke relevant reader response with some of our teacher questions. However, if we are to create truly independent readers, we need students to develop self-generated question strategies. This interactive talking to the text has a solid research base and is key to improving reading comprehension.

So let’s tweak a good thing (close reading) and make it a better reading strategy that truly helps teachers develop independent readers. Let’s use Independent Close Reading to accomplish that end. Interested in resources to help you do just that? Check out the Close Reading Expository Worksheet FREE resource download HERE and the Close Reading Narrative Worksheet FREE resource download HERE.

*****

The Science of Reading Intervention Program

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Word Recognition includes explicit, scripted, sounds to print instruction and practice with the 5 Daily Google Slide Activities every grades 4-adult reading intervention student needs: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Morphology 2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling 3. Sounds and Spellings (including handwriting) 4. Heart Words Practice 5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (decodables). Plus, digital and printable sound wall cards, speech articulation songs, sounds to print games, and morphology walls. Print versions are available for all activities. First Half of the Year Program (55 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Language Comprehension resources are designed for students who have completed the word recognition program or have demonstrated basic mastery of the alphabetic code and can read with some degree of fluency. The program features the 5 Weekly Language Comprehension Activities: 1. Background Knowledge Mentor Texts 2. Academic Language, Greek and Latin Morphology, Figures of Speech, Connotations, Multiple Meaning Words 3. Syntax in Reading 4. Reading Comprehension Strategies 5. Literacy Knowledge (Narrative and Expository). Second Half of the Year Program (30 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Assessment-based Instruction provides diagnostically-based “second chance” instructional resources. The program includes 13 comprehensive assessments and matching instructional resources to fill in the yet-to-be-mastered gaps in phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness, phonics, fluency (with YouTube modeled readings), Heart Words and Phonics Games, spelling patterns, grammar, usage, and mechanics, syllabication and morphology, executive function shills. Second Half of the Year Program (25 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program BUNDLE  includes all 3 program components for the comprehensive, state-of-the-art (and science) grades 4-adult full-year program. Scripted, easy-to-teach, no prep, no need for time-consuming (albeit valuable) LETRS training or O-G certification… Learn as you teach and get results NOW for your students. Print to speech with plenty of speech to print instructional components.

Click the SCIENCE OF READING INTERVENTION PROGRAM RESOURCES for detailed program description, sample lessons, and video overviews. Click the links to get these ready-to-use resources, developed by a teacher (Mark Pennington, MA reading specialist) for teachers and their students.

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Cues FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

*****

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary close reading, close reading strategy, Common Core Standards, literary analysis, Reading Anchor Standards, reading comprehension, reading strategies, reading worksheets, text dependent questions

Save the W!

Save the w! (As a vowel, that is)

Wow, it’s rare for me to disagree with Grammar Girl… As a reading specialist, we love rules. If a word doesn’t fit, we figure a way to make it do so:) My speech therapist colleagues will back me up on this generalization.

 

In a related article, Grammar Girl reminds us that a vowel is a sound, not a letter. Nicely done! We form these sounds into two ways. 1. Some vowel sounds are made with the mouth in one position and with one sound. These vowel sounds are called monophthongs. Examples: got, go, know 2. Other vowel sounds start with the mouth in one formation as one vowel sound and slide into another formation as two vowel sounds. These vowel sounds are called diphthongs. Examples: coin, joy, out, and cow.

 

Grammar Girl states that “you could argue that W does indeed represent a vowel.” She cites the diphthong /ow/ as her example. But then she continues, “maybe to you the word ‘cow’ sounds like it ends with the consonant ‘wuh’ instead of the vowel ‘oo.’” Just as with the diphthong ‘oy,’ phoneticians disagree.”

 

Yikes! Houston, we’ve got a problem. In fact, we have a few. To be picky, it’s not the consonant, “wuh.” All consonants have clipped sounds. When we teach students, we blend /w/ /e/ /s/ /t/ (four sounds), not “wuh” est. Also, the vowel “oo” does not have the /ow/ sound, it has the /oo/ as in rooster or /oo/ as in foot sound.

 

Now the to meat of the matter regarding the w vowel sound. Okay, vegetables for my vegan friends.

 

To say that “…phoneticians disagree that the w is not a vowel, but may indeed be a consonant” is news to me. If so, these phoneticians are certainly making exceptions to our cherished rules. In fact, they have now added a new sound-spelling for the /ow/ sound: the _o or o_ as in /c/ /o/ /w/. They also have violated our CVC syllable rule, because their new /o/ is certainly not a short vowel sound.

 

Furthermore, Grammar Girls offers this solution to the problem of identifying a w as a vowel at the end of the diphthong: “So my recommendation is just to say that the combination O-W represents the diphthong “ow,” and stop there, just like we did for the O-Y and the diphthong ‘oy.’”

 

This solution seems an “easy out” to the argument as to whether or not the w can serve as a vowel, but in the real world of teaching students to read, this solution is counterproductive.

 

Somehow, Grammar Girl took us back to letters, not sounds, for vowels. Grammar Girl recommends saying, “The O-W represents the dipthong ‘ow’ …the O-Y… the diphthong ‘oy.'” No. We’ve already established that vowels are sounds and that the diphthong /ow/ has two distinct sounds. It really does matter that the w is a vowel.

 

Practically speaking, beginning readers, remedial readers, students with auditory processing challenges, and ESL, EL, and ELD students need to learn not only the a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes y monophthongs, but also the diphthongs as well. Again, a vowel sound may actually have two sounds and students have to practice their mouth formations, sounds, and the sound-spelling options.

 

When students read cow, we want to hear three separate sounds: one consonant /c/ and two vowel sounds distinctly pronounced as /ow/. Without all the mumbo-jumbo, we teach students that cow has two vowel sounds spelled as a vowel team.

 

Now that we’ve saved the w as a vowel sound, let’s stir stir up the pot a bit more. Other letters (in addition to our cherished w) may also serve as vowels. Examples: h and y as in rhy/thm, l as in bu/gle, r as in mur/der, ar/mor, mir/ror, m as in bottom, and n as in mutton.

 *****

Teaching Reading Strategies

The Teaching Reading Strategies (Intervention Program) is designed for non-readers or below grade level readers ages eight–adult. This full-year, 55 minutes per day program provides both word recognition and language comprehension instructional resources (Google slides and print). Affordable and evidence-based, the program features the 54 Sam and Friends Phonics Books–decodables for each lesson and designed for older students. The digital and print word recognition activities and decodables are also available as a half-year (or 30 minutes per day) option in The Science of Reading Intervention Program. Both programs include the easy-to-teach, interactive 5 Daily Google Slide Activities.

PREVIEW TEACHING READING STRATEGIES and THE SCIENCE OF READING INTERVENTION PROGRAM RESOURCES HERE. 

Grammar/Mechanics, Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary accuracy rate, decodables, digraphs, diphthongs, grammar girl, guided reading, guided reading decodables, guided reading phonics books, guided reading running records, h vowel, l vowel, list of vowels, m vowel, Mark Pennington, n vowel, phonics, phonics assessments, r vowel, reading comprehension, reading fluency, reading intervention, running reading marks, running records, Sam and Friends, Sam and Friends Phonics Books, self-corrections, sound-spellings, take home books, Teaching Reading Strategies, vowel sounds, w vowel

Literacy Center Rotations

More and more, teachers are seeing the value of using literacy centers (or stations, if you prefer) and the literacy center research certainly supports the use of small groups and centers in the classroom. However, there are certain challenges to setting up effective literacy centers. Many teachers explore the option, or even try to initiative centers, but quickly get frustrated and give up. Many do so because of behavioral issues, but others do so because of organizational problems. My take is that both go hand in hand.

I’m writing this article because every teacher has unique needs regarding setting up their own literacy centers. Setting up workable literacy center rotations to meet those needs can be challenging, especially for the spatially-impaired, like me. For this article, rotations refers to which literacy centers students move and when. Obviously, you can’t have all of your kids moving to the same literacy station at the same time. Following are rotation limitations, rotation options, and rotation transitions to make your literacy center planning easier. Of course, these are not the only options, but others can certainly be modified from the ones I will provide. Plus, clink on each link to find colorful visuals for each rotation option.

Rotation Limitations

Time

With respect to instructional time, I’ve never heard a teacher complain about having “way too much time in the day” to teach. This is especially true with respect to literacy centers (or stations). Instructional decisions are always reductive. In choosing to do literacy centers, you are choosing not to do another instructional approach or learning activity. The question will be how much time you are able to devote to literacy centers.

Most teachers opt for 20-minute literacy centers. This seems to be about the length of time students can handle independent work and the amount of time teachers usually spend doing guided reading or other teacher-led activities for literacy centers. To facilitate rotations, this means that the total amount of class time devoted to literacy centers would be 40, 60, 80, or 120 minutes. This would be true for both elementary and secondary teachers (the latter depending upon traditional for the 40 or 60 and block for the the 80 or 120 minute schedules).

Class and Group Size

Most educational researchers and teachers find that groups of 3-6 students are the ideal size for collaborative small groups, such as for literacy centers. With a class size between 20-26 for elementary teachers, 4, 6, or 8 groups will work. With a class size between 26-40 for secondary teachers, 6 or 8 groups will work.

Number of Days

Generally speaking, the fewer number of days doing literacy centers requires more rotations. Conversely, more days alloted to literacy centers permits fewer rotations.

Number and Types of Literacy Centers

As with the number of days, more literacy centers require more days and more rotations. The rotation options below show from 4-10 literacy centers. These rotation options provide guide choices. In other words, students are required to rotate to specific centers, but have limited choices of lessons or activities within each center.  Some teachers have set up more centers if free choice is permitted.

Additionally, if teachers wish to do guided reading or other teacher-led activities for literacy centers, rotation options will be limited because the teacher becomes, in effect, a literacy center herself. You can’t be everywhere at once! Three guided reading options are provided in the following rotations. One includes *guided reading for 20 minutes per day, four days per week; another includes **guided reading for 20 minutes per day, two days per week; one more includes ***guided reading for 10 minutes per day, four days per week.

Rotation Options

• 40 minutes
• 60 minutes
• 80 minutes
• 100 minutes

Check out these 10 Literacy Center Rotations

Rotation Transitions

Before launching literacy centers in your classroom, I strongly suggest practicing rotation transitions. Make sure to clearly post or display rotation transitions for student reference. Provide some form of signal, such as a chime, lights on or off, or clap-clap back to announce movement. Make sure that the clock is visible so the students, or an assigned task manager,  can monitor the time for each center lesson or activity and help the group wrap-up to provide a quick and quiet transition. Also practice set-up, tear-down, and clean-up procedures.

Students love to be timed and positive reinforcements work well to teach time management skills.

The following programs utilize small groups for “second chance” phonemic awareness and phonics lessons:

The Science of Reading Intervention Program

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Word Recognition includes explicit, scripted instruction and practice with the 5 Daily Google Slide Activities every reading intervention student needs: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Morphology 2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling 3. Sounds and Spellings (including handwriting) 4. Heart Words Practice 5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (decodables). Plus, digital and printable sound wall cards and speech articulation songs. Print versions are available for all activities. First Half of the Year Program (55 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Language Comprehension resources are designed for students who have completed the word recognition program or have demonstrated basic mastery of the alphabetic code and can read with some degree of fluency. The program features the 5 Weekly Language Comprehension Activities: 1. Background Knowledge Mentor Texts 2. Academic Language, Greek and Latin Morphology, Figures of Speech, Connotations, Multiple Meaning Words 3. Syntax in Reading 4. Reading Comprehension Strategies 5. Literacy Knowledge (Narrative and Expository). Second Half of the Year Program (30 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Assessment-based Instruction provides diagnostically-based “second chance” instructional resources. The program includes 13 comprehensive assessments and matching instructional resources to fill in the yet-to-be-mastered gaps in phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness, phonics, fluency (with YouTube modeled readings), Heart Words and Phonics Games, spelling patterns, grammar, usage, and mechanics, syllabication and morphology, executive function shills. Second Half of the Year Program (25 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program BUNDLE  includes all 3 program components for the comprehensive, state-of-the-art (and science) grades 4-adult full-year program. Scripted, easy-to-teach, no prep, no need for time-consuming (albeit valuable) LETRS training or O-G certification… Learn as you teach and get results NOW for your students. Print to speech with plenty of speech to print instructional components.

Grammar/Mechanics, Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary, Study Skills, Uncategorized, Writing academic literacy centers, center rotation charts, center rotation plans, center rotations, English grammar, grammar, grammar worksheets, learning center rotations, learning centers, literacy center research, Literacy Center Rotations, literacy stations, Mark Pennington, parts of speech, parts of speech song, reading comprehension, reading fluency, spelling sorts, station rotation charts, station rotation plans, station rotations, study skills, syllable worksheets, vocabulary worksheets, Writing

INB Assessment-based Individualized Instruction

Many teachers have found Interactive Notebooks (INBs) to be an excellent addition to their instructional repertoire to teach grade level Common Core Standards. Some teachers have gone “whole hog” with reading, vocabulary, history, science, and math INBs, while others have waded into the water with only one content area. Still others may or may not have dipped their toes into the INB pool and decided that a more traditional approach to content instruction works for them (without the mess and additional time of the INB) To each his or her own…

A number of years ago I decided to experiment with teaching interactive grammar notebooks to my seventh grade ELA students. Like many secondary ELA teachers, I, was skeptical about INBs simply being artsy-fartsy, “cute” projects to prop up teacher egos at Open House. Wrong!

As an author of quite a few grades 4 to high school grammar programs, I began to convert the program content to an INB format used by AVID: Cornell Notes. Cornell Notes is a natural fit in that is designed to be interactive: Students take notes and respond to the content. After the lesson students synthesize the learning.

My personal philosophy is to teach traditional grammar, usage, and mechanics in the reading and writing contexts, so I added on the grammar cartoons of my favorite illustrator, David Rickert with content related questions that required analysis and writing application. I added on simple sentence diagrams to help students practice the grammatical concepts in the context of sentence structure and created practice sentences. After all, practice makes perfect. I used the best foldables on the web (thanks Tangstar) and worked to create graphic organizers that would be less mess and less time-consuming. The foldables were designed to rehearse and synthesize the lesson components with some freedom of choice. I also created bi-weekly unit tests for all 56 lessons, which require students to define terms, identify concepts or skills, and apply their knowledge in original sentences. Done! A great grades 4-8 Common Core State Standards-aligned INB (if I do say so myself). But…

Something was missing: formative assessments for each lesson. How did I know and how would teachers know who would buy my Grades 4-8 Teaching Interactive Grammar Notebook if their students understood each lesson before they took the unit test? How would we know if we needed to go back and re-teach a certain aspect of the lesson? What if some students got it, and some did not? Rather than just move on to the next lesson, we had to know. After all, it’s really not about teaching… it’s about learning.

Like my traditional grammar programs, I added on two short mechanics and grammar formative assessments to each lesson. Now I knew if they got it or not, and who got it and who did not. Done! But…

Something was still missing: assessment-based individualized instruction. I’m always preaching, “Don’t assess if you don’t plan to teach to the assessment” to my ELA and reading intervention colleagues. Time to practice what I preach with my INB. Just like I have in my traditional grammar programs, I added on individualized instructional resources to my Grades 4-8 Teaching Interactive Grammar Notebook: worksheets (each with their own formative assessments), songs, posters, hand-outs, videos, you name it! Problem…

This INB was now a veritable tree-eating monster! With the additional hundreds of pages of resources to individualize instruction–many of which teachers would never use…

I figured it out. I created a section on the Cornell Notes for online links and resources.  Now INBs can help teachers individualize instruction so students can “catch up” while they “keep up” with grade level instruction. You’ll love it!

Teaching Grammar and Mechanics Interactive Notebook Grades 4-8

Interested in checking out the author’s Teaching Grammar and Mechanics Interactive Notebook? Click HERE.

Or check out the traditional style Grammar, Mechanics, Spelling, and Vocabulary Grades 4-8 programs to teach the Common Core Language Standards. Each full-year program provides 56 interactive grammar, usage, and mechanics and include sentence diagrams, error analysis, mentor texts, writing applications, and sentence dictation formative assessments with accompanying worksheets (L.1, 2). Plus, each grade-level program has weekly spelling pattern tests

Grammar, Mechanics, Spelling, and Vocabulary Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

and accompanying spelling sort worksheets (L.2), 56 language application opener worksheets (L.3), and 56 vocabulary worksheets with multiple-meaning words, Greek and Latin word parts, figures of speech, word relationships with context clue practice, connotations, and four square academic language practice (L.4, 5, and 6). Comprehensive biweekly unit tests measure recognition, understanding, and application of all language components.

Grammar/Mechanics, Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary, Study Skills, Writing 3D graphic organizers, AVID, AVID strategies, Common Core Grammar, Common Core Language, Cornell notetaking, ELA Composition Books, ELA notebooks, flip books, flipbooks, foldable templates, foldables, formative assessments, grammar programs, INB, interactive grammar notebooks, Interactive Language Notebooks, Interactive Notebooks, Interactive Notebooks Assessment-based Individualized Instruction, Interactive Student Notebooks, lap books, lapbooks, Mark Pennington, pop outs, portfolio assessments, progressive skills review, student response notebooks, Teaching Grammar and Mechanics Interactive Notebook, Teaching the Language Strand

Phonemic Awareness Assessments

“There is considerable evidence that the primary difference between good and poor readers lies in the good reader’s phonological processing ability” (University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning). We all know the importance of phonemic awareness as both a predictor (Goldstein, 1976; Zifcak, 1977; Stanovich, 1986, 1994) and causal factor (Adams, 1990) in reading readiness. Students need to hear, identify, and manipulate the sounds of the language before (or while) learning to read. Although some researchers still posit the notion that complete phonemic awareness is a by-product of reading, most reading researchers and teachers now see phonemic awareness as a teachable prerequisite to reading (Smith, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1998).

If phonemic awareness is critically important to reading and it can be taught, we should do so both as pre-school to second grade beginning reading instruction and as third grade to adult reading remediation.

Some encouraging research indicates that remedial readers can learn phonemic awareness with the right teaching strategies. Bhat, Griffin, and Sindelar (2003) reported that middle school remedial readers do benefit from phonemic awareness training, although, unfortunately, not as much as do younger learners.

Additionally, although specific speech sounds (phonemes) do differ among languages, making phonemic awareness and phonics acquisition more challenging for English-language Learners (ELs), these students are certainly able to transfer their phonemic awareness skills from their primary languages to English, and research supports the benefits of phonemic awareness training for second language learners (Abbot, Quiroga, Lernos-Britton, Mostafapour, and Berninger, 2002). In fact, some primary languages, such as Spanish, share more phonemes with English than not.

Moreover, because phonemic awareness is an auditory skill, speech therapists will emphasize the importance of teaching and practicing phoneme manipulation to special education students, many of whom are diagnosed with auditory learning challenges.

So how should we teach phonemic awareness to beginning, remedial, EL/ELD, and special education students? Assessment-based instruction.

1. Efficient, comprehensive, and accurate whole class (or at least small group) phonemic awareness assessments to determine what beginning and remedial readers know and don’t know. With these tests, teachers can feel confident that “if they know it, they will show it; if they don’t, they won’t.” Not all students will have mastered the same components of phonemic awareness. No more time-consuming individual phonemic awareness assessments? Yeah! Download the six assessments below for free.

2. Assessment-based phonemic awareness activities designed to teach the phonemic awareness deficits indicated by the assessments. Why teach the same phonemic awareness activity whole class to, say a kindergarten or an intermediate or middle school reading intervention class, when not all students need to remediate the same phonemic awareness skill? Instead, use the assessment-data to determine instructional decisions. Perfect for whole class (if the assessments so indicate the need), small ability groups (think learning stations and cooperative groups), and individualized instruction. Download the sample phonemic awareness activities below for free.

Phonemic Awareness Assessments

Here are the six phonemic awareness assessments. By the way, reading specialists suggest remediating these skills in the order listed here:

• Rhyming Awareness
• Alphabetic Awareness (Make sure to check out the Mp3 “New Alphabet Song” found in the phonemic awareness activities packet.)
• Syllable Awareness and Syllable Manipulation
• Phonemic Isolation
• Phonemic Blending
• Phonemic Segmentation

Each of the assessments has a teacher and student page (for recording… remember that phonemic awareness is an auditory skill).

Get the Phonemic Awareness Assessments FREE Resource:

Plus, five of the six (not the alphabetic awareness assessment) include audio files. Woohoo!

Phonemic Awareness Audio Files

Syllable Awareness Assessment (5:48)

Syllable Awareness Assessment

Syllable Rhyming Assessment (5:38)

Syllable Rhyming Assessment

Phonemic Isolation Assessment (5:54)

Phonemic Isolation Assessment

Phonemic Blending Assessment (5:53)

Phonemic Blending Assessment

Phonemic Segmenting Assessment (5:21)

Phonemic Segmenting Assessment

Reading Assessment Matrix

You’ll love this one-page assessment matrix for student data and simple progress monitoring: Reading Assessments Recording Matrix

But what about the resources to teach what the phonemic awareness assessments indicate to be unmastered skills? Got you covered! Check out some of the phonemic awareness activities used in the author’s reading intervention program linked at the end of this related article. 

Each of the above resources is included for teachers to review components of my two reading intervention programs. Click on the provided links to view video overviews and to download sample lessons.

Teaching Reading Strategies

The Teaching Reading Strategies (Intervention Program) is designed for non-readers or below grade level readers ages eight–adult. This full-year, 55 minutes per day program provides both word recognition and language comprehension instructional resources (Google slides and print). Affordable and evidence-based, the program features the 54 Sam and Friends Phonics Books–decodables for each lesson and designed for older students. The digital and print word recognition activities and decodables are also available as a half-year (or 30 minutes per day) option in The Science of Reading Intervention Program. Both programs include the easy-to-teach, interactive 5 Daily Google Slide Activities.

PREVIEW TEACHING READING STRATEGIES and THE SCIENCE OF READING INTERVENTION PROGRAM RESOURCES HERE. 

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary comprehension assessment, Core Assessments, decoding assessment, decoding test, diagnostic reading assessments, dibels, EL, ELD, fluency assessment, Informal Reading Inventory, Mark Pennington, phonemes, phonemic awareness, phonemic awareness assessment, phonics assessment, phonics placement, phonics screening, phonics test, phonological awareness, reading assessment, reading comprehension, reading diagnostic, reading diagnostic assessment, reading fluency, reading groups, reading intervention, reading inventory, reading programs, reading screening, reading strategies, response to intervention, Response to Intervention assessments, rimes assessment, RTI, San Diego Quick Assessment, sight words assessment, Slosson, special education, speech therapists, spelling assessment, Teaching Reading Strategies, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, universal screening

As an elementary, middle school, and high school reading specialist (Yes, I’ve also taught remedial reading courses at the community college level), I’ve found more and more teachers feeling that obligatory reading assessments were a waste of time… Things that had to be done because the district, principal, site reading specialist, Response to Intervention Coordinator, or grade level team members said to do so. This article discusses reading assessment issues.

I have a bit of advice: Don’t assess what your won’t teach. Only administer, correct, record, and monitor reading assessments if they are quick, comprehensive and teachable and if you, the teacher, are given the instructional resources and training to teach to the specific assessment data. These are reasonable requests/demands/expectations. Let’s explore these conditions just a bit and get you the FREE phonics test that you googled.

Why Teachers Don’t Value Reading Assessments

1. We are here to teach and not spend all of our time testing. Test administration, correction, recording, progress monitoring, re-testing takes away from instructional time. Why, for example, should we administer a two-minute reading fluency assessment if last year’s teacher already tested the child at above grade level? Why should we give a decoding test again and again (with most RtI models) when the diagnostic phonics test indicated complete mastery of all vowel and consonant sound-spellings?

Students are 31 flavors.

2. Reading Assessments are random samples. If you had limited experience in eating ice cream, and you were taken to Baskin Robbins 31 Flavors to see if you liked ice cream, tasting a half-dozen random flavor samples would probably let you answer “Yes” or “No.” However, there are 25 other flavors that you did not taste. You could hate every one, love every one, or more probably prefer some more than others. You don’t really know until you try all 31 flavors. The same is true with, say a phonics test.

The DIBELS Next, Aimsweb, and K12 Reading Placement Tests (some of the most widely used phonics tests) all provide interesting data; however, their phonics tests do not assess all 31 flavors. Now the test creators would be quick to ask if I’ve had an educational statistics class (Yes, got an A) and understand experimental design. They might argue that if you tasted chocolate and liked it, you would not have to taste mocha almond fudge, rocky road, etc. to predict that you would also like these similar flavors. Similarly, they would suggest that if your phonics assessment tests the “au_” sound-spelling, it would not be necessary to assess the “aw,” “ou_,” “augh,” “a(l),” and “a(ll)” sound-spellings. I disagree; I love chocolate, but can’t stand mocha almond fudge and rocky road. Poor Raphael may know that “au_” sound-spelling on the phonics test, but not know any of those other sound-spellings unless each is tested.

3. Reading Assessments often provide non-teachable data. Knowing that a child is below reading grade level doesn’t tell us why, nor show us what to do to address the deficit.

For example, an individual reading inventory (I’ve done hundreds) might indicate the following for Amy, a sixth grade Vietnamese child, who came to the United States three years ago:

Amy was tested on the Insert Normed Reading Comprehension Test of Your Choice at 2.5 grade level. She had frequent ear infections as a child. Amy has mastered some, but not all, of her phonemic awareness and phonics skills. She scored at grade level 3.1 on the San Diego Quick Assessment. Her fluency on the grade 6 passage was 65 with 82% accuracy. She scored below the syllable juncture stage on the qualitative spelling inventory. She knew 182 of 300 on the Dolch list. She does not like to read.

That data might be enough to ship Amy off to an ELD class or get her tested for special education; but the data provide nothing that is concrete, specific, and teachable.

What Types of Reading Assessments Teachers Would Like to Use

1. Whole class assessments that are quick and easy to administer (How about audio files? Google forms? Google Sheets?), simple to correct and record, with easy-entry progress monitoring charts.

2. Comprehensive reading assessments that assess everything the student does and does not know. No random sampling.

3. Teachable data with student test errors which indicate specific reading deficits that are discrete and generalizable. Tests that inform the teacher exactly what needs teaching and what does not need teaching for the individual student, flexible ability groups, and the class as a whole.

Like most teachers, you would be excited to use vowel and consonant phonics tests that are quick, comprehensive and teachable. Diagnostics that don’t have reading assessment problems. Here are two phonics assessments (vowels and consonants) with answers and audio files, Google forms, and a simple one-page recording matrix for progress monitoring: 

Vowel Sounds Phonics Assessment

Use this comprehensive 52 item whole class assessment to determine your students’ mastery of short vowels, long vowels, silent final e, vowel digraphs, vowel diphthongs, and r-controlled vowels. The assessment uses nonsense words to test students’ knowledge of the sound-spellings to isolate the variable of sight word recognition. Unlike other phonics assessments, this assessment is not a random sample of phonics knowledge. The Vowel Sounds Phonics Assessment includes every common sound-spelling. Thus, the results of the assessment permit targeted instruction in any vowel sound phonics deficits.

Vowel Sounds Phonics Assessment (10:42) *

Vowel Sounds Phonics Assessment

Consonant Sounds Phonics Assessment

Use this comprehensive 50 item whole class assessment to determine your students’ mastery of consonant digraphs, beginning consonant blends, and ending consonant blends. The assessment uses nonsense words to test students’ knowledge of the sound-spellings to isolate the variable of sight word recognition. Unlike other phonics assessments, this assessment is not a random sample of phonics knowledge. Read more…

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary comprehension assessment, Core Assessments, decoding assessment, decoding test, diagnostic reading assessments, dibels, fluency assessment, Informal Reading Inventory, Mark Pennington, phonemic awareness assessment, phonics assessment, phonics placement, phonics screening, phonics test, reading assessment, reading comprehension, reading diagnostic, reading diagnostic assessment, reading fluency, reading groups, reading intervention, reading inventory, reading programs, reading screening, reading strategies, response to intervention, Response to Intervention assessments, rimes assessment, San Diego Quick Assessment, sight words assessment, Slosson, spelling assessment, Teaching Reading Strategies, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, universal screening

Reading Screening and Placement Assessments

Good teachers are interested in seeing measurable reading progress for their class or classes, as well as for individual students. Teachers don’t just want to think that they are achieving results; they want to know that they are doing so. So that brings up reading assessments for screening and placement.

Now, reading assessment has become a dirty word in some teaching circles because it’s been associated with mind-numbing paperwork, excessive amounts of class time, accountability, and even embarrassment. More often than not, teachers view top-down reading assessments as unteachable and a waste of effort and time. Teachers are, by nature, independent thinkers. If they don’t see the immediate and long term benefit of a teaching practice, resource, or assessment, they won’t keep “kicking the dead horse.” Teachers are all about “Show me the money!” when it comes to what they do with their students. This is especially true with reading screening and placement assessments.

Generally, most teachers find these universal reading screening assessments to be either a necessary evil for placement: We have to have our early and late groups for elementary school or We have to split up our students into remedial, grade level, and accelerated/honors groups for middle school. Or these common entry level reading assessments are mandated by the principal, reading coach, or Response to Intervention (RtI) coordinator for progress monitoring. Think Big Brother.

What if things were different? What if reading screening and placement assessments were designed as part of YOUR instruction. What each of the assessment items informed the teacher about what did and did not need to be taught? What if the screening assessments gave the teacher the instructional game plan for the class and for individual students? That’s what you’re hoping to find in this article, isn’t it? I won’t disappoint you.

Here’s what I’ve found that teachers want for their reading screening and placement assessments:

Eight Assessment Criteria for Reading Screening and Placement Assessments

1. Teachers want reading assessments that will screen students for reading problems and provide realistic and flexible placement options.
2. Teachers want reading assessments that won’t take much class time to administer and are not teacher-dependent for make-ups and new students.
3. Teachers want reading assessments that are easy to administer.
4. Teachers want to minimize individual assessment and maximize whole class assessment.
5. Teachers want reading assessments that are easy to grade and record results.
6. Teachers want reading assessments that others could administer (counselors, administrators, parents, para-educators) and receive the same results.
7. Teachers want reading assessments that are teachable. If an assessment indicates a general problem area, but doesn’t provide the discrete causal issue, either further assessment will be required (a waste of more precious class time) or all the teacher will be able to do is group students by general problem areas. For example, teachers want an assessment that would indicate that a student or students could not read the letter “a” schwa sound (a/bout). Teachers don’t want a reading assessment which indicates that a student has a problem with schwa sound-spellings through a random sample test item or items (Why teach all of these sound-spellings if only one is an issue?). Teachers especially don’t want a reading assessment that would indicate a vowel sounds problem or even worse, a phonics problem. If the test is not prescriptive, if the test does not indicate specific deficits, if the test is simply a random sample of reading skills, why bother? Why give a test that provides nothing to teach to?
8. Teachers want reading assessments that have a simple, one-page recording matrix for record-keeping and progress monitoring. LESS PAPERWORK AND LESS CLERICAL TIME MEANS MORE TIME FOR TEACHING. 

The Big 3 Reading Assessments FREE Downloads with MP3 Audio Files and Recording Matrices

These assessments are primarily designed to determine reading intervention needs for grades 3-adult learners; however, many teachers find many of the assessments to be applicable as instructional level assessments for K-2 learners. Only three assessments are needed for universal screening and placement: The whole class vowel sound-spellings (10:42) and consonants (12:07) phonics tests (teacher copy, student copy, audio file, and recording matrix), a whole class spelling patterns test (teacher copy, student copy, 22:38 audio file, and recording matrix), and an individual fluency assessment (teacher copy, student copy, and recording matrix). 

FAQs

1. Why do the phonics tests use nonsense words? Shouldn’t there be real words, too? Students know their sight words and so the nonsense words are better at testing the discrete sound-spelling combinations. Plus, each of these sound-spelling components, plus rimes, sight words, syllables, and phonemic awareness better serve as assessments following reading screening and placement. You don’t have to eat the whole meal when a taste (or three) will determine if you need the whole full-course dinner. By the way, all of the rest of these assessments with audio files and recording matrices are provided FREE at the end of the article.
2. Why a spelling test? Spelling (encoding) is the other side of the coin of phonics (decoding). Both involve sound-spellings derived from the alphabetic code.
3. Why two minutes on the fluency test? Some fluency tests time the whole passage. Yes, but it’s really not necessary, nor efficient to do so. Most fluency assessments are only one-minute; however, teachers know that these tests were normed under controlled experimental design. Not like your classroom, on the first few days of school when students are nervous and Bobby and Cheyenne are talking and the bell rings and… Trust me. You need two minutes to hear each child read, check accuracy, and get an informed feel for reading ability. My reading fluency assessment is expository, does not rely upon prior knowledge, and is leveled in this manner: the first paragraph is first grade reading level; the second is second grade reading level; etc. This affords the teacher much more data than those reading fluency assessments listed above. Like the other fluency assessments, the teacher gets words per minute, level of accuracy, level of prosody (the music of oral language; the expression of voice; the attention to syntax and punctuation), attention to punctuation, insertions, deletions, substitutions, decoding ability, and sight words. But with this Individual Reading Fluency Assessment, the teacher gets data about reading grade levels: independent, instructional, and frustrational. Easy to place the students in guided reading groups. Easy to help assign independent reading articles and chapter books. So efficient. And no, you don’t have to do time-consuming running records.
4. But shouldn’t we have students complete a writing sample? Very helpful to diagnose levels of cognition, knowledge of paragraph structure, use of vocabulary… but not for reading.
5. But shouldn’t we have students complete a comprehension test? Isn’t reading all about comprehension? Yes, but reading comprehension is not about a whole bunch of discrete sub-skills that can be reliably measured in any fashion so as to affect instructional decisions. As a reading specialist, I’ve given and scored all of the normed and criterion referenced reading comprehension tests. The only data derived from these time-consuming, expensive tests, is a grade level equivalent or even less useful, a generalization such as weak in inferential, strong in knowledge of figurative language, grade level in vocabulary, etc. How does that help you teach that child or class differently than if you did not give the test? Trust me. The two minute reading fluency test with the leveled paragraphs gives you much more useful data.
6. But shouldn’t we have a vocabulary assessment? No, you can’t teach to it. But shouldn’t we have a word recognition test like the San Diego Quick Assessment or the Slosson Oral Reading Inventory? No, you can’t teach to it. But shouldn’t we have baseline data? I know it looks great on paper and re-assessing later may show growth, but the phonics, spelling, and fluency assessments are baseline data and can also be re-assessed.
7. But shouldn’t we give a random sample assessment like a qualitative spelling inventory as a screening and placement assessment? Why bother giving part of the whole, which because of its design is non-comprehensive, when we can give comprehensive assessments that are teachable. Teachers like using assessment data to drive instruction.
8. But what about other reading assessments, other than the BIG 3 Reading Screening and Placement Assessments, that teachers will need for assessment-based teaching? Syllable Awareness, Syllable Rhyming, Phonemic Isolation, Phonemic Blending, Phonemic Segmenting, Alphabetic Upper and Lower Case Letter Match and Alphabetic Sequencing, Heart Words, Academic Vocabulary? Okay, I’ve added o each of these assessments, plus a diagnostic grammar, and a diagnostic mechanics assessment for good measure. Now, all you need are the instructional resources which perfectly correspond to each item on each assessment.

The Science of Reading Intervention Program

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Word Recognition includes explicit, scripted instruction and practice with the 5 Daily Google Slide Activities every reading intervention student needs: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Morphology 2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling 3. Sounds and Spellings (including handwriting) 4. Heart Words Practice 5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (decodables). Plus, digital and printable sound wall cards and speech articulation songs. Print versions are available for all activities. First Half of the Year Program (55 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Language Comprehension resources are designed for students who have completed the word recognition program or have demonstrated basic mastery of the alphabetic code and can read with some degree of fluency. The program features the 5 Weekly Language Comprehension Activities: 1. Background Knowledge Mentor Texts 2. Academic Language, Greek and Latin Morphology, Figures of Speech, Connotations, Multiple Meaning Words 3. Syntax in Reading 4. Reading Comprehension Strategies 5. Literacy Knowledge (Narrative and Expository). Second Half of the Year Program (30 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Assessment-based Instruction provides diagnostically-based “second chance” instructional resources. The program includes 13 comprehensive assessments and matching instructional resources to fill in the yet-to-be-mastered gaps in phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness, phonics, fluency (with YouTube modeled readings), Heart Words and Phonics Games, spelling patterns, grammar, usage, and mechanics, syllabication and morphology, executive function shills. Second Half of the Year Program (25 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program BUNDLE  includes all 3 program components for the comprehensive, state-of-the-art (and science) grades 4-adult full-year program. Scripted, easy-to-teach, no prep, no need for time-consuming (albeit valuable) LETRS training or O-G certification… Learn as you teach and get results NOW for your students. Print to speech with plenty of speech to print instructional components.

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary comprehension assessment, Core Assessments, diagnostic reading assessments, fluency assessment, Informal Reading Inventory, Mark Pennington, phonemic awareness assessment, phonics assessment, reading assessment, reading diagnostic, reading inventory, reading screening, Response to Intervention assessments, rimes assessment, San Diego Quick Assessment, sight words assessment, Slosson, spelling assessment, Teaching Reading Strategies, universal screening