Pennington Publishing Blog

Comprehensive Vocabulary

How to Teach Vocabulary asks and provides possible answers to the Why Should We Teach Explicit Vocabulary? Won’t Students Learn More from Independent Reading? Which Vocabulary Words Should We Teach? To Whom Should We Teach Academic Vocabulary? How Much Class Time does it take to teach the Common Core Vocabulary Standards? Disclaimer: The author has published several vocabulary resources.

Why Should We Teach Explicit Vocabulary? Isn’t Isolated Vocabulary Instruction a Big “No No?” Won’t Students Learn More from Independent Reading?

Besides the fact that the Common Core authors specifically include Standards which required direct instruction, it just makes sense that some direct instruction will be necessary. We’re not suggesting long lists of isolated words, though some memorization is important.

Independent reading certainly produces the bulk of our Tier I and some Tier II words, but some of the latter require in-depth understanding. See the Diagnostic Academic Language Assessments free download at the end of this article to pinpoint which academic words (Tier II) your students know and do not yet know.

Which Vocabulary Words Should We Teach?

In Appendix A the authors discuss academic language and suggest that students get the most “bang for the buck” out of teaching Tier 2 words. An amazing list developed by academic word frequency can help teachers prioritize non-domain specific words that are truly cross-curricular.

Greek and Latin morphology: connecting the phonology, orthography, and semantics of prefixes, bases, and suffixes is critically important These Greek and Latinates make up at least one syllable of 50% of dictionary words and up to 70% of Tier II academic words. But which should students know and at what grade level. Check out these frequency studies of the most often used word parts and the grades 4-8 instructional scope and sequence for vocabulary instruction. Knowing how to teach these word parts so that students will be able to learn related words is critically important.

To Whom Should We Teach Academic Vocabulary?

The short answer is every student. Teaching only survival vocabulary to English language learners, special education students, and remedial reading students is handicapping the very students who need to power of words most. We have to avoid the “soft bigotry of low expectations” (Michael Gerson).

How Much Class Time does it take to teach the Vocabulary Standards?

Most English-language specialists suggest that short, interactive vocabulary lessons make sense. Adding just 20 minutes per week practice, say 10 minutes twice per week, can make an enormous difference. Check out this sensible weekly instructional plan.

*****

For full-year vocabulary programs which include multiple meaning words (L.4.a.), Greek and Latin morphology with Morphology Walls (L.4.a.), figures of speech (L.5.a.), words with special relationships (L.5.b.), words with connotative meanings (L.5.c.), and academic language words (L.6.0), check out the assessment-based grades 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Comprehensive Vocabulary.

Get the Grades 4,5,6,7,8 Vocabulary Sequence of Instruction FREE Resource:

Get the Greek and Latin Morphology Walls FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic Academic Language Assessment FREE Resource:

Grammar/Mechanics, Writing Academic Vocabulary, Common Core Vocabulary, Greek and Latin, Greek and Latin Morphology, homonyms, Mark Pennington, morphology, SAT vocabulary, Teaching the Language Strand, Tier 3 vocabulary, vocabulary word lists, writing mechanics

How to Teach Writing Mechanics asks and provides possible answers to the What is (and isn’t) Writing Mechanics, Why Teach Writing Mechanics? When Should We Teach Writing Mechanics? What Writing Mechanics Should We Teach? How Should We Teach Writing Mechanics? How Much Class Time for Writing Mechanics? questions related to teaching the nuts and bolts of punctuation, capitalization, formatting, citations, quotations, etc. Disclaimer: The author has published several writing mechanics resources.

What is (and isn’t) Writing Mechanics?

Since this is a “catch-all” subject, let’s discuss what I do mean and don’t mean by writing mechanics.  I do mean punctuation (commas, periods, colons, semicolons, dashes, ellipses, parentheses, and brackets), capitalization (including proper nouns, common nouns, abbreviations, and acronyms), formatting (paragraphing, indentations, when to skip and not skip lines, proper headings and spacing, what goes where and what does not), citations (MLA rules, the purpose thereof, and creative problem solving including references, in-text formatting, and list of works), quotations (direct, indirect, titles of works, and dialogue rules). I did mention rules, as no doubt you noticed. However, mechanics is also about style and coherency. “Let’s eat Grandma” comes to mind. Or how about…

I’M STUFFED DO WE HAVE TO EAT GRANDMA AFTER ALL WE JUST FINISHED EATING GRANDPA CAN’T WE WAIT UNTIL MOM’S DONE COOKING

Your students will love more of these examples.

Some teachers would, but I don’t mean grammar. Grammar refers to the sentence components and their functions, such as the parts of speech, subjects, predicates, objects, and modifiers. Grammar also means the arrangement of words within the sentence (the syntax), the formation of phrases and clauses, and word choice. Additionally, grammar includes study and practice in the accepted rules of proper usage, such as subject and verb agreement, pronoun and antecedent relationships, and whether to split infinitives or end sentences with prepositions. Finally, grammar is used to identify and correct non-standard usage. Check out a related article on How to Teach English Grammar.

I also don’t mean spelling. The authors of the Common Core State Standards lump the entire kitchen sink into the “language conventions” category. However, as an MA reading specialist, I will assure you that spelling (encoding) has much more to the how-to’s of reading (decoding) and vocabulary than with proper comma usage.

Why Teach Writing Mechanics?

The authors of the Common Core include writing mechanics in a separate Language Strand as Standard L. 2., and the accompanying Smarter Balanced and PAARC tests do test mechanics. Teaching mechanics will not only help your students avoid eating Grandma, but will also provide a forum for rich language discussion. The differences in British and American punctuation are fascinating. The changing nature of mechanics rules and the controversies between editors of new and old media are instructive. Want to raise a real ruckus? Try debating the serial comma rule! By the way, I don’t consider myself a serial comma killer.

When Should We Teach Writing Mechanics?

The Common Core State Standards have shifted so much of the language conventions to the primary or intermediate elementary grade levels. Such is the case with mechanics. Of course, review is essential and it is nice to have the recursive nature of language instruction validated by the Common Core authors. So, writing mechanics is certainly a K-12 focus.

What Writing Mechanics Should We Teach?

Because of the downward shift in terms of instructional responsibility, it does make sense for upper elementary, middle school, and high school teachers to begin teaching more complex writing mechanics skills. Building on prior knowledge will allow teachers of older students to “get to” issues of, say punctuation and capitalization that heretofore (always wanted to use that word) have never been addressed. It does makes sense to share the instructional load and to prioritize instruction. Layered, sequenced instruction makes sense. An establish scope and sequence makes more sense than a fix-the-random-error “curriculum,” such as DOL or DLR. Most of us old veterans of Daily Oral Language or Daily Language Review would agree that these “error fix-a-thons” (Jeff Anderson) never transferred to student speaking or writing. District committees and instructional teams at the site level can and should align and sequence instruction.

How Should We Teach Writing Mechanics?

Both direct and individualized instruction are needed to teach students writing mechanics. We do need to up the rigor of direct instruction as explained above, but we also need to build on individual student strengths and weaknesses. Because primary and intermediate elementary teachers are transitioning to more writing mechanics instruction, older students will have even a greater diversity of skills sets. Teachers can choose to teach as if none of their students knows anything and repeat the instruction that some have received, or use diagnostic assessments to determine mastery of writing mechanics for each student and provide remediation to those who need it.

Effective diagnostic assessments will help teachers identify what grammatical concepts and skills students have and have not mastered from previous grade levels. Here’s an effective 32 question writing mechanics assessment (with answers) and recording matrix. Teachers can create mini-lessons and/or assign remedial worksheets to correspond to items on the diagnostic assessment to “catch up” individual students to grade level direct instruction. Of course, my grades 4-8 programs provide these resources.

How Much Class Time for Writing Mechanics (and all Language Conventions) Instruction?

Most English-language specialists suggest that short, interactive language conventions lessons, including writing mechanics, (say 20−30 minutes twice per week with a focus on just a few skills, including a brief review to connect to prior learning) makes sense. Clear examples and quick practice in which students apply the skill or rule and identify what is correct and what is not helpful. Short dictation sentences in which students apply the writing mechanics focus will serve as formative assessments to inform the teacher as to mastery or if re-teaching is necessary. Less effective is the “teach writing mechanics only in the editing stage of process papers” approach via mini-lessons. Direct instruction makes a difference. Individualized instruction with targeted worksheets (corresponding to the diagnostic assessments) can add another 15-30 minutes of classroom instruction per week or be assigned as homework.

*****

Pennington Publishing Grammar Programs

Teaching Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics (Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and High School) are full-year, traditional, grade-level grammar, usage, and mechanics programs with plenty of remedial practice to help students catch up while they keep up with grade-level standards. Twice-per-week, 30-minute, no prep lessons in print or interactive Google slides with a fun secret agent theme. Simple sentence diagrams, mentor texts, video lessons, sentence dictations. Plenty of practice in the writing context. Includes biweekly tests and a final exam.

Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics Interactive Notebook (Grades 4‒8) is a full-year, no prep interactive notebook without all the mess. Twice-per-week, 30-minute, no prep grammar, usage, and mechanics lessons, formatted in Cornell Notes with cartoon response, writing application, 3D graphic organizers (easy cut and paste foldables), and great resource links. No need to create a teacher INB for student make-up work—it’s done for you! Plus, get remedial worksheets, biweekly tests, and a final exam.

Syntax in Reading and Writing is a function-based, sentence level syntax program, designed to build reading comprehension and increase writing sophistication. The 18 parts of speech, phrases, and clauses lessons are each leveled from basic (elementary) to advanced (middle and high school) and feature 5 lesson components (10–15 minutes each): 1. Learn It!  2. Identify It!  3. Explain It! (analysis of challenging sentences) 4. Revise It! (kernel sentences, sentence expansion, syntactic manipulation) 5. Create It! (Short writing application with the syntactic focus in different genre).

Get the Diagnostic Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics Assessments, Matrix, and Final Exam FREE Resource:

Get the Grammar and Mechanics Grades 4-8 Instructional Scope and Sequence FREE Resource:

Grammar/Mechanics, Writing English grammar, grammar, grammar instruction, grammar programs, grammar rules, Language Conventions, Mark Pennington, mechanics rules, parts of speech, punctuation and capitalization, quotation marks, Teaching Grammar and Mechanics, Teaching the Language Strand, writing mechanics

How to Teach English Grammar asks and provides possible answers to the most pressing When, Why, How, What, and Whom questions related to teaching grammar. Disclaimer: The author has developed numerous grammar-based programs.

Definition: Identifying the Scope of the Subject

Grammar has become a catch-all term that refers to everything most English teachers don’t like to teach, but still need to do. Admittedly, some still don’t teach it. They have their reasons. In this article the writer refers to grammar as most teachers do. Grammar refers to the sentence components and their functions, such as the parts of speech, subjects, predicates, objects, and modifiers. Grammar also means the arrangement of words within the sentence (the syntax), the formation of phrases and clauses, and word choice. Additionally, grammar includes study and practice in the accepted rules of proper usage, such as subject and verb agreement, pronoun and antecedent relationships, and whether to split infinitives or end sentences with prepositions. Finally, grammar is used to identify and correct non-standard usage. Broadly speaking, grammar is the study of how our language is used and how it can be manipulated to achieve meaning.

Contextual Relevance

The Great Grammar Debate in currently in the midst of an uneasy cease-fire. The authors of the Common Core State Standards attempted to toe the line between those favoring direct (part to whole) instruction in grammar and those favoring indirect (whole to part) instruction in grammar. My take is that the inclusion of a separate Language Strand, including K−12 grammar and usage Standards (L. 1, 2, 3), the focus on recursive skills in the Progressive Skills Review, and the accompanying Smarter Balanced and PAARC tests (which include grammar), have tilted educators toward the direct instruction camp. And this remains the case with more and more states dropping out of the Common Core testing consortia. For some reason, many educators and interest groups in red states who have dropped out tend to favor more explicit grammatical instruction that their respective colleagues in blue states which have hung onto the Common Core.

Given the plethora of Internet searches for grammar resources, the renewed interest in older teaching techniques such as sentence diagramming, and the popularity of grammar websites and discussion forums, it seems fair to say that part to whole grammatical instruction is now a trending topic.

When to Teach Grammar and Usage

More and more rigorous standards have shifted to the primary or intermediate elementary grade levels. Such is the case with grammatical instruction. Most middle school teachers would agree that the instructional scope and sequence of the Common Core Language Strand Standards for grades 2−5 would mimic that of most state standards a mere decade ago. In fact, after deleting the vocabulary Standards, the Common Core authors assign three pages for each of the  first, second, and third grade Standards; one page for both fourth and fifth grades; one page for each of the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades; and only one-half page for each of the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades. Check out a grades 4−8 instructional scope and sequence of grammatical instruction.

Why Teach Grammar and Usage

The academic vocabulary used in grammatical instruction offers an important language of instruction to apply in other areas of academic work: writing, speaking, and reading. For example, learning to define, identify, and apply dependent clauses effectively and correctly empowers students to write, speak, and read with greater coherence. In my view the research regarding the effectiveness of certain grammatical instructional techniques is inconclusive.

How to Teach Grammar and Usage

Both direct and individualized instruction are needed to teach students the grammar. Our students are not tabular raza (empty slates): Many will have had good language training from previous teachers and from literate home environments. We need to build on their strengths and individual instruction according to their weaknesses. Most teachers would agree that grammar is not “just something that needs to be fixed.” Grammatical instruction is more than just error analysis or correction. Grammar and mechanics instruction cannot exclusively be relegated to end of writing process as mere editing skills. Jeff Anderson, author of Everyday Editing, calls such activities “error-filled fix-a-thons.” Most of us who have tried Daily Oral Language or Daily Language Review would agree that this hodgepodge instructional approach does not transfer to student speaking or writing.

Most curricular specialists suggest short, interactive grammatical lessons (say 20−30 minutes twice per week with a focus on one grammatical skill or concept, including a brief review to connect to prior learning. Precise examples and quick practice in which students apply the grammatical skill or concept to identify what is correct and what is not makes sense. Mentor texts in which students see and hear the application of the grammatical lesson focus in the reading context and writing application in which students construct their own sentence(s) to apply the in the writing context is sound instruction. Short dictation sentences in which students apply the grammatical focus will serve as formative assessments to inform the teacher as to mastery or if re-teaching is necessary.

Effective diagnostic assessments will help teachers identify what grammatical concepts and skills students have and have not mastered from previous grade levels. Here’s an effective 40 question (multiple choice) diagnostic grammar and usage assessment and recording matrix. Teachers can create mini-lessons and/or assign remedial worksheets to correspond to items on the diagnostic assessment to “catch up” individual students to grade level direct instruction. Of course, my assessment-based Grammar, Mechanics, Spelling, and Vocabulary  Grades 4-8 programs provide these resources.

What Grammar and Usage to Teach

It makes sense share the load and to prioritize instruction. Layered, sequenced instruction makes sense. An establish scope and sequence makes more sense than a “shotgun” approach. Students need to understand the function of an adverb before they can write adverbial clauses. The Common Core State Standards provides a bare bones sequence of instruction and the Progressive Skills Review does an admirable job of setting critical Standards for annual review. District committees and instructional teams at the site level can align and sequence instruction. For those grades 4−8 teachers who don’t wish to re-invent the wheel, here is the comprehensive TLS Instructional Scope and Sequence Grades 4-8 of the entire Language Strand (grammar and usage, mechanics, knowledge of use, spelling, and vocabulary).

All instructional time is reductive. Instructional minutes in one subject area take away from instructional minutes in another. Most curricular specialists would allocate no more than an hour of direct grammatical instruction per week and no more than thirty minutes of individualized instruction per week. Teachers do have other subjects to teach. Of course, homework is always a possible option.

Whom to Teach Grammar and Usage

All students need grammatical instruction and at each level in K−12 instruction. As more and more of public education is divided up into need-based groups, such as special education, English-language development, remedial, and honors classes, students must receive equal access to all of the curriculum, including grammar. The notion that grammar can’t be learned by students with auditory or visual processing disorders or by students with certain learning styles is a myth. The notion that non-native speakers cannot or should not learn English grammar is also a myth.

For too long, grammatical instruction has been de-prioritized as school districts focus on the reading and math priorities of standardized tests

Students are whom we teach, not ever-changing standards, courses of study, fads, personal preferences, or personal agendas. Therefore, if students don’t know how to define, identify, and use adjectives, we need to teach them (a vague pronoun reference). And we can.

*****

Pennington Publishing Grammar Programs

Teaching Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics (Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and High School) are full-year, traditional, grade-level grammar, usage, and mechanics programs with plenty of remedial practice to help students catch up while they keep up with grade-level standards. Twice-per-week, 30-minute, no prep lessons in print or interactive Google slides with a fun secret agent theme. Simple sentence diagrams, mentor texts, video lessons, sentence dictations. Plenty of practice in the writing context. Includes biweekly tests and a final exam.

Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics Interactive Notebook (Grades 4‒8) is a full-year, no prep interactive notebook without all the mess. Twice-per-week, 30-minute, no prep grammar, usage, and mechanics lessons, formatted in Cornell Notes with cartoon response, writing application, 3D graphic organizers (easy cut and paste foldables), and great resource links. No need to create a teacher INB for student make-up work—it’s done for you! Plus, get remedial worksheets, biweekly tests, and a final exam.

Syntax in Reading and Writing is a function-based, sentence level syntax program, designed to build reading comprehension and increase writing sophistication. The 18 parts of speech, phrases, and clauses lessons are each leveled from basic (elementary) to advanced (middle and high school) and feature 5 lesson components (10–15 minutes each): 1. Learn It!  2. Identify It!  3. Explain It! (analysis of challenging sentences) 4. Revise It! (kernel sentences, sentence expansion, syntactic manipulation) 5. Create It! (Short writing application with the syntactic focus in different genre).

Get the Diagnostic Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics Assessments, Matrix, and Final Exam FREE Resource:

Get the Grammar and Mechanics Grades 4-8 Instructional Scope and Sequence FREE Resource:

Grammar/Mechanics, Literacy Centers, Study Skills, Writing English grammar, grammar, grammar instruction, grammar programs, grammar rules, Mark Pennington, parts of speech, Teaching Grammar and Mechanics, Teaching the Language Strand

Grammar Program Options

Teachers frequently ask which Pennington Publishing grammar program will best meet the needs of their students. Of course most of us use grammar as a catch all term to mean parts of speech, syntax, usage, sentence structure, subjects and predicates, punctuation, quotation marks, and capitalization. For those teachers using the Common Core Standards, they are looking for materials to teach the Language Strand 1, 2, and 3 Standards.

How to Choose the Right Grammar Program

Instructional style and time are the chief criteria in choosing the program which will work best for you and your students. Read the following “quick look” descriptions and make sure to click on any that interest you to see the expanded product description and plenty of program samples on our site. However, before you navigate away from this page, copy down our discount code 3716 to take 10% off of the price of any Pennington Publishing products at check-out.

Traditional and Comprehensive Full-Year Programs

Pennington Publishing provides six grade-level Teaching Grammar and Mechanics programs (grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and high school) to teach each of the CCSS grade-level Standards and Progressive Skills Review (alignment documents included). Absolutely no prep is needed and all answers are provided. YouTube training videos ensure teaching success.

Each of the grade-level programs provides 56 interactive language conventions lessons, designed for twice-per-week direct instruction. The scripted lessons (perfect for the grammatically-challenged teacher) are formatted for classroom projection. Standards review, definitions and examples, practice and error analysis, simple sentence diagrams, mentor texts with writing applications, and formative assessments are woven into every 25-minute lesson.

Students annotate the full text of the lesson on accompanying student worksheets (included in the program). The worksheets include a practice section, a simple sentence diagram, a mentor text which applies the grammatical lesson focus, and a brief writing application. Students complete two sentence dictation formative assessments and then self-correct from the projected display.

Teaching Grammar and Mechanics Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and High School

Biweekly grammar, usage, and mechanics unit tests require students to define, identify, and apply their knowledge of these Language Standards in the writing context.

Individualized Assessment-based Instruction: Teaching Grammar and Mechanics also includes all resources for teachers to meet the diverse instructional needs of individual students. Perfect for English-language learners, special education, and remedial students! The program provides diagnostic grammar and mechanics assessments to determine the specific remedial needs of your students.

Teachers individualize instruction according to the results of the diagnostic assessments with targeted grammar, usage, and mechanics worksheets. Each worksheet includes definitions, examples, writing hints, and a practice section. Students self-correct each worksheet to learn from their mistakes and then and complete a short formative assessment. The teacher corrects the formative assessment to determine mastery. Students catch up while they keep up with grade-level instruction.

“Teaching Grammar and Mechanics is the most comprehensive and easy to teach grammar and mechanics program I’ve ever taught. It’s got everything! I’m teaching each grade-level Standard and students are filling in the gaps from previous grade level Standards. This program is written by teachers for teachers and their students. You can tell. Takes no prep and hardly any correction. Both veteran teachers like me and new ELA teachers will really appreciate the scripted grammar lessons.”

Robin M.

Grammar Interactive Notebook

Grammar Interactive Notebook

The Teaching Grammar and Mechanics Interactive Notebook Grades 4-8 program will help your students master each of the Common Core grade-level grammar and mechanics Standards. This rigorous, fun, and easy-to-teach interactive notebook is neither a fact-filled collection of boring lecture notes, nor a time-wasting portfolio of art projects.

• Grades 4- 8 lessons aligned to the Common Core (alignment documents included). Note that this is not specifically a grade-level program.
• 64 Lessons designed in the interactive Cornell Notes format with plenty of online links to help students practice. Lessons take 40 minutes, twice per week.
• Students are provided the full note-taking text and write only the examples from the teacher display. LESS time copying and MORE time learning. Students self-correct from answers on the display. Plenty of practice in this program.
• Brief grammar and mechanics sentence dictations to formatively assess whether students have achieved mastery.
• Students read, laugh, and respond to 64 color grammar cartoons by master cartoonist, David Rickert. 
• Students use their grammar and mechanics notes to label, color, cut, and glue 3d graphic organizers from easy step-by-step directions. Completed color graphics (the answers) are included to serve as models. No need to create a teacher INB; it’s done for you and for absent student make-up work.
• Minimal preparation and correction. Just copy off two or three student pages and set out the materials. Students self-correct throughout every INB lesson and with the remedial worksheets to learn from their mistakes and save you time.
• Biweekly unit tests with answers assess definition, identification, and application of the grammar and mechanics concepts and skills.
• Diagnostic assessments with over 100 targeted remedial worksheets and online resources. Students complete the worksheet practice, self-correct and edit from the answer booklets, take a brief formative assessment, and mini-conference with you to assess whether students have mastered the Standard.

This interactive notebook is a great resource! My students enjoy learning grammar in a different way.

Shannon M.

Oh my gosh-cannot believe this! Not only does this include graphic organizers, but resource materials and guided instructions. This is amazingly cool!

Syntax in Reading and Writing

Michelle G.

Get the Grammar and Mechanics Grades 4-8 Instructional Scope and Sequence FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic Grammar and Usage Assessment FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic Mechanics Assessment FREE Resource:

Grammar/Mechanics, Literacy Centers, Spelling/Vocabulary, Study Skills, Writing English grammar, grammar interactive notebook, Grammar Literacy Center, Grammar Openers Toolkit, grammar program reviews, Grammar Toolkit, grammar writing openers, interactive grammar notebook, Language Conventions, Mark Pennington, Teaching Grammar and Mechanics, Teaching Grammar and Mechanics Interactive Notebook, Teaching the Language Strand, writing openers

My district has decided to “speed pilot” two reading intervention programs for our secondary schools: Language!® Live is the re-vamped Language!® program from Voyager Sopris with new contributing author Louisa Cook Moats; and Read 180 Next Generation is the thoroughly revised offering from mega publisher Scholastic/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt with new contributing authors Kevin Feldman and Kate Kinsella. The latter uses the Read 180 Foundational Reading Assessment. At my middle school we have one pilot teacher for each program. Training has been extensive from these two eager publishers because Elk Grove Unified is the third largest district in California and a district-wide adoption would be quite a plum for either of the two companies.

So I’ve been able to check out these two programs to compare to my own. A bold move given that my cost per class of 25 students is about $20 per student, whereas the cost per class for each of the two comparative programs is closer to that of a well-equipped Lexus. I started my comparisons with the screening and placement assessments in Read 180. Of course, as a publisher (check out my program advert to the right of the article, you would expect bias. See what you think.)

Our school has always struggled with screening and placement for our “support” classes. As a large middle school with about 1100 students, we have five “feeder” elementary schools and lots of transfer students. Program scheduling is a nightmare. We have used a variety of assessments, teacher recommendations, and decision-making tools to place students with mixed results. Since teachers have done “their own thing” in the “support” classes for years, the “curriculum” and instruction has only haphazardly matched the student needs indicated by the placement tools. Since the placement criteria has been a “moving target,” misplacement of students has been an ongoing concern. Our principal makes all transfer decisions and, fair to say, these are rare. Once students are placed in a “support” class, they remain all year. So if the district adoption of either the Read 180 or Language Live! program would mean that screening and placement assessments and exit criteria would be honored at our school, we might be moving onto the right track. Or will we? This article will focus on the Read 180 Next Generation Foundational Reading Assessment.

Read 180 Foundational Reading Assessment

As described in a companion article, READ 180 and Phonemic Awareness, the first part of the Foundational Reading Assessment (designed by Dr. Richard K. Wagner as a K-2 test and published as such for another program) consists of a short random sample 12 rhymes, initial, final, and medial sounds (3 each). I can hear kindergarten teachers cringing at the sample size and components. The take-away from my article is that the test assesses only part of what constitutes phonological or phonemic awareness and is not teachable because it is not comprehensive.

The next component of the assessment is the Letter-Word Identification Strand, which includes 10 items designed to measure students’ knowledge of uppercase and lowercase letter names and 20 items designed to measure students’ sight word knowledge. The last component, the Word Attack Strand, includes “40 total items, specifically 10 items designed to measure students’ ability to identify letter sounds and 30 nonword items designed to measure students’ decoding skills” (SRI College and Career Technical Guide).

Sight Words

“A total of 20 sight word items were developed using the 100 most frequent words from Fry’s (2000) 1000 Instant Words. The distractor items were other high-frequency sight words or common decodable words.”

Criticism

Sight words are, by definition exceptions to the rules. Random sampling presupposes that the components are representative of the whole. How can there be external validity when the sample does not match the group? It’s a bit like tasting 6 of the 31 (the same percentage) ice cream flavors at Baskin Robbins and claiming that students either like or don’t like all ice cream based upon the results. Missing 20 out of 20 sight words indicates that the student does not know those 20 sight words. It does not mean that the student does not know the remaining 80. My Teaching Reading Strategies program assesses and provides instruction to remediate all 100 of the most frequently used sight words. That makes more sense.

Why have sight words as part of a screening and placement test in the first place. Knowledge of sight words is not a reliable indicator of reading difficulties. And why 20 test items when there are only 30 phonics sound-spellings (a much more reliable indicator). The ratio is completely out of whack. Plus, as any remedial reading teacher will tell you, the easiest reading remediation is memorizing those 100 words.

Phonics

“A total of 30 nonword items were developed, representing the full range of commonly taught phonics skills. All targets and distractors were nonwords or obscure English words that are unlikely to be known. In addition, all targets and distractors follow conventions of English spelling, and care was taken to avoid Spanish words, slang, and nonwords that sounded like real words.”

Criticism

While my Teaching Reading Strategies program includes the same sound-spellings as the 30 nonword items, my program includes 52 vowel sound-spellings and 50 consonant sound-spellings in the nonword format. Phonics tests are necessary as screening and placement assessments for reading intervention, but why not test everything that needs to be taught with corresponding activities and worksheets? The tests take only 12 minutes to give and can be graded on Scantrons® or Grade Cam®. Audio files are provided with the program. Why not check out these assessments yourself?

Finally, the little known fact about the READ 180 Next Generation program is that students who fail the Foundational Reading Assessment will need to be assessed and placed in another program: SYSTEM 44 Next Generation. This program is a separate program and is extremely expensive. The publishers claim that READ 180 and SYSTEM 44 can be taught concurrently in the same classroom, but none of our pilot teachers throughout our district is doing so. Fair to note that the Language!® Live program and Teaching Reading Strategies each provide the instructional resources to teach the full range of student pre-reading and reading needs within the same program.

*****

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.

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Strategies FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

Reading Mark Pennington, phonics, Read 180, reading assessment, reading instruction, reading intervention, reading programs, remedial reading, RTI, Teaching Reading Strategies

My district has decided to “speed pilot” two reading intervention programs for our middle schools and high schools: READ 180 Next Generation from Scholastic Houghton Mifflin Harcourt with new authors Kevin Feldman and Kate Kinsella and Language!® Live from Voyager Sopris with contributing author Louisa Cook Moats. I teach at a large middle school and we have one pilot teacher for each program. Training has been quite thorough, especially from the well-funded READ 180 reps.

Although I am the only reading specialist on staff, I decided not to pilot either of the two programs. However, I do have a vested interest in getting to know both READ 180 and Language!® DISCLAIMER: I am the author and publisher of my own assessment-based reading intervention program: The Science of Reading Intervention Program.

I do use my own program with a seventh grade support class, so I can compare programs and results with those of the students in the READ 180 and Language!® at the same school with the same placement criteria. I’ll not pretend to have created an experimental design to determine if there are statistically significant differences between my program and the others. Of course I am biased, but I can present a few observations and allow teachers to draw their own conclusions.

I decided to start my comparisons with the screening and placement assessments for each program. As a reading specialist, I’m always concerned about using assessments to deny or provide services. Plus, as a matter of equity I’m very invested in the placement process: I hate to see a child overlooked who needs to learn to read but I’m equally distraught to see a student misplaced into a program who does not need to be there.

I decided to start my analysis with the READ 180 program. Specifically, in this article I’m taking a look at the phonological awareness component from one of the two assessments in the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI): The Foundational Reading Assessment. The second assessment is the Reading Comprehension Assessment. In my first article on these two reading intervention programs, I noted my concern that no encoding (spelling) test was included as part of the screening and placement assessments for READ 180. Jane Fell Greene’s encoding test has always been part of the competing Language!® program.

I emailed Dr. Richard K. Wagner, author of the READ 180 assessment (originally developed as the iRead Screener for another program). I asked him “If you were to add a print component that would ameliorate some of the limitations of the computer-based format, what would that include? I was hoping that you would have added an encoding test and a timed fluency assessment at the students’ Lexile levels.

Rick kindly responded: “What you say makes sense.”

Now onto the specifics of what is actually on the READ 180 Foundational Reading Assessment. This computer-based assessment includes a total of 82 possible items, divided into three strands: Phonological Awareness, Letter-Word Identification, and Word Attack.

Let’s look at the first two of the three strands. In my next article I’ll tackle the word attack component. The Phonological Awareness Strand has 12 total items. First, let’s look at two definitions to get us on the same page:

Phonological awareness refers to a general recognition of speech sounds. “When that insight includes an understanding that words can he divided into a sequence of phonemes, this finer-grained sensitivity is termed phonemic awareness” (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, p. 51).

Phonemic awareness is the recognition that words are made up of speech sounds (phonemes) and that these phonemes can be segmented (pulled apart), blended (put together), or substituted, added, or subtracted from one word to the next to create new words. It also refers to the understanding that the phonemes combine to form distinct syllables and words.

It doesn’t take a reading specialist to understand that phonological awareness precedes phonemic awareness. However, what teachers need to know to properly screen and place students is student mastery of the basic phonemic awareness skills. This data we do not get from the Foundational Reading Assessment. If teachers have to assess for proper placement (we do), why not kill two birds with one stone and assess to inform instruction as well?

Three of the test items in the phonological awareness assessment measure students’ rhyme identification skills. Students see an image and hear a word read aloud. They then see three more images and hear three more words. One of the words matches the beginning, middle, or end sound of the first word, or rhymes with the word. The test design certainly makes sense, but why only three rhymes? Rhyming is a critical component of phonemic awareness and is one of the earliest developmental stages of pre-reading. Rhyming is usually taught at home, in nursery school, and in kindergarten.

If I were designing the assessment, I would include 10 rhymes: one for each of the five short and five long vowel sounds. That would be an assessment that would properly screen, help place, and ultimately provide useful data for the teacher to teach to… in other words, assessment-based instruction. Yes, that is the format for my Rhyming Assessment in my program. The test is a simple five-minute whole class audio assessment.

The balance of the Phonological Awareness Strand test includes students’ abilities to identify initial, final, and medial sounds (only three test items for each). These elements of phonemic isolation are important pre-reading skills, and teachers need to know exactly what their students do and do not know for both program placement and for instruction. My phonemic isolation assessment has 10 teachable components on the five-minute whole class audio assessment.

And, most importantly, why isn’t phonemic segmentation, phonemic blending, and syllable awareness part of the assessment? These kindergarten−first grade pre-reading skills are essential skills to assess. And, no, READ 180 does not include separate diagnostic assessments for these elements of phonemic awareness. My does. Each of these three assessments has the usual five-minute whole class audio assessment.

The second component of the Foundational Reading Assessment tests letter name and letter sound knowledge items. The test uses a sample of 5 items assessing lowercase letter name knowledge and 5 assessing uppercase. Last I checked, there are 26 letters in our alphabet. Additionally, 10 letter sound items are included.

Interestingly, the publishers have taken the step to test the validity of their assessments to those of the University of Oregon’s Dibels Next assessments; however, Dibels Next assesses all 26 upper case and lower case letters. Knowing which letters students know and don’t know allows the teacher to teach to those deficits. Again, the READ 180 program does not provide assessment-based instruction with its screening assessments. Sampling has its drawbacks; teachers need teachable data.

The little known fact about the READ 180 program is that students who fail the Foundational Reading Assessment will need to be assessed and placed in another program: SYSTEM 44. This program is a separate program and is extremely expensive. The publishers claim that READ 180 and SYSTEM 44 can be taught concurrently in the same classroom, but none of our pilot teachers throughout our district is doing so. Fair to note that the Language!® Live program and my program each provide the instructional resources to teach the full range of student pre-reading and reading needs within the same program.

READ 180 and Language!® use adaptive computer technology to teach individual student deficits. Technology is wonderful; however, there are limitations. Most teachers I know prefer to control what needs to be taught, when it needs to be taught, and how it needs to be taught—not trust the machine and a canned reading program to “fix ‘em.” This is especially important in teaching phonemic awareness. Since phonemic awareness is an auditory, not a visual skill set, the face to face teacher to student instruction is essential.

*****

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.

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Strategies FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary Language Live reviews, Language!, Mark Pennington, phonemic awareness, Read 180, Read 180 reviews, System 44, Teaching Reading Strategies

As money has finally started to creep back into education, districts are now turning their attention and dollars into purchasing reading intervention programs. My district has decided to “speed pilot” two reading intervention programs for our secondary schools: Language!® Live is the re-vamped Language!® program from Voyager Sopris with new contributing author Louisa Cook Moats; and READ 180 Next Generation is the thoroughly revised offering from mega publisher Scholastic/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt with new contributing authors Kevin Feldman and Kate Kinsella. At my middle school we have one pilot teacher for each program. Training has been extensive from these two eager publishers because our district, Elk Grove Unified, is the third largest district in California and a district-wide adoption would be quite a plum for either of the two companies.

I am not one of the pilot teachers; however, I am curious. So now my DISCLAIMER: I sell my own reading intervention program: The Science of Reading Intervention Program. I developed the program in three instructional settings: grades 4−6 as a district elementary specialist; middle school as a “support” teacher; and high school as a co-teacher of a remedial reading class with a special education teacher.

As my colleagues have been piloting, I’ve been able to log-in as a student and check out these two programs to compare to my own. A bold move given that my cost per class of 25 students is about $15 per student, whereas the cost per class for each of the two comparative programs is closer to that of a well-equipped Lexus. But, you get what you pay for… right? Well, you do get a lot of bells and whistles.

I’ll begin with the screening and placement assessments for the programs. First I’ll start with the READ 180 program. This article will begin to tackle just one of the two assessments in the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI): The Foundational Reading Assessment. The other assessment is the Reading Comprehension Assessment. As a reading specialist, I always gravitate to phonemic awareness, decoding, and encoding materials, so I’ll start there.

My first ah, ha was the lack of a spelling test as part of the screening and placement assessments. The Language!® program has one; my program has one. What gives?

I will say from my own 25+ years of teaching remedial reading that a student’s ability to encode (spell) certainly has helped me properly place students in instructional programs to target their individual needs. I would go as far as saying that a spelling test (Jane Fell Greene’s encoding test, the Qualitative Spelling Inventory developed by Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, and Johnson (2000), or my own comprehensive Diagnostic Spelling Assessment) provides essential information for program placement.

I did a little digging to see if a spelling assessment was part of the READ 180 companion program for beginning readers: SYSTEM 44. Nope. The Scholastic Phonics Inventory® has letter name recognition, sight word recognition, and nonword decoding, but there is no accompanying spelling test.

I decided to email the assessment author, Dr. Richard K. Wagner, and Rick kindly replied twice to my questions. Not to put words into his mouth, but I seemed to get support for my view that using spelling as a screening assessment makes sense.

Now READ 180 does provide individualized assessment and spelling instruction as part of its program, but not as part of its screening and placement. I will give my take (Spoiler Alert: It’s not the best Yelp review) on this spelling “instruction” in a related article.

But why use screening and placement assessments solely to determine whether students qualify for some form of tiered reading intervention? In other words why waste time giving separate placement and diagnostic assessments? Why give a test that provides nothing to teach to?

*****

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.

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Strategies FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary anguage Live reviews, Language Live, Mark Pennington, Read 180, Read 180 reviews, Teaching Reading Strategies

Download these FREE Diagnostic Reading and ELA Assessments, designed for students ages 8 and older.

Teachers need diagnostic assessments to determine what students know and what they do not know.  Following are FREE comprehensive reading and English-language arts assessments to provide the data teachers need to target instruction. The assessments feature comprehensive, easy-administration audio files, self-correcting Google forms (or print), and progress-monitoring matrices. Optional programs provide worksheets and instructional activities, corresponding to each assessment item. Or use your own resources.

FREE Diagnostic Reading and ELA Assessments (Click links to download and print.)

Phonics Assessments

The phonics assessments feature nonsense words and test all common sound-spellings.

FREE Vowel Sounds Phonics Assessment

Print, Google Forms, Google Sheets and 10:42 Audio File

CORRESPONDING INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES–VIEW ENTIRE PROGRAMS

FREE Consonant Sounds Phonics Assessment

Print, Google Forms, Google Sheets and 12:07 Audio File

CORRESPONDING INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES–VIEW ENTIRE PROGRAMS

Fluency Assessment

The fluency assessment is designed in a tiered reading level format, beginning at the first grade level and proceeding to the seventh grade level. This assessment is individually administered and is timed for two minutes.

FREE Multi-level Pets Fluency Assessment

Print

CORRESPONDING INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES–VIEW ENTIRE PROGRAMS

Diagnostic Spelling Assessments

Most common spelling patterns are included in this assessment. Administer part or all of the Diagnostic Spelling Assessment (American English Version) test items, according to grade-level criteria.

• Grade 3: (#s 1‒64)
• Grade 4:  (#s 1‒79)
• Grade 5: (#s 1‒89)
• Grade 6: (#s 1‒98)
• Grade 7: (#s 1‒98)
• Grade 8: (#s 1‒102)

Most common spelling patterns are included in this assessment. Administer part or all of the Diagnostic Spelling Assessment (Canadian English Version) test items, according to grade-level criteria

• Grade 3: (#s 1‒64)
• Grade 4:  (#s 1‒79)
• Grade 5: (#s 1‒89)
• Grade 6: (#s 1‒98)
• Grade 7: (#s 1‒98)
• Grade 8: (#s 1‒106)

FREE Multi-level Diagnostic American English Spelling Assessment: Print Assessment with “Normal speed” 22:38 and “Quick version 17:26 audio file links. Recording Matrix for Progress Monitoring

CORRESPONDING INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES–VIEW ENTIRE GRADE LEVEL PROGRAMS

FREE Multi-level Diagnostic Canadian English Spelling Assessment: Print Assessment with “Normal speed” 18:53 and “Quick version 21:12 audio file links, recorded by a Canadian teacher. Recording Matrix for Progress Monitoring

CORRESPONDING INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES–VIEW ENTIRE GRADE LEVEL PROGRAMS

Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics Assessments

Use this 45 item grammar and usage assessment to determine student’s knowledge of parts of speech, subjects and predicates, types of sentences, fragments and run-ons, pronoun usage, modifiers, verb tenses and verb forms.

FREE Grammar and Usage Assessment

Use this 32 item mechanics assessment to test students’ ability to apply correct usage of commas, capitalization, and all other essential punctuation.

Print and Google Forms

CORRESPONDING INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES–VIEW ENTIRE GRADE LEVEL PROGRAMS

FREE Mechanics Assessment (Punctuation, Capitalization, Quotations)

As an option, the grammar, usage, and mechanics assessments are combined as a Google form.

Print and Google Forms

CORRESPONDING INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES–VIEW ENTIRE GRADE LEVEL PROGRAMS

FREE Diagnostic Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics Assessment 

Print and Google Forms

Vocabulary Assessments

The Tier 2 academic language vocabulary has been derived from the research-based Academic Word List (AWL).  The Academic Word List (Coxhead) has been ordered into grade level lists by frequency. Each grades/levels 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 Academic Language Assessment includes 56 Tier 2 words. The Tier 2 words are the academic language words that are most-often generalizable across the academic domains. For example, the word analyze is used in English-language arts, social science, history, science, math, and the arts.

FREE Multi-level Diagnostic Academic Language Assessments Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 

FREE Multi-level Diagnostic Academic Language Assessments Grades/Levels 9, 10, 11, and 12

CORRESPONDING INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES–VIEW ENTIRE GRADE LEVEL PROGRAMS

Data Recording Matrices for Progress-Monitoring

FREE Diagnostic Assessment Matrices for Progress-Monitoring

*****

FREE Executive Function and Study Skills Self-Assessment and Mastery Matrix

This 56-item assessment includes questions on motivation, spelling, grammar, mechanics, essay writing, memorization strategies, test-preparation and test-taking skills, reading strategies and skills, time management, active listening, organization, best research practices, and note-taking. Each item is keyed to specific lessons in the author’s Essential Study Skills and Targeted Independent Practice: Executive Function and Study Skills programs.

FREE Literacy Knowledge Self-Assessment and Mastery Matrix

This 85-word assessment includes questions on 20 narrative/sensory descriptive genres, language structures, literary elements, literary and poetic devices. Includes a mastery matrix. Each item is keyed to specific lessons in the author’s Targeted Independent Practice: Literacy Knowledge program.

Phonemic Awareness Assessments

Use these five phonemic awareness to determine reading readiness. Each of the 5 assessments is administered whole class and includes audio files.

FREE Syllable Awareness Assessment

Print and 5:48 Audio File

FREE Syllable Rhyming Assessment

Print and 5:38 Audio File

FREE Phonemic Isolation Assessment

Print and 5:54 Audio File

FREE Phonemic Blending Assessment

Print and 5:53 Audio File

FREE Phonemic Segmenting Assessment

Print and 5:21 Audio File

FREE Alphabetic Awareness Assessments

Print and Alphabet Cards

CORRESPONDING INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES–VIEW ENTIRE PROGRAMS

Heart Words Assessment

This 108-word assessment tests student knowledge of high frequency words with an irregular sound-spelling (the part to learn by heart). As an option, teachers may require students to identify the irregular sound spellings by drawing hearts.

FREE Heart Words Assessment

Print

CORRESPONDING INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES–VIEW ENTIRE PROGRAMS

*****

ARE THESE DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENTS RESEARCH-BASED? These are teacher/reading specialist-created comprehensive diagnostics. None are normed. You won’t find them on What Works… As you probably know, comprehensive diagnostics need not meet research-based criteria for external validity since there is no sampling. However, each assessment is evidence-based and has internal validity/reliability. Read on!

Grammar/Mechanics, Literacy Centers, Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary, Writing academic language assessment, diagnostic grammar assessment, diagnostic reading assessments, diagnostic spelling assessment, diagnostic vocabulary assessment, fluency assessment, function based grammar, heart words assessment, Mark Pennington, pennington publishing, phonemic awareness assessment, phonics assessment, reading syntax, rimes assessment, syntax, William Van Cleave, writing syntax