By Tim Rasinski

The world is full of patterns. When we see a red octagonal sign while driving, we immediately think, “STOP!” Football fans can instantly recognize the shape of a goalpost and know what it’s used for. And when we hear the melody to a familiar song (think “Wheels on the Bus’ or “The Star-Spangled Banner”), we immediately recall the words. If you have a dog or cat at home, you are probably attuned to the pattern of the barks and mews. Indeed, look around the room in which you are in right now, and your are likely to see many patterns—from the way the ceiling tiles or lights are arranged to the way the classroom desks are arranged, or to the pattern of the quilt covering the couch.

            Patterns can be defined as a regular and repeated arrangements of shapes, letters, lines, numbers, colors, and sounds that can serve as guides. As human beings, we are predisposed to detect patters in our environments. Our ability to see, hear, feel, and identify patterns makes our lives safer, easier to negotiate, and more productive.

            Besides the types just mentioned, linguistic patterns can be used in teaching reading and writing. Of course, the letters of the alphabet and phonemes they represent are among the first patterns we teach children. Interestingly enough, we often teach the letters to young children with a song—The Alphabet Song—which itself is a patterned text.

However, there are many other patterns that can be used in teaching reading—patterns that can make learning more productive and more efficient for students. In this blog, I will share a few that I found to be very helpful in teaching children to read in the Kent State University reading clinic: Camp Read-A-Lot.

Help Students See Word Patterns: Phonemic Word Families/Phonograms/Rimes

One of the most widely used linguistic patterns taught in the primary grades are the phonemic word families—also known as phonograms or rimes. A phonemic word family is a part of the syllable that begins with the vowel (every syllable by definition needs to have a vowel or vowel combination) and all other letters that follow the vowel represent a regular or consistent set of phonemes or language sounds. For example, -each in ”teach”, and the –ent in the second syllable of “student” are word families. The significance of word families is that they are regularly occurring letter patterns that represent regularly occurring sound patterns.  Not only does knowledge of –each help a developing reader decode the word “teach,” but it can also help students decode “beach, breach, peach, preach, reach” and even longer, more complex words: “preacher, teachable.” Indeed, in a seminal article, Dr. Edward Fry identified thirty-eight-word families, knowledge of which allows readers to decode over 650 single-syllable words. Moreover, the number of multisyllabic words that can be decoded from knowledge of these letter patterns is in the thousands. For example, the word family –am finds its way into ambulance, camera, family, hamster, and many more.

            If we have this natural ability to see patterns, why not use them with students in our teaching of phonics and word decoding? Dr. Fry’s thirty-eight-word families could easily be taught once per week in first grade. Students would leave with the ability to analyze and decode a multitude of English words.

Edward Fry’s Most Common Phonograms -ab         -at        -ink       -ore                           -unk -ack       -ay       -ip         -ot                              -y -ag         -ell       -ight      -out -all         -est       -ill        -ow (how, chow) -ain        -ew       -im       -ow (bow, throw)   -am        -ed        -in        -op

Enlarge Students’ Vocabulary With Morphemes – Word Roots

Phonograms or word families are not the only letter patterns worth teaching. Morphemes are word parts or patterns that not only represent a consistent or regular occurring sound, they also represent meaning and, as such, are well worth teaching if your goal is to expand students’ vocabularies or knowledge of word meanings. Another common name for morphemes is roots. Some of the most common morphemes in English derive from Latin and Greek. The logic behind the use of morphemes in reading instruction is the same as with teaching phonograms—knowledge of one morpheme can help students unlock the meaning to many words—in some cases over 100 English words.

            The numerical prefix bi– can be found in English words such as bifocals, biplane, bicycle, biannual, bipartisan, and many more. Similarly, base word roots, morphemes that are the foundation of words, help form the meaning of many English words. Knowing that ject- means “to throw” can help students determine or affirm the meaning of words such as: eject, inject, object, object, reject, interject, conjecture, and many more. Indeed, it has been estimated that the word root trac/tract, meaning pull, draw, drag, is found in over 140 English words! Moreover, most of our multisyllabic words in English as well are academic words (think science, social studies, mathematics) are made of morphemic word roots.

            Again, the logic then suggests that teaching a limited number of morphemes or word roots can give students patterns that will allow them to determine the meaning (and sound representation) to a near-limitless number of English words. Then, teaching morphemic word patterns should be seen as the natural follow-up to teaching phonemic word families or phonograms. (Find out more about teaching word roots in my blog article: “A Little Latin (and Greek), and a Whole Lot of English Building Vocabulary with Word Roots,” on the Robb Review – https://therobbreviewblog.com/uncategorized/a-little-latin-and-greakk/

Teach Reading With Poetry: Use Textual Language Patterns

Beyond individual word patterns, we also have language patterns that exist at the text level. Of course, when talking about teaching reading to children, I am referring to poetry for children. Poetry, and I’m including song lyrics as well, follow highly predictable patterns in terms of rhythm and rhyme. That is why poetry, especially poetry and rhymes for children, is so easy to learn. Nearly all children in primary grades can easily recite a plethora of nursery rhymes, poems, and song lyrics. How many of us, as adults, can easily recall song lyrics and poems that we last heard years ago? The textual patterns make them easy to remember.

            When working with younger readers, we want them to meet success in learning to read. What better way to ensure success to learn to read poems or other patterned texts each day or two. Of course, such learning requires repetition, and repetition (repeated reading of actual texts is a hallmark of reading fluency development.

            One more thing that’s worth noting about poetry for children: most poems rhyme. Returning to what I had previously mentioned, words belonging to particular word families (phonograms or rimes) generally rhyme. So, the use of poetry as a way to develop fluency and success in reading connected text can also be sued as a wonderful way to follow up word family phonics instruction. After learning the –eep word family and associated words, your students can read, reread, and eventually perform Little Bo Peep. Instruction with the –ick and –ock word families can be followed with Hickory Dickory Dock.

            In Kent State’s Camp Read-A-Lot reading clinic, where young students make remarkable progress in reading in as little as five weeks of instruction, our goal is for students to learn to read something well each and every day of instruction. And that something is usually a poem or a song. Moreover, the poems and songs that students learn are usually tied to the phonemic word families they are also learning.

            Sometimes our teachers/clinicians are unable to find a poem along with a word family under instruction. In such cases, the clinicians write their own poems. One added benefit of poetry is that the patterns in poetry can easily be parodied to write new poems that follow the patterns of already-known poems. For example, the nursery rhyme “Diddle Diddle Dumpling My Son Jon” was rewritten by a clinician to reinforce the –ag word family:

                        Diggle daggle dumpling, Aggie and Mag

Had a dog, and his name was Tag

Tag had a tail that would wiggle and wag

Diggle daggle dumpling, Agnes and Mag.

Imagine the sense of accomplishment Taylor felt as he stood in front of classmates and family members to perform his own poem. Teaching and learning doesn’t get any better than that!

            Find out more about teaching and using poetry in my blog article: “Why Poetry, Let Me Count the Ways,” on the Robb Review: https://therobbreviewblog.com/?s=poetry

References and Resources

Fry, E. (1998).  The most common phonograms.  The Reading Teacher, 51, 620-622.

Harrison, D., Rasinski T.V., & Fresch, M. (2022). Partner Poems & Word Ladders for Building Foundational Literacy Skills: Grades K-2 and 1-3. New York: Scholastic.

Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N., Newton, R. & Newton, E. (2020). Building Vocabulary with Greek and Latin Roots: A Professional Guide to Word Knowledge and Vocabulary Development (2^nd ed.). Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Educational Publishing. (Professional Development Book)

Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N., Newton, R., & Newton, E. (2019). Building Vocabulary from Word Roots. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Educational Publishing. (Vocabulary Instruction Kit for Grades K to 11).

   By: Travis Crowder

I watched as he finished his book, then stared at the cover.

            After several moments, he glanced around the room and caught my eyes. We need to talk, his expression said. So, I maneuvered my way through the tangled mass of readers to check in with him.

            Last school year marked my seventh year in 7^th grade. At the year’s end, I was asked to move back to 8^th grade, practically looping with many of the kids I had taught and returning to the grade level where I started my career. I knew this reader because I had watched him advance from formulaic to complex narrative structures the year before, finding his way into books with multiple narrators and novels written in verse. Last week, he had already finished his first book, and this was his second. Now, he needed to talk.

“Hey, John, what did you think of the book?” I asked.

His response was laced with emotion and reflective thinking. He told me about characters, motivations, and why he loved the book. At the end of our conversation, he admitted, “I would not have been ready for this book last year. Now, I’m more interested in nonfiction. I want to read more like this.” So we looked at his to-read list and other books in the classroom library related to the one he had just finished. He found one and settled into it during the last precious moments of independent reading.

Earlier in my teaching life, I leaned toward teacher-centric approaches to teaching reading. I viewed my role in a traditional way: students read books, poems, informational texts, and short stories and answered the questions I generated. I graded their answers, went over them in class, then introduced another text that I massacred with more questions. When I started reading professional texts, the ideas I found in them challenged how I thought about reading and thinking about texts alongside students. Response—the thoughts, reactions, feelings, wonderings and noticings readers have about texts—seemed to be the more humane option. I have never regretted altering my approach.

I tend to believe that standardization has caused us—students and educators—to forget that we are sentient beings and capable of expressing feelings about the things we read. Part of pushing back against this paradigm involves me asking students how they feel about texts. And why. Naturally, we establish ways to interrogate those feelings, but response remains an important part of textual analysis. I’ve found that it leads readers to deeper thinking and connection.

             But not everyone agrees.

While there is literature to support response (Probst, 2014; Roessing, 2007; Rosenblatt, 1995; Vijayarahoo & Samuels, 2013), response can get pushed aside in favor of more “academic” pursuits, sometimes in the form of multiple-choice tests, “right” answers, and teacher-centered discourse. And I get it—especially when teachers feel pressure to “teach to the test.”

But it does not have to be this way.

And for administrators reading this, I encourage you to consider what students and teachers are missing when response is not validated in the classroom. Response goes beyond “I enjoyed it” or “It was interesting.” It comes from the heart AND the mind. When readers respond, they lean in to their thoughts, feelings, questions, and concerns. After we discuss critical lenses, students not only question the texts (what’s missing—voices, ideas, perspectives—and why?) (German, 2021; Moje, 1999; Slattery, 2013) but also reflect on their reactions and feelings. What might have caused me to react this way? What does this tell me about myself as a reader? What questions do I have? What is my reading life missing? What texts would help fill my reading gaps and answer the questions I have? Response carries students further. It is a necessary component of our instructional practice.

            John used response to think more deeply about his book. After discussing what he liked and how the book made him feel, I nudged him further. What is something you noticed? He mentioned how the book’s structure, written in a multigenre format, and how that structure engaged him as a reader and helped him understand the characters even more.

“How?,” I asked.

“Because I could see them from different perspectives.”

“Can you show me an example?,” I asked.

He turned through pages, showing me several instances of solid characterization and character development.

“Why do you think the author did this?,” I asked.

“I’m not sure,” he replied.

So I invited him to spend several minutes in his notebook and share with me a bit later. If we don’t understand the main character, we don’t understand the story, he wrote. Seeing different perspectives helps me understand why the character did what he did. But with all of these different friendships and relationships with people, why would he make the decision he did? His response led to analysis (Probst, 2014). And while I could invite him to think further, his final inquiry demonstrates that he is still wrestling with an analysis. He picked up another book with multigenre elements and multiple narrators for his next read. As he reads this new one, new insights will form that will open new possibilities for response (and analysis) regarding this current book and his last one. I can’t wait to hear his thinking.

I continue to advocate for response because, again and again, I watch students’ ideas evolve when they have opportunities to write or speak to their ideas and feelings. They respond their way into intersections of inquiry and many times realize the text holds more than they first realized. Beautiful thinking emerges, and instead of focusing on my questions, they are focusing on theirs.

Given time to respond to the texts, I am confident that students will lean toward analysis, citing evidence to support their thinking. I am also confident that provocative, relevant texts can generate plenty of conversation between and among students, prompting them to dig beneath the surface, consider their relation to the text, change their minds about ideas, and ask questions. Response is that powerful.

Louise Rosenblatt (1995) stated that part of the work of the literature teacher is helping students understand what literature means and does for them. Response guides students to this discovery. And it’s just good practice. Without response, I wonder what John would have noticed. I believe that time to talk about his reactions and to write about his wonderings strengthened his understanding. He started with what the text meant to him, then responded his way to analysis.

I look forward to another year of thinking and learning alongside students. As we continue to read, I will nudge them to pay attention to their reactions and feelings. Here’s to another year of reading and honoring the beauty of response.

I look forward to what you and your students will notice, wonder, and learn.

References

Probst, R. (2014). Response and analysis: Teaching literature in secondary school (2^nd ed.).

Heinemann.

German, L. (2021). Textured teaching: A framework for culturally sustaining practice.

Heinemann.

Slattery, P. (2013). Curriculum development in the Postmodern Era: Teaching and learning in an

age of accountability (3^rd ed.). Routledge.

Moje, E. (1999). From expression to dialogue: A study of social action literacy projects in an

urban school setting. The Urban Review, 31(3), 305-330.

Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration (5^th ed.). Modern Language Association.

Vijayarajoo, A. R. & Samuel, M. (2013). Reader-response pedagogy and changes in student

stances in literary texts. The English Teacher, 42(3), 174-186.

Timothy Rasinski, Ph.D.

In my previous blog posting for The Robb Review, I focused on what should be the real goal of phonics instruction – to get kids to the point where they don’t have to use phonics much in their reading.  We want students to be so proficient and efficient at word recognition that minimal attention is given to word decoding and maximum attention can be directed toward comprehension.   Staying with this theme of reading instruction goals, I’d like to focus on reading fluency and state right off the bat that the goal of fluency instruction should not be to make kids read fast.    It has been this incessant focus on increasing reading speed, I think, that has unfortunately given reading fluency a bad rep.

What is Reading Fluency?

Fluency has been called the neglected goal of the reading program (and it is) (Allington, 1983); it has also been called the bridge from word recognition to comprehension.     I like that bridge metaphor a lot. Fluency is the critical link to making meaning while reading. There are two components to fluency. The first is automaticity in word recognition – the ability to recognize words so effortlessly that most of a reader’s attention can be devoted to comprehension.   Automaticity is the part of the bridge that links to word recognition.

The other part of the fluency bridge is called prosody or reading with expression.  This is the link to comprehension. When a reader reads with appropriate expression that reflects the meaning of the text, she is striving to comprehend that text.  This is the part of fluency that is often neglected in instruction; yet it is critical for comprehension to occur, even when reading silently.

How Should We Teach Fluency?

As with anything we want to become fluent at (e.g., speaking, driving, golf, cooking), fluency is developed through practice.   In reading, we have several forms of practice that can and should be employed. These forms of practice include wide reading, assisted reading where a reader reads while simultaneously hearing a fluent reading of the same text by a partner or recording, and repeated reading where a reader reads a text several times until she achieves fluency on that text (Rasinski, 2010).    In all these forms of practice the goal should be reading for meaning, and if reading orally, to read with appropriate expression that conveys meaning to anyone who may be listening.

How Does Reading Speed Fit into the Fluency Equation?

Reading speed (words read correctly per minute) is an indicator of word recognition automaticity and is often called the oral reading fluency (ORF) score.   The more automatic or effortless you are in recognizing words in text, the faster your reading becomes, AND the more attention you can devote to comprehending the text as opposed to analyzing the words in the text.    Reading speed is an indicator or consequence of the fluency component of automaticity, BUT it is not fluency. Our reading speed increases as our fluency improves, not the other way around. I often say that I want our children to become fast readers just the way I am and all of you reading this blog are reasonably fast readers;  but I want them to become fast the same way we all became fast readers – through lots and lots of authentic practice in reading.

So go ahead and use DIBELS and AimsWeb ORF scores, or Hasbrouck and Tindal’s norms (Words Correct per Minute) cautiously and sparingly as indicators of students’ growth in automaticity, but please, please, please do not let children think that you are trying to get them to read faster.   The increase in reading speed (as well as improvements in reading with expression) will happen with authentic reading practice, not with overt instruction or implied emphasis on reading fast.

Fluency is More than Automaticity

A few years ago, I came across recordings of arguably two of the most fluently read speeches in American  history – Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” and John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address “Ask Not What Your Country…”     I subjected the oral readings of both of these speeches to an ORF (reading speed) assessment. In both cases, Dr. King and President Kennedy’s readings of their speeches may have landed them in a remedial reading class based on their very low ORF scores.     I am sure they were both automatic in their word recognition, and they could have read those speeches quickly. But doing so would have taken away from the meaning they were trying to convey. Because they were automatic in their recognition of the words in their speeches they were able to devote their attention to making and elaborating on the meaning they wished to share orally. They raised and lowered their voices, had dramatic pauses, changed volume and tone in order to more effectively to deliver their intended meanings to their audiences.   What truly made those speeches fluent was not the speed, but the expression (prosody) that they embedded in their readings.

For fluency instruction to truly work we need to see the goal of fluency as expressive oral (and silent) reading that reflects the meaning of the text.    When we make expressive and meaningful reading of texts the true goal of fluency (and avoid putting emphasis on fast reading) we will see significant improvements in reading comprehension (as well as reading speed).

You can find resources on teaching accurate and automatic word recognition and expressive prosodic reading (i.e. fluency) at Tim’s own website – www.timrasinski.com

Please see also my new book on reading fluency (written with Melissa Cheesman Smith) – The Megabook of Fluency, published by Scholastic.

References

Allington, R.L. (1983).  Fluency: The neglected reading goal.  The Reading Teacher, 36, 556-561.

Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006) Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.

Rasinski, T. V. (2010).  The fluent reader:  Oral and silent reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (2nd edition).  New York: Scholastic.

Strategies for Classroom Teachers

 

By: Cameron Carter 

Those in the field of education, at one point or another (probably in one of those after school staff meetings), have heard the phrase, “Research shows early intervention is a key component to a child’s reading success”. Many teachers heavily rely on intervention specialists to provide this intervention when a child is struggling to read. This is a great approach for most, but what about those “bubble” kiddos who don’t always qualify for intervention services? How do we “catch” them or “meet them” where they are to ensure their reading progress? Today, I will be walking you through a student (name changed for confidentiality), and how early intervention helped this child go from a non-reader to a reader on grade level in one school year’s time.

I teach first grade, and the first thing I analyze is the reading profile of the kiddo who sits before me. Years ago, I used to call it the “reading table”, but as research and practices have evolved, I now refer to it as just “the back table”. When children meet with me, we are not always “reading”. Best practices indicate there’s a “balanced approach” for how we teach children to read. Some children may need a heavy emphasis on phonemic awareness, whereas others may need a multi-sensory approach to decoding. 

Let’s meet our friend Paul. He is a lovable six year old who enjoys the arts and playing outdoors with friends. Paul sounds like every other child about to be in first grade. He does have one difference… Paul did not attend a traditional Kindergarten; therefore he came to first grade knowing only a few letters. For the demographic of the children I teach, this is not a typical case. I knew my instruction would need to tailor to the needs of Paul right away to ensure his success this year. 

*Paul’s first piece of writing at the beginning of first grade

The Process

In order for Paul to begin decoding, I needed him to have a solid foundation of phonemic awareness and letter-sound correspondence. Paul was quite strong in phonemic awareness; therefore we focused our time together on building our letter-sound relationship. We listened to songs about letters/sounds, we moved our bodies, and most importantly, we used a mirror to see a visual representation of the way our mouth moves when we say the sounds of certain letters. 

After a while, Paul was ready to begin taking individual sounds to form consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words, such as “cat” and “dog”. We tapped the individual sounds, blended them together to form the word, and then practiced our letters by writing the word. At times, it was hard for Paul to hold onto the sounds to blend them together, so we used Magna-Tiles to visually see the sounds “connecting” or “magnetizing” together to build the word. Magna-Tiles can be written on with a dry erase marker, and they erase easily. Another resource I used was from the K-3 Literacy Tier 2 & 3 Interventions website. There are a plethora of resources based on the specific needs your student might be working on.

Next, we began to use Geodes from Wilson Language Fundations, which are 80% decodable texts, to begin seeing our CVC words within a continuous text. Along with reading, we continued to build our decoding skills, as well as we explored high interest texts to expand our vocabulary and strengthen our comprehension. 

Not only did we want to expand our reading skills, but we also wanted to build our writing development since reading and writing are reciprocal processes. Our goal as educators is to build writers, not scribes. We must expand upon what skills are solid, and exponentially grow confidence in our budding writers. Paul was more than ready to take on this challenge! We began by writing simple sentences based on the Geode text we read. Then, Paul began to use words from our Fundations phonics learning to create sentences. Towards the end of the year, all first graders were expected to write an opinion piece based on the text “Town Mouse, Country Mouse” by Jan Brett. The goal was to use at least 2 reasons from the book to support their opinion. An additional challenge was to have the writer close their piece by reminding the reader of their opinion. 

*Paul’s end of the year opinion piece

As one can see from Paul’s piece, there are still many phonics principles Paul will continue to work on and make solid while encoding, but, overall, he showed tremendous growth and improvement from the beginning of first grade. This is what is important. This is the process.

Sometimes as educators, we get hung up on the end of year benchmarks and scores, but what we really need to be analyzing is the child who sits before us, and their progress and growth over time. The pieces of the puzzle will eventually come together, but time and patience supersedes all. Believe in the process, and remember, teaching children to read is a balanced approach. As adults, we all have different needs… children are no different! Empower a community of learners who will fall in love with reading and writing for life!

Cameron Carter is a first grade teacher at Evening Street Elementary in Worthington, Ohio. He is currently the Vice-President of the Ohio Council of Teachers of English Language Arts (OCTELA) and a member of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). He has a Masters in Reading and Literacy from The Ohio State University, and has presented at many state and national conferences. To continue learning with Cameron, follow him on Twitter @CRCarter313