Word Knowledge and Fluency

                What is Word Work? And who cares? (At least according to me)

              

            When teaching students to read you want to hit on the big five (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) right. Everyone knows this. Sounds easy right. Well anyone who has tried can tell you it is hard. One of the ways a teacher, or a parent can help children learn to read is to implement word work strategies on a daily basis.

I would define word work as working with words on a daily basis in an authentic way.  This may be word sorting, word listing, etc. there are a variety of ways this could happen. Students should do this every day and when they do it they need to make the lesson become almost automatic.  This automaticity helps aid in our learning because what happens in our brain when we learn something is that new synapsis fire and new connections are made, and if we don’t reinforce this new knowledge the connection will get severed and we will forget it. (My apologies for the simplicity of the last sentence, I know the brain is more complicated but you get my point)  Because we may forget new information, this is why it is so important to repeat things to students about letters and reading. And furthermore why it is so important for students to repeatedly sort words for meaning because that will reinforce the word.

Word work helps student read in a variety of ways. One way is decoding. A person can only spend so much time and energy on one thing at a time. Think about, reading is tough, we are taking weird shapes and assigning them sounds that we’ve all agreed to and somehow we make meaning out of that. It is easy if you know the sounds and the meaning behind the sounds, but what if you struggle. You are going to spend all your time trying to sound out words and you will forget what you are even reading about in the first place. Is it any wonder some people hate reading.

What word work does is helps students reinforce phonic sounds and patterns and therefore their reading fluency can improve. If a student works on the /st/ sound for a few days during word work in class. They will eventually know how to tackle a word like “crustacean” or “streamline” more easily than they would by simply trying to sound it out.  Because it is easier for them they will not need to work as hard and therefore they can read at a faster rate. More importantly they won’t struggle as much when they read and may enjoy reading more.

Research Matters:

I know what you are probably thinking, who are you do make such claims. Well I am not an expert by any means, but my opinions are based on facts. Three article I’d like to highlight are: “Developmental-Spelling Research: A Systemic Imperative” by Marcia Invernizzi and Latisha Hayes, “Word Study Instruction in the K-2Classroom” by Cheri Williams, with several others and finally “Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom” by Camille Blachowicz.   

In their article “Developmental-Spelling Research: A Systematic Imperative” Marcia Invernizzi and Latisha Hayes discuss this at length. It is their work that most of my opinions are formed.  Something I found very interesting that they highlighted was how prevalent word work is now in our education system. They discuss how “Virtually every teacher’s manual in every major reading series at least nominally suggest word sorts.” A word sort is when a student sorts words based on some criteria. You can have an open sort when students pick the word or a closed sort where an instructor gives criteria.  They believe that word sorts aid in helping students learn to spell. Because of the patters being reinforced and not just a random list of words. The student learns the phonic pattern and then can apply that knowledge later to new words. This way of thinking is very different than the old “spelling list” in which students were forced to memorize a random list of words. They advocate for a systematic approach to teaching spelling and phonics in their classroom. I feel they can best be summed up by their statement:

As knowledge of the phoneme-grapheme relations expands, students begin to acquire many sight words, and they move into independent reading about the same time they begin to navigate through the pattern tier of English spelling. The more the students read, write and learn about the spelling system, the larger their vocabulary grows. Before you know it, students are learning and remember so many words that their lexicons abound with words of more than on syllable…

                  Think about how powerful of a tool this is for young emergent readers. We can equip them with the skills necessary to tackle words they’ve never even heard of before! That is awesome. If you can instill a love of language into children at a young age think of the implications later in life for that student, not only academically but also in the real world.  In a little way this helps them tackle problems head on and to relate new things to old things in order to create meaning. Wow! That is an awesome thought to think about.

                In Cheri Williams article “Word Study Instruction in the K-2 Classroom” she defines word study as “an approach to spelling instruction that moves away from a focus on memorization.” For example “students come to understand that the second vowel in compose is spelled with an “o” because it is related to compose” This reinforces what we’ve been discussing. That this is a movement away from memorizing and into actually understanding the language. Williams has four approaches to implementing word study:

1.       Assess Students’ Word Knowledge Using Multiple Assessment Tools

2.        Use a Homogeneous Small-Group Approach to Instruction

3.       Carve Out Time to Prepare for Word Study Instruction

4.       Teach Word Knowledge Not Just Words

In my opinion number four is the hardest but most important. If you can teach student word knowledge they can exceed our expectations. If we teach them a word list they will memorize it.  Below is an example of a teacher doing word work with two second grade students:

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvdeFqPrQCQ

Analysis:

                Overall I think this is an okay example. I think that it is good the students are writing the words down. But I think for overall time it would have been faster to do a word sort. They could have covered more words. However, some positives that I saw were her interactions and her accountability of her students.  In her interactions with the two students she stayed on task, it is a small clip but I feel that a rehearsal would have strengthened this. She did rehearse the sounds a few times with them but not as a model. As far as accountability is concerned I like that she did not tell the students the answers. They had to arrive on it on their own. Far too often we rush through lessons and we never let students learn. They just listen to us talk. This doesn’t help anyone.

                Finally as a secondary teacher this is a whole new world to me. I don’t carve out time to teach phonic sounds. But the concepts could be applied to vocabulary words. In Blachowicz’s article “Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom” she argues for the use of “new words, wordplay, playful word practice and other techniques for motivating” and furthermore states that we should have “an emphasis on semantic relatedness” and that “instruction provides both definitional and contextual information about words.”  This is important because the core ideas are there. In an AP English class when a new book is being discussed instead of working from a generic list students could be involved in authentic word work that would help aid their reading instead of just regurgitating a word list.

Final thoughts…a “so what” if you will:

                As I stated previously I am a secondary school teacher and old enough that I never really did this kind of word work as a student. So when I started researching it I was skeptical. But upon researching word work and its implication on fluency, spelling etc. I am a believer. I think word work should be an essential part of every classroom. It helps prepare students to read on their own, which after all is the goal. We want our students to take these skills with them the rest of their lives. They can be in a meeting and say “sorry that wasn’t a vocab word I don’t know what that means, or how to say it.” We want students that are capable of understand and manipulating the language so that they can communicate their ideas in ways that will benefit all of us.

American Reading Instruction since 1967- by P. David Pearson

             The way educators have taught students literacy in the last third of the century stands in stark contrast to how literacy was taught in the first two-thirds. In his article, “American Reading Instruction Since 1967” P. David Pearson’s focus is to give his readers a brief account of the changes in reading instruction since 1967, while doing so he aims to provide an account of the past, and present reading instruction that will hopefully render predictions about the future.

               

Setting the Scene:

The article begins with a brief account of where literacy instruction was in the 1960s, right around the time of massive paradigm shift in literacy education.  Pearson describes this as a time in which we engaged in five-tuning and elaboration of instructional models that were born in the first third of the century. (Pearson 2002) Jeanne Chall described the then common set of principles as:

Chall’s Description of Literacy Principles (1967)

·         The goal of reading from grade one should include comprehension, interpretation, and application, as well as word recognition

·         Instruction should begin with meaningful silent reading of stories that are grounded in children’s experiences and interests

·         After sight words are learned analytic phonics should begin

·         Phonics instruction should be spread over several years

·         Phonics instruction should be carefully controlled for frequency and repeated

·         Children should get off to a slow and steady start

·         Children should be instructed in small groups

Along with these principles Pearson notes that there was a rise in teacher manuals and that reading instruction in the 1960s was still a straightforward perceptual process. Pearson describes this process using the equation RC=Dec* LC or reading comprehension is the product of decoding and listening comprehension.

Changes are coming:

                Pearson uses Chall’s recommendation of five major changes as the catalyst to look at the five new theories that arise out of this time period. Chall recommends the following changes should be made in literacy instruction:

1.       Make necessary change in method (to an early emphasis on phonics of some sort)

2.       Reexamine current ideas about content (focus on enduring themes in folktales)

3.       Reevaluate grade levels (increase the challenge at every grade level)

4.       Develop new tests (both single-component tests and absolute measures with scores that are independent of the population taking the test)

5.       Improve reading research

Responses:

               In response to Chall’s recommendation the educational community responded with five competing theories about literacy that changed the lens through which educators teach. Gone are the days of believing reading is the product of a perceptual process, now one views literacy as a: linguist, psycho-linguist, cognitive psychologist, socio-linguist or a literary theorist.

Linguistics:

                A linguist believes not everything needs to be taught, some language skills are inherent because of our oral traditions. Linguistics push the idea that we are hard wired for language and that language is acquired easily and naturally by children living in an environment in which they are exposed to language rather than taught language.

Psycho-linguistics:

                Looking at literacy through the psycholinguistics lens made four major contributions to literacy instruction during this time. First, they valued literacy experiences, second they helped us to value texts, third it helped us to understand the reading process and appreciate a child’s effort as readers, and finally it gave us means and a theory that are distinct from previous ways at looking at literacy.

Cognitive Psychology:

                Put forth the schema theory. This is the bedrock of prior knowledge, it is the idea that our background helps us understand the text. Everything we do either fits or expands our schema.

Socio-linguistics:

                Introduced the idea of “context” to reading, including home, and community levels of students. Also, the heightened the consciousness surrounding language as a social construction.

Literary Theory:

                Traditionally viewed as helping readers find the “true” meaning in a text.  During this time there was a shift to reader response theory. Proposed by Rosenblatt who suggests that we all bring to the piece a different worldview, and every reading will be a different transaction with the text.  How you “read” a book in high school is different than how you “read” a book as an adult.

To the future:

Pearson does expand on several theories and discusses their contributions to literacy theory.  However, he does not advocate for one over the other, instead he feels that a blending of multiple theories is the best approach to take when teaching literacy.

Reflections and Connections to my own practice:

                In my opinion, it is nearly impossible to read this article and not reflect on our own selves: how we were taught in school, and how we teach currently in our schools? If we look at reading as essentially how language is understood, used, and applied, it is impossible to not take into account all of these theories shape a child’s education.  It would be foolish to think that language and literacy for that matter would be understood in only one way. 

                As an English teacher, and former English major I am personally drawn to Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory. I love the idea that all of us have a different interpretation of the same text, and that every time we read a text we are bringing our own schema and background to the piece. But after reading this article, I am now beginning to see that looking at how we read from a sociolinguistics lens would say that our interactions may be based on the context of how we read.  I could dig even deeper and say that all of this is only because we as people are hard wired for oral communication and reading is just applying an oral sound to a symbol.  But I keep finding myself asking, “Who is right, and don’t the all relate to one another?”   

                In my opinion, yes all these theories are inter-related because of schema.  Schema is really the cornerstone of most of these theories. How we form our schema may be different depending on which theoretical lens you view the world through.  But I believe that in order to read successfully we must activate the prior knowledge of our students.  Each reader brings their background knowledge, their cultural ideals, and their own literacy events to reading.

                If we are to teach struggling readers in a way that is effective, we must recognize that we need to draw from our students past, and we need to expand their prior knowledge.  Our goal as educators is to expand our student’s view of the world and have them figure out what is their role is in it. I believe that we need to always “set the scene” for our struggling readers. This may be a free write, it may be a simple conversation or countless other instructional strategies. The idea is we need to start a conversation before we read. If struggling readers feel that they already understand the “main stuff” (to quote a student) about the text before they read they will interact with the text in a better more authentic way.

                For me, this means when I introduce a piece regardless of the grade (I teach 7^th and 8^th grade mostly but I also teach Advanced Placement students) I’ve come to realize that I need to meet the students where they are, and it is my goal to expand their knowledge so that they can access this knowledge from their schema at a later date and use it independently. If they are to be college and career ready, I need to help them be able to meet the world head on, and have the background and the tools to it!  

                However, this is my take on the theories of the last quarter century. I may be reading or “interacting” with the text differently than you. Or I may be over simplifying a complicated piece. How does theory shape your classroom decisions?