24
When students fail in their early attempts at recognizing the printed word, they readily become trapped in a web of frustration. To intervene, skilled educators employ researched-based programs and techniques. These represent the Science of Teaching Reading. However, equally important is noting and addressing the subtle cognitive and psychological factors that complicate skills mastery, the Art of Teaching Reading. We expedite the learning process by recognizing that the latter is at least equal to, if not more important than, the former.
We recognize that for many struggling students, academic progress seems painfully slow; improvement feels nonexistent or unattainable. These youngsters will require specific instruction to alter that impression. However, the treatment plan need not be tedious or overly time consuming. Indeed, it should be just the opposite. The instructional plan must prove efficient as well as effective. It must immediately confirm, in the learner’s mind’s eye, his potential to improve. This article offers a summary of original strategies (academic and affective) that expedited mastery in a fifth grade non-reader.
Student:
The student was a bright 11 year old unable to provide grapheme-phoneme correspondence for vowels (letter > short sound) or retrieve the phoneme commonly associated with most isolated consonants. Moreover, in addition to limited phonics skills, this youngster had become resistant and rigid in response to his long-standing academic frustration.
Referral:
The parent was aware of the student’s reading struggles. Still, following the school’s advice over the many years, they believed that his “reading gap” fell within an “acceptable” range. In contrast, and to the parent's surprise, the school recently (mid-fifth grade) proposed student retention. Hoping to change that outcome, private reading remediation was sought
Format:
Due to COVID 19 impact, sessions were conducted via FaceTime. Each lesson was 20 minutes long (this student’s on-task tolerance) and conducted twice weekly. Parent participation was required due to both the student’s imperious nature and the lack of at-home teaching materials (The Dollar Store became a source for concrete alphabet letters, 1 inch colored cubes, basic flash cards, etc.)
Session One:
In conversation (following the mom’s insistence that he come into the room), the student reported “Reading and writing are hard but science is easy”. I explained that my plan is to help him learn to use his good thinking to make everything easy (treatment purpose established).
A simple origami project was the first task presented. The aim was to determine his ability to recall and follow directions, to apply spatial vocabulary (top, left, center etc), to note on-task behavior and to monitor frustration tolerance. The project resulted in helicopter models used in ”flying contests” (child v. mom). The lesson ended joyously.
Session Two:
Given the previous lesson’s positive closure, it was surprising that the student refused to enter the session workspace. Clearly, we were in a power-play. Eventually, the mom was able to bring him to task physically, but he was clearly not “present” emotionally.
Affective Focus—I introduced the concept of “who is refusing to engage”. We discussed how his early attempts at learning to read were always frustrating and how those left-over feelings were still taking control. The logic of “push aside the little child because it is stopping you from learning now” went well. My comment: “I need to work with the grown-up you. He is the one who will learn to read; he is ready.”
Academic Focus—With the student now task available, an academic screening was administered. Results indicated primary level phonics skills. Furthermore, the student could not write a complete alphabet from memory and letter spatial skills (size relationships, spacing, placement) were poor. Pencil grasp was awkward. Honed attention/ frustration tolerance was limited.
poor. Pencil grasp was awkward. Honed attention/ frustration tolerance was limited.
Session Three:
Student resistance continued though now a bit more short-lived. Reminders of “who” I was working with served well. Academic remediation began with a two part lesson. The first clarified the differences between a vowel and a consonant (most youngsters can name the vowels but are unaware of the purpose they serve). To begin, I sketched the letter V in a horizontal position ( < ) and drew upper and lower lips onto the form (visual cues work well). I said, “See this V, it stands for vowel.” Next, I explained that this shape ( < ) looks like a mouth that’s opened because vowels are the letters that open our mouth. “Watch someone’s mouth as they speak and you will know that every time their mouth opens they make a vowel sound.”
Part two of the lesson provided instruction for retrieving the specific phoneme commonly associated with a, e, i, o, u. Cues based on each letter’s visual form allowed for immediate mastery. The method modified some existing component of the letter at hand while providing a correlating “story line”. For example, presenting the letter U, draw chevrons ^ onto each side and then explain “The arrows are pointing UP because this letter makes the picture UP. (Each vowel’s modification and cue-transition from image to isolated phoneme is explained in my books.)
Session Four:
Again the lesson begins with student resistance, but to a lesser extent. The student is recognizing “this work is something different” (an underlying theme aimed at renewing his hope that things can change). The session’s academic tasks introduced common consonant phonemes. Again, it was a two part lesson. The first emphasized that consonants DO NOT open the mouth. They provide lip, mouth, tongue placement and nothing more (c is not c-ah, t is not t-ah). Using articulatory feedback, the lesson explained the two groups most consonants fall into, ie “placement in the front” or “placement in the back”. For example, the phoneme B is “a placement in the front”. (When stating the letter name B, we articulate “B” + “eee”. The desired phoneme presents at the beginning of the letter name, i.e., the initial mouth position. Likewise, when stating the letter name M, we say “e” + “M”. Here, the desired phoneme occurs at the final mouth/ articulation position; it falls into the “placement in the back” group.)
Grapho-motor skills (and the related visual discrimination concepts) were also addressed during this session. Follow-up practice honed letter formation, spatial relations, and letter placement both on a line and within a word.
Session Five:
The student’s resistance is markedly decreased. This lesson reviewed the application of a consonant letter’s name to isolate/ yield its associated phoneme. Practice included modeling, self-observation (The student used a mirror to “see” the articulatory changes that occurred as he named a letter), hand shadow puppets (emphasis on “mouth is open” vs. “mouth is closed”). This lesson also introduced blending common rimes like “ap”, “it”, “om” (application of the newly mastered short vowel phonemes + consonant phonemes).
Session Six:
At this point, basic phonemic skills were established (letter-phoneme correspondence and simple VC/ rime-pattern blending). Decoding tasks now began. Step one orally compared short vowel phonemes (cap) to long vowel phonemes (cape). The instructional goal addressed the question of when to use which. The strategy Block Arrays to Identify Syllable Patterns was introduced. The instruction provided colored cubes (blues and whites) and explained the basic pattern rules:
1. All single consonants, digraphs and blends are represented by one blue cube.
2. All vowels are represented by one white cube.
Practice: The student represents the words mop and sun as cube arrays (substituting cubes for the letters presented). The array pattern formed was bwb (blue, white, blue).
Discussion: Notice that the white cube is “trapped” (there is a blue cube to its right). This means the vowel will make a short sound. Several practice tasks are provided. For each, the student forms a block pattern by matching the color cubes to the letters at hand, notes that the white cube is “trapped”, and then accurately reads the resulting word.
Session Seven:
Initially, this lesson focused on review and practice. Trigrams (cvc words) were presented, block patterns formed ( bwb arrays), words read (decoded). Next, two syllable words were introduced. Arrays were created for victim, submit, velvet and a “new rule” was demonstrated.
Rule: Where two blues touch, the pattern (and so the word) splits. Thus, hobnob formed the block array bwbbwb. Per the “new rule”, this word is split into bwb + bwb. Matching the letters to the pattern, and noting that the vowels (white cubes) in each section were trapped (short vowels), the student read hobnob.
Session Eight:
Consonant blends were introduced. Two letter groups (st, bl, tr) proved easy for the student. However, blending a three consonant series (str, spl) was not. Articulating these sounds seemed a “tongue-tied” issue. Specific articulatory instruction was required. Isolating each letter’s placement and noting the points of merger between letters (slow motion practice) helped. Application presented words like most, plum, split, scrap. The block patterns (bwb) were formed; the words read.
Session Nine:
Instruction with bwb (stop, slump, strip) and bwb+bwb (tinsel, suspect) patterns continued. The student would form the block arrays that matched the presented letters, but was now beginning to envision the patterns within the words themselves (integrating instruction). Phrase and sentence reading began. The student decoded plant a clump, bump the lamp, crisp crust, inspect the insect with ease.
Session Ten:
Long vowel arrays/ rules were introduced. The pattern bw was discussed, emphasizing that here the white block was “not trapped” (the pattern that indicates a long vowel phoneme is required). The student formed the arrays for me and go. Then, while reading the words, he explained the “rule”.
Next, the “new rule” was combined with the decoding patterns/ arrays taught thus far. For example, the block pattern for gumbo is bwbbw. The rules indicated:
1. split the word between touching blue cubes (bwb +bw)
2. note the first white cube is “trapped” (short vowel)
3. note the second white cube is “not trapped” (long vowel)
Sessions Eleven-Fourteen:
New pattern rules were introduced.These included the “tower rules”, arrays representing cvvc, cvce syllables (The Block Arrays to Identify Syllable Patterns Method consists of a total of five “rules” represented by combinations of four colored cubes.)
Academic Impact: The student can now decode words like abstract, dictate, splendid; he can distinguish between words like dinner-diner, tigger-tiger; he reads sentences like This is the best bunch of silk. and A bit of nutmeg is on the napkin.
Affective Impact: Overtly resistant behavior now presents as a slightly “silly” behavior usually accompanied by the comment “This is too easy.” The student is currently reading the Dog Man series by choice. For this child, the door to literacy has been opened!
I recently received an update from this child's parent. She informed me that, given the end of the academic year, she asked her son what he might want to do this summer. A strong athlete, she expected a list of sport camps or family travel options.His response: "This summer I want to learn how to write." When we re-establish the potential for mastery in the student's minds eye, we open a doorway they will run through.
Struggling readers do not have time on their side. Both Academic and Affective issues complicate their skills mastery. When strategies are applied flexibly and respond to the diagnostic impressions we note along the way, progress is rapid. Offering that which had been presented many times before serves only to deepen frustration, rigidity, and resistance. Novel methods and respect for the learner’s struggle and evidencing his potential to improve, serve us well.
Nickie Simonetti has taught reading for 50 years. Her experience ranges from Classroom Teacher to Supportive Education Program Director. Seeking an efficient approach for bright struggling students, and frustrated by their all too often tragic outcomes, she offers novel strategies and impressions in her first book, Smart Kids; Struggling Readers. Dyslexia Defused (Fall, 2021) which expands on the self-created methods and further explores the overlooked factors that contribute to reading failure.
.
.