Tag: literacy

SoR: Teacher and Student Reading Skills Table


Supporting Instructional Alignment in Science of Reading Implementation

The Teacher and Student Reading Skills Table is intended to support educators in aligning instructional practices with evidence-based literacy research. Rather than operating as a scope-and-sequence, the table aims to clarify instructional roles, student skill development, grade band emphasis, tiered supports, and multilingual learner considerations. When used deliberately, it may help reduce ambiguity in Science of Reading implementation.

Foundational Skills: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness

The chart places phonological and phonemic awareness within oral language instruction, with emphasis in Pre-K through Grade 1. Teachers are expected to model and teach sound awareness and manipulation, while students work to hear, segment, blend, and manipulate sounds in spoken language.

An important implication of this framing is that phonemic awareness instruction does not rely on English vocabulary knowledge. For multilingual learners, sound awareness and lexical knowledge represent related but distinct competencies. Instruction that separates these skills may support more accurate interpretation of student performance and instructional need.

Across tiers, the chart suggests that increased intensity should involve additional practice and diagnostic attention rather than a shift to alternative activities.

Phonics and Orthographic Mapping

The chart situates phonics and orthographic mapping primarily in Kindergarten through Grade 2. Teachers provide systematic instruction in sound–spelling correspondences and guide repeated connections between print, pronunciation, and meaning. Students apply letter–sound knowledge to decode and gradually store words in memory.

This progression reflects the view that orthographic mapping develops through repeated, accurate decoding rather than exposure alone. The tiered structure emphasizes that students who experience difficulty may benefit from greater explicitness and structured practice rather than compensatory strategies.

For multilingual learners, contrastive analysis of English spelling patterns and home language orthographies is presented as an important instructional support when integrated within explicit phonics instruction.

Decoding and Word Recognition

In Grades 1 through 3, the table highlights instruction focused on accurate decoding strategies. Teachers guide students to attend to print, while students practice decoding unfamiliar words and building automatic word recognition.

The multilingual learner guidance encourages prioritizing print-based information and limiting reliance on pictures or context cues. This emphasis aims to support efficient word recognition development and to reduce instructional practices that may interfere with decoding growth.

Tiered supports in this domain are intended to reflect differences in intensity and instructional focus, informed by observed error patterns and student response to instruction.

Reading Fluency

Fluency instruction is emphasized in Grades 2 through 4 and is described as involving teacher modeling and guided oral reading with feedback. Students work toward reading connected text with increasing accuracy, rate, and phrasing.

The table notes that accent and developing prosody are not necessarily indicators of decoding difficulty. This consideration may help educators interpret fluency data more carefully for multilingual learners and distinguish between linguistic variation and skill-based needs.

Across tiers, fluency instruction becomes more targeted and closely monitored, with attention to maintaining a connection to underlying decoding accuracy.

Vocabulary and Language Comprehension

Vocabulary and language comprehension are presented as ongoing instructional priorities from Kindergarten through Grade 12. Teachers explicitly address word meanings, morphology, syntax, and sentence-level cohesion, while students work to understand and use language across contexts.

The chart’s separation of vocabulary, language comprehension, and reading comprehension reflects the view that these domains develop through related but distinct instructional pathways. For multilingual learners, intentional oral vocabulary development, explicit syntax instruction, and careful use of cognates may support language comprehension growth.

Tiered instruction in these areas often emphasizes depth of understanding and structured language practice rather than reduced linguistic demand.

Reading Comprehension and Metacognitive Monitoring

Reading comprehension instruction begins in early elementary grades and extends through secondary levels. Teachers model comprehension strategies and guide discussion grounded in text, while students practice constructing meaning, making inferences, and integrating ideas.

Metacognitive monitoring, introduced in Grade 2 and beyond, involves teacher modeling of think-alouds and instruction in comprehension repair strategies. Students develop the ability to notice breakdowns in understanding and apply appropriate fix-up strategies.

The table acknowledges that cultural norms may influence how students express confusion, suggesting that educators consider multiple indicators of comprehension.

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support and Instructional Coherence

The tiered structure outlined in the chart is intended to support instructional coherence across Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III. Core instruction provides the foundation, while targeted and intensive supports increase explicitness, practice, and responsiveness.

This framing positions MTSS as a system for adjusting instruction based on student need rather than as a static placement model.

Conclusion

I believe the value of the Teacher and Student Reading Skills Reference Table lies in its attempt to make instructional expectations more explicit across reading domains, grade bands, and tiers of support. When used reflectively, it may support instructional planning, collaborative decision-making, and more consistent implementation of Science of Reading principles across diverse classroom contexts.

Infographic by Dr. Jasmin (Bey) Cowin: Reading Error Root Cause Reference Sheet – From Student Error to Instructional Action

This infographic is designed for educators working with Emergent Writers and Newcomers to Literacy (EWNL), English as a Foreign Language (EFL), and TESOL learners across elementary, secondary, and adult contexts who are acquiring literacy in alphabetic writing systems. Its purpose is to support instructional decision-making grounded in the Science of Reading by linking observable reading errors to the specific cognitive and linguistic processes that underlie word recognition.

The organizing principle of the infographic, the instructional response must match the processing breakdown, not the surface error, reflects a central finding of reading science: word reading difficulties arise from identifiable breakdowns in component processes rather than from general language proficiency, motivation, or exposure to text. Decades of research demonstrate that effective reading instruction requires diagnosing which processing system has failed and responding at that level with targeted instruction (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Moats, 2020).

The framework is structured around four empirically supported domains of word recognition: phonemic awareness, phonics knowledge, decoding behavior, and automaticity. These domains align with models of skilled reading that distinguish between language comprehension and word recognition, most notably the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), and with research on orthographic mapping as the mechanism that enables accurate and fluent word reading (Ehri, 2014; Share, 1995).

Each panel in the infographic identifies a specific processing breakdown and pairs it with an instructional response that directly supports orthographic mapping. For example, phonemic gaps require oral phoneme manipulation without print, while phonics gaps require explicit instruction in sound–symbol correspondences. Weak decoding habits reflect reliance on context or partial visual cues, which research has shown does not support long-term word learning (Share, 1995). Lack of automaticity reflects constrained working memory during reading and calls for accurate repeated practice rather than new phonics instruction (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974).

  1. Working Memory Capacity: Readers have limited working memory. Non-automatic word recognition quickly exhausts this capacity, hindering comprehension.
  2. Role of Practice: The goal of practice is to make decoding and word recognition so fast and accurate that it becomes automatic.
  3. Focus on Fluency: Instead of introducing new rules, practice should focus on increasing the speed and ease with which known skills are applied.

For multilingual learners, including EFL and TESOL students of all ages, this distinction is essential. Research indicates that decoding difficulties in second-language readers often mirror those of monolingual learners and should be addressed through the same evidence-based instructional approaches, while keeping language comprehension supports separate (August & Shanahan, 2006; Lesaux et al., 2007).

The instructional decision check reinforces a diagnostic stance toward reading errors, treating them as data that inform instruction. This approach aligns with Science of Reading principles that emphasize precision, systematic instruction, and alignment between assessment and response.

References

Alissa Fernstrom – Masters in Literacy Candidate at Touro University on “Elements of Academic Language”

Literacy [MS]
The Master of Literacy program prepares teachers to become Literacy Specialists who work with students with reading and writing difficulties. The program includes ample field experience and leads to certification in both Birth – Grade 6 and Grades 5 – 12. Classes are offered online, as well as on site in Bay Shore in the evenings.

Alissa Fernstrom is currently a Teaching Assistant for a Special Education classroom in the Herricks School District. She completed her undergraduate dual degree in Early Childhood and Childhood Education at Molloy College, graduating in 2018. Afterward, she took graduate courses through Queens College to obtain her Special Education certification before selecting Touro University to obtain her Masters in Literacy. In addition to teaching in the classroom, she teaches dance, which allows her to share one of her life-long passions with others.

My time here at Touro has not been traditional, but the flexibility of the online program coupled with the supportive professors and staff, have made my journey to obtain my Masters in Literacy one I will forever be grateful for.

Alissa Fernstrom, Masters in Literacy, Touro University

Part I

a. Identify techniques for connecting students’ personal experiences and past learning to lesson concepts.

“It is a widely accepted notion among experts that a learner’s “schemata”—knowledge of the world—provides a basis for understanding, learning, and remembering facts and ideas found in texts” (Vogt, M., Echevarria, J.J., & Short, D. J., 2016, p.72). This fact is important to consider as a teacher, specifically of ENL students, because every learner comes into the classroom with their own set of knowledge that can be tapped into and utilized to help them better understand the new content being taught. One technique to connect students’ past experience with new lesson concepts is the use of anticipation guides. These guides consist of a number of statements that students can agree or disagree with based on their background knowledge of the topic being taught. This serves not only to activate their prior knowledge, but also to set a purpose for what they are to learn during the lesson. These questions should also be revisited at the end of a lesson in order to address any misconceptions and help students make new connections. Another technique that should be used when activating prior knowledge is culturally responsive teaching. Since students from different cultures will have vastly different experiences from their peers, it is important to consider that the way in which they will react to new information may not align with the way their peers do. It has been “questioned whether we can assume that students from every subculture will have the same experience with, or emotional reaction to a story or article, or whether we should expect the same outcomes from them” (Vogt, M., Echevarria, J.J., & Short, D. J., 2016, p.73). Teachers must consider that a student’s reading comprehension may be affected by their prior experiences or background knowledge and may not interpret a situation in the expected way. This is why culturally responsive teaching is a very important technique to utilize with ENL students.

 b. List 2 elements of academic language and describe their importance for English  learners.

”Academic language involves the use of more sophisticated sentence structures and forms of expression than are found in everyday conversation” (Vogt, M., Echevarria, J.J., & Short, D. J., 2016, p.76). This language is commonly seen in the content subject areas and leads to academic success. This type of language can be broken down into two specific groups, content vocabulary and general academic vocabulary. Content vocabulary “are the key words and terms associated with a particular topic being taught” (Vogt, M., Echevarria, J.J., & Short, D. J., 2016, p.76). These words are normally found in bold in the informational texts students read about a topic. They also include the words students need to know in order to share their thinking about a topic, such as character and setting. General academic vocabulary “are academic words and phrases students must learn because they are used in all academic disciplines” (Vogt, M., Echevarria, J.J., & Short, D. J., 2016, p.77). These types of words are not normally explicitly taught, but should be since they are words commonly seen in every academic setting. These words may have multiple meanings depending on the content being explored and can cause issues for ENL students. These words also help students to understand how information may be provided to them and how they are expected to interact with it. Both types of academic language are important and should be taught when working with ENL students.

Part II

a. Describe 1 activity YOU used during this week to introduce key academic subject-specific vocabulary for your ENL students. (p 76/77)  divide your academic vocabulary using words from these three  groups: content vocabulary, general academic vocabulary, word parts: roots  and affixes?

This week, I introduced academic subject-specific vocabulary to my 5th grade class, of which one student is an ENL student. We started a new science topic entitled “Got Water?” which focuses on the different spheres of the earth, specifically water. The way in which I introduced these words was by providing students with a list of the words and a picture to accompany each that they glued into their science notebooks. The pictures served as a great way for not only my ENL student, but for all students in my special education room, to create a concrete picture in their mind of what each word meant. Once students had their list, we went through each word one by one, giving students a chance to share their own background knowledge and build upon the definition I had given by using the word in a sentence. This allowed all students to participate and utilize the new vocabulary in a way that was familiar to them. We also talked about the prefixes on some of the words and had students share other words they knew of that started in a similar way. This further helped students to solidify the meaning of these new words.

content vocabulary: hydrosphere, geosphere, atmosphere, biosphere, evaporation, condensation, precipitation

general academic vocabulary: observation, inference, cycle

roots and affixes: hydro-, bio-

b. Describe 1 activity YOU used during this week to introduce general academic or language function  vocabulary for your ENL students (p 76/77).

In our reading unit, students are working on a culminating project with their fantasy novels. The general academic words that were introduced and utilized this week to start this project were compare, contrast, and support your answer. The overall task is for students to pick two elements of a fantasy book and compare and contrast how these elements are seen in the class read aloud and their independent book. In order for students to effectively complete the assignment, they first had to understand what these general academic words mean. I started by simply writing both words on the board and having students use any prior knowledge they had about each word to create their own definition. Since these students are in 5th grade, they had all, including my ENL student, been exposed to these words and were quickly able to come up with definitions as a class. They also identified that we could use a venn diagram to help us compare and contrast the two books. Utilizing charts is a great way to help all students organize their thinking. Finally, we discussed what it means to support your answer. We first compared it to our math lessons when we are always asked to show our work. Students were able to make the connection that the work supports our answer and that in the case of reading, the words in the book are our support. This helped them to realize that supporting their answers in reading meant going back into the text.

c. Use one of the methods described (p 82 – 88) in YOUR classroom and describe what happened – please include a photo of any of YOUR realia/anchor chart/game cards.

The method I chose to utilize with my class is a word wall. A word wall is a place for relevant content words to be displayed in alphabetical order. “These words are revisited frequently throughout the lesson or unit, and students are encouraged to use them in their writing and discussions” (Vogt, M., Echevarria, J.J., & Short, D. J., 2016, p.85-86). I decided that a word wall could be a great way to display our new science words for students. I noticed that once the words were visible to students at all times, they were more likely to use the words when answering questions, not only during our science lessons, but making connections back to them throughout the entire day. For example, students spoke about how our predictions at the end of our chapter in reading were really inferences because we were using what we saw in the book to make a guess as to what would happen. This was so amazing to see as a teacher and hearing students that are both in special education and ENL utilize such sophisticated language in an appropriate way showed me how impactful such a simple vocabulary method could be.

C Vogt, M., Echevarria, J. J., & Short, D. J. (2016). Making content comprehensible for English Learners. (5th ed.). Pearson: New York.