Connect with Dr. Jennifer Miller-Ray

About Dr. Miller-Ray

Category: Reading

  • Leveraging Multisensory Approaches When Teaching Phonological Awareness Tasks

    Birsh (2018) defines phonemic awareness using The Partnership of Reading’s definition “as the ability to notice think about and work with the individual sounds in words (2003, p. 2). Phonemic awareness is an essential toward learning how to read as it helps children connect the spoken word to written language Birsh (2018). How does multisensory approaches facilitate phonemic awareness in children? Farrell & White (2018) suggest that “multisensory strategies guide students to in simultaneously linking input from eye, ear, voice, and hand to enhance learning during the carefully sequenced teaching of all systems of language” (p. 47). Phonological stimulation must begin as early as possible. Sensory stimulation through a multisensory approach of increased “auditory modeling and feedback, tactile stimulation of the articulators, visual feedback through clinician modeling, picture models of articulatory placement and the use of mirrors build cognitive connections to phonological awareness”  Pierettie, Kaul, Zarchy, & O’Hanion (2015) Adoption of multisensory approaches assists teachers in facilitating multiple avenues toward improved cognition and fully involve students to an improved learning experience.

    What does a multisensory approach to teach phonemic awareness look like in an early learning environment? Segmenting is a phonemic awareness task introduced later in the hierarchy of teaching phonemic awareness. Children learn segmenting of phonemes as they learn to identify and sort objects beginning with the same sound and later progress to focus on words with the same ending sound. An auditory task that teachers could incorporate besides saying a new vocabulary word through segmenting and blending might be to give directions using in a robot voice. Students could also make a bead slide, in which children use beads to move on a string to break the word into individual sounds as the teacher and children say the sound aloud. Teachers can use shoelaces and beads to complete this activity. This activity leverages both auditory and kinesthetic activities to assist with teaching segmentation. Games are a fun approach toward teaching the segmenting phonemic awareness task and can incorporate auditory, kinesthetic, and visual cues. For example, using “Elkonin boxes to tap a finger or place a chip in a designated box to match the number of syllables to a word” (Paulson, 2018). After a teacher models this activity, students can take turns saying and moving a chip or token. Over time the visual cue or box can eventually be eliminated from this activity.

    Strengthening cognition through multisensory approaches during early literacy will promote successful decoding when reading, which will allow for additional time and energy to be focused on reading comprehension (Pierettie, Kaul, Zarchy, & O’Hanion, 2015). Understanding how to leverage multisensory approaches to strengthen phonological awareness in early childhood programs can lead to an improved early intervention program. An emphasis on multisensory approaches within new teacher training could assist in building a stronger phonemic awareness early literacy program.

    Pieretti, R. A., Kaul, S. D., Zarchy, R. M., & O’Hanlon, L. M. (2015). Using a multimodal approach to facilitate articulation, phonemic awareness, and literacy in young children. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 36(3), 131-141.

    Birsh, J. R. & Carreker, S. Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (4th Ed). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

    Farrell, M., White, N. C. (2018). Structured literacy instruction. In Birsh, J. R. & Carreker, S. Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (4th Ed). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

    Paulson, L. H. (2018). Teaching phonemic awareness. In Birsh, J. R. & Carreker, S. Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (4th Ed). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

     

     

  • Exploring Lower Level versus Higher Level Cognitive Processes

    Exploring Lower Level versus Higher Level Cognitive Processes

    Nassaji (2003) describes reading as a “multivariate skill set that involves a complex and integrated combination of cognitive processes ranging from low level processing abilities involved in decoding a variety of mediums, visuals, and print and encoding visualizations to higher level skills of syntax, semantics, discourse, and text representation of ideas with a reader’s global knowledge” (p. 261). Working memory is central toward improving reading skill sets according to literature. Gabe (2009) provides a direct link to lower level cognitive skill sets and working memory, to include the ability to suppress information, the “syntactic and semantic processing, such as decoding, that stores relevant information to assist reading comprehension,” and the ability to use text information to build a representation of main concepts (p. 35).

    Teachers can use strategies to improve lower level processing to assist early readers and ELL learners with phonetic and visualization approaches. An example of this can be found in the Rosetta Stone application. When evaluating a learning application, it is important to look for apps that can improve lower level processing. Rosetta Stone, uses phonetic principals with a strong audio component and visuals when introducing letters in their beginning modules. Other alternative applications like Memrise sometimes lack all of these elements. Memrise, for example, includes an audio component to assist with phonetic principles to improve lower level processing but fails to use visualization to assist with a stronger cognitive word association compared to Rosetta Stone. In essence, working memory is the vehicle in which lower level processing assists with the reader automatically comprehending communications using skill sets to include not only letter-sound correspondences but also word recognition as well as grammar knowledge and structures (Grabe, 2009).

    Higher level processing “extract explicit and implicit information from text and integrate this text-based information with prior knowledge” (Hannon, 2012, p. 125). Cognitive skill sets associated with higher level processing are more controversial. In fact, little research exists exploring multiple processing levels in advanced reading (Nassaji, 2003). Grabe (2009) provides a strong example of the complex cognitive skill sets required during higher level processing to include inferencing, suppression of information, restructuring to summarize information, linkage to prior knowledge network, and the ability to overlap elements. These outcomes rely on a higher level processing ability to create a mental representation of knowledge, improving reading comprehension and utilizing both working and long term memory.

    Literature highlights the need for continued research in this area. Grabe (2009) provides a solid argument toward the importance of teachers designing tasks to assist students toward creating a situation model and text model to improve reading performance to include activities that promote discourse, constructivist strategies like the KWHL strategy to tap into prior knowledge, inferencing and goal setting.

    In my past experiences, we incorporated the SCAN tool to utilize discourse, encouraging teachers to design lessons that have student take on a perspective to defend after reading text. For professional development, teachers were introduced to a real world problem and event. Teachers then took on a role to solve a science problem thinking as a corporate representative, a scientist, a concerned citizen, or an environmentalist. We used the discussion tool to teach how to integrate technology to assist with a discourse activity. This assisted in teachers understanding deep scientific concepts that related to the mission. Some of this can be seen at http://scan-werecriticaltothinking.blogspot.com/2012/03/do-you-walk-walk.html.

    brain-hierarchy-learning-levels-pinterest

    Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice (pp. 21-58). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher–level and lower–level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 261-276.

    Hannon, B. (2012). Understanding the relative contributions of lower‐level word processes, higher‐level processes, and working memory to reading comprehension performance in proficient adult readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(2), 125-152.

  • Reflective Teaching ~ Exploring My Makerspace Literacy Research Approaches and Classroom Practice

    Currently, I teach six graduate education courses at Sul Ross State University, which is a small rural university serving 898 graduate students and a little over 2,000 undergraduate students. The institution is a Hispanic serving institution, serving low income students (Jenkins, et al., 2017). I am working with many rural schools in the Big Bend area to include Presidio ISD. Presidio ISD is a STEM school, and serves a population of 1,350 students to include demographics of 96.6 % Hispanic students and 93.4% economically disadvantaged students (2015). Presdio ISD is located on the Rio Grande river, located on the Texas-Mexican border. In addition, I am working with Maathon ISD, which is a rural district serving over 70 students to include a demographic population of 67 % Hispanics and 87 % economically disadvantaged students (2015). I am also working with several districts in the Trans-Pecos area.

    My learning goals this academic year is to grow as an educator and continue improving my Ph.D. research initiatives at the University of North Texas investigating makerspace literacy environments that centers around a project-based learning 4 career STEAM model targeting elementary and middle school programs.  My knowledge regarding the reading process has definitely changed and improved this semester. Perhaps the most significant change includes reevaluating my approach to really center on balanced literacy approaches that really think about transactional theory in action during professional development and instructional design approaches. Transactional theory centers on “how readers respond to the books that engage them and how these experiences can be enacted in classrooms” (Galda, 2013, p. 6). Transactional theory is rooted in Vygotsky’s social constructivism and principles of language and cognition, “which centers of teaching reading and writing highlighting creation of environments and activities in which students are motivated and encouraged to draw on their own resources to make live meanings” (Rosenblatt, 2013, p. 148).

    infinity_1_orig

    What will I eliminate in the future? I will eliminate some of the STEM quantitative measures I have used in the past. These instruments were only used to show interest and attitude toward STEM and never measured the impact on the overall impact of literacy. Previously, I would give this instrument before and after a STEM makerspace camp or at the beginning of a semester and at the end of a semester to gauge interest. I utilized the makerspace project-based learning model and only measured the impact of interest. The model did incorporate reading prior to the makerspace PBL and a written reflection after the experience. The pre and posttest utilized in two published studies found statistically significant findings but failed to measure the impact on reading and literacy.  The learner would take the STEM Semantic pre-test, read text from their content area, participate in a KWLH 21st century learning activity, participate in a makerspace project-based learning activity using challenge cards mapped to curriculum, and reflect via writing about the experience. At the end, learners would take another post-test, the STEM Semantic survey. I have not really considered the empirical design approaches to include journaling during the entire makerspace process and/or video recordings to include in portfolios in research approaches. In the past, I have used only quantitative measures to gauge student or teacher interest and confidence levels pre and post over a period of time. While the instruments we used at the University of North Texas are widely accepted as strong and valid instruments, I now realize that a mixed method approach to include journaling throughout the experience and video interviews and reflections would add further depth to capture the impact of the STEAM makerspace challenge cards before and after literacy events. In addition, I feel this would really add to the field of sociolinguistic issues discussed this semester. I now have a stronger understanding on how to leverage native language and family cultural heritages in the makerspace model to not only improve literacy in English Language Learners but also to value the funds of knowledge to this process.

    How can this approach help increase literacy opportunities for English Language Learners? First, I need to strengthen the collaborative dialogue, which I feel is strong in the KWLH activity. However, I can improve the scaffolding of my model to include previewing a picture book, vocabulary discussion, incorporating a story map, repeat reading of the story, compete the KWHL activity, and then encourage discourse after the makerspace activity. In addition, I can encourage video procedures and or reflections throughout the makerspace process. This will provide a visualization component that others may find beneficial and highlight the impact of the activity. Repeating readings can be used to measure fluency. The makerspace PBL activity using the challenge card concept could also include visualization to incorporate sociolinguistics highlighted in this course.

    Tan, Barton, & Schenkel (2018) describe the impact of “meaningful and prolonged engagement toward focused complex projects through making experiences and found that children’s rich funds of knowledge anchored in children’s existing social networks provide community enthnography as a pedagogical approach (p. 77). Bringing in the “community wisdom” through makerspace activities brought about rich conversations that can really leverage experiences connected to curriculum in their own community (Tan, Barton, & Schenkel, 2018, p. 81). Range & Schmidt (2014) highlight the importance of schools and community organizations to tap into prior knowledge in makerspace activities and suggest that “students drive the process of designing projects and soliciting makerspace community for help” (p. 8). While I agree this is true, I still think many students need facilitation of such projects through a focus that may connect to core curriculum content, showing that topics can be extended to real world scenarios relevant to their community.

    In conclusion, this course has helped me to really improve my understanding on how to better design literacy instructional design approaches to incorporate a large focus that centers on the transactions of the reader, text, language, culture, authentic making design process, writing, and reflection. I hope to revamp my approaches to really center on how such creative processes might not only engage interest in STEM but also build to improve cognition approaches toward multiple literacies in a mobile makerspace research environment that investigates reader response theory, or transactional theory

    Galda, L. g. (2013). Learning From Children Reading Books: Transactional Theory and the Teaching of Literature. Journal Of Children’s Literature, 39(2), 5-13.

    Jenkins, R. W., Stedman, S. W., Teusher, D. D., DeLaGarza, H. R., Acosta, A., Anwar, S. J., Paredes, R. A. (2017). Texas Public Higher Education Almanac.

    Marathon ISD, (2015) Retrieved April 13, 2018 from https://schools.texastribune.org/districts/marathon-isd/marathon-isd/.

    Presidio ISD. (2015). Retrieved April 13, 2018, from https://schools.texastribune.org/districts/presidio-isd/.

    Range, E., & Schmidt, J. (2014). Explore, plan, create: Developing a makerspace for your school community. School Library Monthly, 30(7), 8-10.

    Rosenblatt, L. Transactional theory of reading and writing. In J.B. Cobb, & M. K. Kallus (Eds.), Historical, Theoretical, and Sociological Foundations of Reading in the United States (pp. 13-66). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Tan, E., Barton, A. C., & Schenkel, K. (2018). Equity and the Maker Movement. Science and Children, 55(7), 76-81.

     

     

     

  • Reflection on Reading in the 20th Century

     

    What is the difference between the look-say and the phonics approaches to teaching reading. What did the first grade studies tell us about these methods?

    Mitford Mathews’s reading method words-to-reading, or look-say, introduces a large amount of vocabulary words as sight words to the reader. For instance, the teacher would introduce a letter and then provide a list of words and ask the learner to “note or listen for similarity between sounds of letters in each word” (Cobb & Kallus, 2011, p. 16). Matthews look-say method was widely accepted for most of the 20th century. After sight words are introduced, the student would be introduced to analytic phonics, or generalizations, which were applied to a particular sound correspondence.  The idea that readers would respond more rapidly as they recognize whole words, or look-say, rather than a letter-sound relationship.

    Phonics approaches to reading teach the student the sound to say each time they observe a symbol, or a sound to a letter approach. The learner is then motivated to decode words that they encounter. Prior to the first grade studies, reading began in first grade. Sight words, or the look-say method, was used, and analytic phonics introduced. Vocabulary was tightly controlled in grades 1-3, and children worked in small groups. However, the first grade studies highlighted a need to revamp the entire education system, as Chall found that an early code emphasis would be beneficial toward word recognition at an earlier age. As a result, a greater emphasis and intensity was placed on phonics at an earlier age. A change in curriculum was implemented. No longer did schools employ the Dick and Jane approach in first grade. Students were introduced to a wider library collection, to include a focus on children’s literature, with little vocabulary restriction.

    Look at the examples of texts in the table on p. 29. What was the underlying assumption about how reading should be taught for each type of text?

    Each example provides an opportunity for educators to explore how to best help a student learn to read, not to to focus on teaching a student to read, an idea expanded upon by Frank Smith (1971). Smith valued the importance of literacy experiences on cognition and stressed the importance of value texts for early readers.  He also suggested that a mistake was an opportunity to explore the inner workings of the child’s mind, with a focus on cognitive processes and strategies. Each example provides a strategy using value text to assist the teacher. Example one employs patterns, language rhyming,  so that the early reader can predict what is coming next and then understands the meaning. It reminds me of the same principles and strategies that we currently utilize when using a program like flocabulary. It is a great way to introduce vocabulary to students. Students are engaged and can predict what is coming next using language rhyming. The other two examples rely on high frequency words and are the best approach toward engaging beginning readers. Example two utilize rhythm patterns, repetition, and rendition so that the learner can interpreting and interacting with text. Decoding text, the third example, utilize phonics and is not the preferred choice. A beginner can learn one or two words from repetition but do they really know what the words mean? Example one incorporates an improved approach because it encompasses a language rhyme and patterns to help the emerging reader make sense of the words read. It is interesting to me that Smith (1971) warns of the dangers of relying heavily of visuals when so much screen time is placed in front of our students in K-12 environments.

    How does the notion of integrated curriculum relate to the ideas proposed by sociolinguistics?

    Both rely on the premise that perspectives, rooted in cultural heritages, should be valued and contribute toward improving knowledge acquisition through a global lens. Both examples create a more meaningful approach, as differences are valued and not seen as a shortcoming. For example, integrating curriculum can break down barriers between core content areas so that diverse learners can make sense of how each content area contributes to the “real world”. Sociolinguistics adopts this same concept, as the idea values dialects. Integrating dialects exposes learners to new cultures and communities of thought through perspectives. Learners can learn dialects from each other, and as a result, learners develop a better understand of how language differences can contribute toward a better understanding of community. Both approaches create a more globally competent student. In addition, both integrated curriculum and sociolinguistics adopt the idea that reading and language is best understood when put to use for another purpose, learning activity, or event.

    Cobb, J. B., & Kallus, M. K. (2011). Historical, theoretical, and sociological foundations of reading in the united states. Boston, MD: Pearson Education Inc.

    Smith, F. (1971). Understanding Reading: A Linguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.