Is It Time for a Hard Conversation about Cueing Systems and Word Reading in Teacher Education?

Davis, Dennis S.; Jones, Jill S.; Samuelson, Courtney

doi:10.1080/10573569.2020.1792813

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Repeatedly, we found that research guidance going back decades, clearly indicated that after decoding a word, students should check the pronunciation against meaning. In 2014 Pressley and Allington wrote, “Advising children to attend first and foremost to meaning cues (e.g., to look at picture cues) to decode words is instructional advice that belongs on the same scrap heap as eye‐movement training (p. 78).” He further explained, “Meaning cues are critical, however, in appraising whether decoding was done properly: if the decoding makes no sense given the context, the good reader knows to go back and look at a word again (p. 78).” This is exactly what we found in source after source (Davis et al, 2020; Duke, 2020; Solari et al, 2017).…”

Section: Is It Wrong To Use Context During Text Reading?supporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond Labels and Agendas: Research Teachers need to Know about Phonics and Phonological Awareness

Mesmer¹,

Kambach²

2022

The Reading Teacher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teachers are asked to use reading science to inform how they teach phonics and phonological awareness. As teachers look to the research base to guide their practice, some questions and concerns regarding what best practice looks like have come up. This article starts with a brief description of phonics and phonemic awareness and then discusses topics of issue in a developmental order, addressing phonemic awareness, phonics, and morphology. Current research is used to discuss 10 questions teachers are asking as they navigate applying reading research in the classroom.

show abstract

Section: Is It Wrong To Use Context During Text Reading?supporting

confidence: 91%

“…78)." This is exactly what we found in source after source (Davis et al, 2020;Duke, 2020;Solari et al, 2017).…”

Section: Is It Wrong To Use Context During Text Reading?supporting

confidence: 91%

Beyond Labels and Agendas: Research Teachers need to Know about Phonics and Phonological Awareness

Mesmer¹,

Kambach²

2022

The Reading Teacher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shanahan (2020) was taught as a guide to include a variety of reading levels, but teachers were uncomfortable teaching high school-level skills beyond surface knowledge. Cueing has little efficacy (Davis et al, 2021;Hempenstall, 2017), and in the current situation, it served as an example of enabling (for example, if a student did not know a word, teachers would act it out, like for a student who did not know the word recline, or another example in math started with "You know," and then pointing out what area looked like, etc. ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing Response to Intervention (RtI) in a Juvenile Detention Center Using Action Research

Coker¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While proponents claimed Response to Intervention (RtI) improved student learning and prevented failure, there was an absence of research in effectiveness. Applying action research within a case study, there was an investigation into the process of reforming and improving RtI within a short-term juvenile detention center in the Midwest of the United States for students in grades 5-12. Using the conceptual framework of adaptive leadership, there was an analysis of policies and procedures, observations, interviews, and student work. RtI as a stand-alone program revealed many teachers lacked evidence-based instructional methods and alternative teachers lacked content knowledge, making implementation difficult. Within the action research method, role ambiguity caused problems with fidelity, with the need to infuse strategic leadership with action research when teachers’ sense of self and professional were challenged.

show abstract

“…In the first domain, decoding/phonics refers to knowledge of the correspondence of letters and sounds in the English alphabetic writing system and the use of this knowledge to read words, both in context and out of context (Ehri, 2017). This facet also includes knowledge of word learning processes and the importance of developing automaticity, or effortless word reading, through repeated opportunities to encounter words in print and to analyze their letter–sound correspondences (Davis et al, 2021). Phonological/phonemic awareness, an important prerequisite skill for efficient word reading, refers to a reader’s ability to identify and manipulate the sounds in language.…”

Section: Proposed Model Of Language‐related Components For Teaching E...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting KnERDI with Language: Examining Teachers’ Knowledge for Enhancing Reading Development in Code‐Based and Meaning‐Based Domains

Davis

Samuelson

Grifenhagen

et al. 2021

Reading Research Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of the early research on teachers’ knowledge for reading instruction used instruments that primarily emphasized code‐based aspects of reading, unintentionally signaling that meaning‐focused knowledge is not essential for teaching foundational reading to elementary‐age children. In this study, we developed the Knowledge for Enhancing Reading Development Inventory (KnERDI; pronounced 'nerdy'), an instrument that measures teachers’ knowledge in two domains: alphabetic code/word reading and meaning/connected text processes. Using this instrument, we sought to determine if teachers’ knowledge of the two proposed domains was highly associated and if knowledge was related to level of education and amount of teaching experience. We report on the reliability and validity of the KnERDI and describe patterns in educators’ performance on this instrument. We found that the KnERDI measured both domains with acceptable reliability in multiple samples of educators enrolled in an online professional development course. Educators scored higher on the meaning/connected text process subscale than on the alphabetic code/word reading subscale. The two subscales were strongly correlated, indicating that teachers’ knowledge as measured on the KnERDI is a unidimensional construct. Advanced degree completion was not consistently related to educators’ scores on the KnERDI, but there was a positive association between educators’ performance on the instrument and their years of experience teaching early reading, particularly with respect to the code‐based domain. We discuss potential uses of the KnERDI in future research and practice, positive trends in educators’ performance on the instrument, and challenges in measuring educators’ knowledge for supporting higher‐level language and comprehension processes.

show abstract

Is It Time for a Hard Conversation about Cueing Systems and Word Reading in Teacher Education?

Cited by 9 publications

References 61 publications

Beyond Labels and Agendas: Research Teachers need to Know about Phonics and Phonological Awareness

Beyond Labels and Agendas: Research Teachers need to Know about Phonics and Phonological Awareness

Implementing Response to Intervention (RtI) in a Juvenile Detention Center Using Action Research

Getting KnERDI with Language: Examining Teachers’ Knowledge for Enhancing Reading Development in Code‐Based and Meaning‐Based Domains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About