Search

Learning to spell in English requires the integration of general and specific word knowledge. This paper describes the 'Word Nerds' project, a research–practice partnership consisting of two researchers from a large public university and 17 elementary teachers in seven school districts in the United States. The collaboration was formed to study variation in instructional practice among teachers using the Words Their Way programme and address teacher‐generated questions related to how children learn to spell words. This paper describes how stakeholders worked together to understand (1) what grouping and organisational structures teachers use for spelling instruction, (2) the extent to which elementary students use analogy to spell unknown words that share spelling patterns with known words and (3) the affordances and challenges of a partnership approach to educational research. Data collection took place over one school year. Data sources included teacher focus groups, classroom observations and student formative spelling assessment data (n = 178). Analyses included descriptive statistics, t‐tests and multilevel modelling, nesting spelling items in students in classrooms. Findings indicated that classroom observation scores for grouping, teacher talk, student‐to‐student talk, reflection and student engagement during spelling lessons varied depending on format (whole group, small group or pair/individual). Students showed evidence of spelling by analogy, but this strategy was associated in part with the semantic difficulty of the target words. Instructional practices for spelling vary based on teachers' priorities, and teachers need support to implement and prioritise evidence‐based practices. Conducting research in partnership allowed the researchers to observe and understand variation in implementation of a popular spelling programme and to develop and answer research questions that mattered to teachers; however, it also limited the size, scope and location of the project. Highlights: What is already known about this topic Children can read and spell words by analogising familiar spelling patterns from known to unknown words.Evidence‐based spelling instruction focuses on common orthographic and morphological patterns that help students use analogy to spell and form high‐quality lexical representations in memory.Implementation of evidence‐based spelling instruction is challenging for teachers, and there is little research examining how popular commercial spelling programmes are used in classrooms. What this paper adds Classrooms engaged in small‐group spelling instruction included more teacher talk; classrooms engaged in individual instruction were highly differentiated; and classrooms engaged in whole‐group instruction included more student‐to‐student talk and engagement.Student data showed evidence of spelling by analogy, but students were less likely to spell more semantically challenging words correctly and made more errors in spelling those words, even when orthographic difficulty was held constant.The research–practice partnership allowed researchers to document and explain variability in spelling instruction and address teachers' questions about spelling development. Implications for theory, policy or practice Teachers adapt spelling instruction to address their priorities, and different organisational models prioritise direct instruction, differentiation, standards‐based content, or peer collaboration.The ability to analogise spelling patterns from known to unknown words may depend on linking orthographic knowledge to vocabulary knowledge.Teachers need support and community to implement and iterate best practices for spelling instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is now substantial evidence that language interventions delivered to small groups can be effective for improving language skills and hence strengthening the foundation for formal schooling. However, there are remaining challenges when delivering such interventions in naturalistic environments at scale. Method: We reflect on three randomised trials designed to evaluate the impact of an early years language programme, prior to the implementation of a large effectiveness trial, delivered in partnership with speech and language professionals. We consider findings within a framework from implementation science. Results: We found that, in contrast to policy‐led interventions for reading and mathematics, language interventions are not prioritised in mainstream settings. Aside from this, other obstacles to delivery were the time taken to prepare and to timetable sessions, lack of communication about the requirements of delivery and the need for language screening. Crucial to success was the support from the class teacher of teaching assistants delivering the intervention. However, feedback was largely positive from most stakeholders, and the intervention was found to have a positive impact on children's language with preliminary evidence for effects on behaviour and on reading comprehension. Conclusions: While many educators recognise the importance of language for communication, the benefits of oral language interventions are only recently becoming prioritised by policy‐makers. We propose that challenges to successful delivery and adoption of evidence‐based language interventions in mainstream settings can be remedied through better communication with stakeholders and collaboration between researchers and professional colleagues including senior leaders, teachers, teaching assistants, speech and language therapists and psychologists. It is imperative to take account of issues of implementation when designing an intervention and to do this successfully is a multidisciplinary enterprise. Highlights: What is already known about this topic Early language intervention is effective.Trials of language intervention show larger effect sizes if fidelity is good.Scaling up research‐led interventions is challenging. What this paper adds The paper provides an overview of three published trials and reflects on the issue of implementation at scale.The paper presents a schools' perspective on the qualitative findings from educational practitioners who delivered the intervention, based on questionnaires and interviews.The paper demonstrates how theoretically motivated interventions can be adapted for delivery at scale. Implications for theory, policy or practice Effective interventions need to be theoretically justified.Partnership between researchers and practice is essential to delivering sustainable interventions at scale.Children with language difficulties and disorders respond well to structured interventions delivered in mainstream schools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approaches to teacher professional development, such as learning designs (LDs), can facilitate primary school teachers' appropriation of literacy technology in the classroom. LDs are detailed learning activities and interventions designed by teachers to plan their use of technology. Methods: Using a creative design methodology to carry out a series of LD workshops with teachers, we aimed to understand how primary school teachers envision learning and teaching with two distinct technologies designed to support children's reading skills: a game and an e‐reader. Employing systematic qualitative content analysis, we compared LDs developed by teachers for each technology. Results: Our study shows that while principles of teacher instruction are consistently incorporated across the LDs, the design of each technology plays an important role in how teachers plan their students' learning and focal reading skills. Further, teachers' perception of the technology is as important as the features of the design. Compared with the e‐reader, the game is perceived as an individual practice activity with less opportunities to learn with peers. Finally, across both technologies, teachers envision supporting additional literacy skills, beyond those designed in the technology, highlighting the importance of explicitly facilitating LDs intended to foster within‐subject learning. Conclusions: These findings raise a new set of considerations on how to support teachers to design literacy learning and teaching activities with technology, and also offer a new methodological approach to facilitate LDs in future research and teacher training. Highlights: What is already known about this topicProfessional development supports teachers to appropriate literacy technologies in the classroom.The learning design approach has been shown to facilitate professional development by placing teachers in the role of the designer.The learning design approach can support and complement existing pedagogical approaches in the classroom, as well as to foster socio‐constructivist learning. What this paper addsIn the context of literacy, teachers rely on the learning aims of the technology and its pedagogical approach to determine how and what their students will learn.Teachers embed learning with peers when the technology aligns with existing social practice in the classroom.Teachers reappropriate literacy technology designed to support reading skills to extend into other literacy skills, such as writing and oral language. Implications for theory, policy or practiceThe paper offers a learning design methodology to support teachers in creating activities that integrate literacy technologies in the classroom.The methodology includes strategies that support teachers to embed learning with peers alongside reflecting a broad coverage of literacy learning objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Developmental language disorder (DLD) and dyslexia are common but under‐identified conditions that affect children's ability to read and comprehend text. Universal screening is a promising solution for improving under‐identification of DLD and dyslexia; however, we lack evidence for how to effectively implement and sustain screening procedures in schools. In the current study, we solicited input from educators in the United States around perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of researcher‐developed screeners for DLD and dyslexia. Using thematic analysis, we identified barriers and facilitators within five domains: (1) features of the screeners, (2) preparation for screening procedures, (3) administration of the screeners, (4) demands on users and (5) screening results. We discuss these findings and ways we can continue improving our efforts to maximise the contextual fit and utility of screening practices in schools. Highlights: What is already known about this topicDLD and dyslexia are common but under‐identified disorders.Universal screening can improve under‐identification of DLD and dyslexia. What this paper addsThis paper presents useful information about contextual and process factors that may facilitate or hinder implementation of universal screening for DLD and dyslexia in schools. Implications for theory, policy or practiceThis paper is an important starting point in understanding what it takes to implement universal screening for DLD and dyslexia in schools. Our findings offer several suggestions of contextual and process factors that might influence the implementation trajectory. They also highlight the importance of leveraging educators' knowledge of routine practice to improve uptake of evidence‐based programmes for children with DLD and dyslexia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reading Rescue (Reading Rescue), a research and evidence‐based programme for struggling readers (Ehri et al., 2007; Miles et al., 2018), was developed by an academic in response to the cost and lack of explicit letter, phonemic awareness and phonics instruction in Reading Recovery. Reading Rescue represents a pathway from research to practice. An academic advisor works closely with the nonacademic partner that trains school staff to deliver the programme in order to maintain alignment of the curriculum with research from the reading science field. In this study, the academic and nonacademic partner evaluated the effectiveness of small‐group delivery of Reading Rescue, which has previously only been evaluated in a one‐to‐one delivery mode. This study therefore provides an illustration of how academics and practitioners can work together to achieve practical outcomes. This study compared the performance of two cohorts (N = 146; 104) of randomly assigned first‐graders who received 50 sessions of Reading Rescue in a one‐to‐one or a small group setting compared with a control group. Results showed that intervention groups outperformed the control group (for most associations, p <.05) and performed similarly to each other (for most associations, p >.05), suggesting the small group protocol is as effective as one‐to‐one, enabling the programme to serve substantially more students. Discussion focuses on the importance of collaboration between academics and practitioners in expanding the reach of evidence‐based programmes. The collaboration in this study serves as a model for how academics, and practitioners can join forces and leverage their expertise to reach more students. Highlights: What is already known about this topic A need for strong academic–nonacademic partnerships is essential for translating science of reading findings into effective and manageable instructional approaches (Seidenberg et al., 2020; Solari et al., 2020)Ehri et al. (2007) demonstrated that students who received Reading Rescue outperformed students who received an alternative intervention, as well students in the control group. Also, Miles et al. (2018) found that Reading Rescue continued to be effective even after the programme had expanded substantially across a large metropolitan area.The National Reading Panel (2000) and other studies have demonstrated that depending on the format, small group instruction has the potential to be just as effective, if not more effective, for students learning certain foundational skills, but other reviews of the research (Neitzel et al., 2021) have suggested that small group instruction is either not as effective or less effective than individual instruction. More research is needed directly comparing two versions of the same programme. What this paper adds This paper examines whether the small group version of the programme, designed and implemented with strong academic oversight, is as effective as the one‐to‐one version of the programme.This paper demonstrates that a strong partnership between academics and nonacademics can be mutually beneficial, resulting in expanded reach of evidence‐based programmes.An explanation of the roles, traits and contributions that academics, non academics and stakeholders played in this study may serve to guide future partnerships. Implications for theory, policy or practice This collaboration serves as an illustration of how to best leverage academic and practitioner skills to create, adjust and evaluate programmes to reach more students.This study also serves as a guide for how policy makers and administrators can engage with academics and literacy programmes to provide resources, guidance and opportunities to do more with evidence‐based programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This case study examined the consequences of a literacy initiative designed to improve writing instruction for a high school under pressure to increase standardised test scores or face government oversight. Realities of underperforming schools, such as interruptions to instructional time, a focus on formulaic essay writing and decontextualised grammar skills, high teacher turnover, and a disproportionately large percentage of students with low ability levels, impact the implementation and sustainability of research‐based practices. Thus, we embarked on a school‐university partnership designed to overcome these barriers. We co‐constructed research to determine the effectiveness of an instructional framework designed by the school's instructional coach (a teacher educator hired by the school district responsible for enacting literacy reform and providing professional development) and her work with four ninth‐grade and tenth‐grade English teachers (Years 10 and 11) in the United States. This engaged scholarship process empowered teachers and the instructional coach to make changes in their approach to writing instruction. Methods: Our case study used the following data sources: teacher and student interviews, professional development and classroom observations, student writing attitude surveys and analyses of student writing. We utilised grounded theory to determine changes in classroom practice and students' academic growth. Results: Our study revealed strengths of the professional development regarding classroom management and student writing dispositions. Yet it also illuminated problems such as continued emphasis on reading instruction, limited opportunities for student choice and lack of writing strategies that transferred to composing extended text. Conclusion: These results raised critical questions, which aided the instructional coach in refining professional development for writing instruction. Highlights: What is already known about this topicBest practices in writing instruction emphasise the need for varied, authentic, relevant and purposeful writing for adolescents. Yet pressures of high‐stakes testing often result in rudimentary writing practices. Teachers in struggling schools are more closely monitored than those in schools which achieve adequate yearly progress. Teachers feel pressure to teach formulaic essay writing and decontextualised grammar skills.Single‐subject and small‐group research designs measured the impact of professional development and instructional initiatives on the writing proficiency of adolescent writers in the short term. These designs are predicated on literacy programmes where researchers provide writing intervention services with the goal of transforming teacher practice.Researchers note that the pressures of testing affect the sustainability of interventions designed to transform teacher practice. In other words, upon conclusion of professional development, teachers revert back to practices they believe will directly affect their students' performance on standardised assessments. What this paper addsThis study adds to research investigating how literacy initiatives utilising elements of engaged scholarship can enable sustainable teacher transformation concerning adolescent writing instruction. Engaged scholarship is collaborative, change‐oriented research that address a community‐identified need. We argue that the shift towards engaged scholarship allowed for a balancing of power, as all stakeholders had a say in the design of the research. Posing critical questions based on the results of our data helped the instructional coach see that more authentic and process‐oriented approaches were needed to increase test scores. This shift towards engaged scholarship allowed the instructional coach to participate more in the design of the research and permitted us to provide input that infused writing instruction into classrooms. This case study speaks to the larger context of how high‐stakes testing has affected writing instruction in 'struggling' secondary English programmes.Our study demonstrates why collaboration of teachers and researchers for meaningful impact (student achievement) is critical for 'underperforming' schools contending with the pressures of testing. Implications for theory, policy and practiceOur work highlights elements of literacy initiatives that help underperforming schools improve adolescent writing achievement. This study provides insights into partnerships that close the theory‐research gap to transform adolescent writing instruction for culturally and linguistically marginalised adolescents, students who have been traditionally disenfranchised by public education.This study also rejects the role of literacy researchers in school‐university partnerships as 'external' experts by inviting school partners to be researchers themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]