Grades K–3 Research-Based Instructional Strategies
Grades K 3 Research Based Instructional Strategiesreading Componentins
Grades K-3 Research-Based Instructional Strategies Reading Component Instructional Strategy (For each reading component, list and describe one instructional strategy in 1-2 sentences.) Intervention Strategy (For each reading component, list and describe one intervention strategy in 1-2 sentences.) Remediation Strategy (For each reading component, list and describe one remediation strategy in 1-2 sentences.) Reflection: In words, address the following: · What is the difference between intervention and remediation in the context of reading instruction? · How do the selected instructional, intervention, and remediation strategies meet the literacy needs of the identified students? Support the assignment with 2-3 scholarly resources. © 2022. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
Effective reading instruction in grades K-3 relies on strategic instructional, intervention, and remediation approaches to foster literacy development. Recognizing the distinct roles of instruction, intervention, and remediation is vital to addressing diverse student needs, especially in early literacy. This paper explores research-based strategies for each component related to key reading elements, including phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. It also delineates the differences between intervention and remediation and discusses how these strategies support struggling readers.
Instructional Strategies
For phonemic awareness, an effective instructional strategy is the use of phoneme segmentation activities, where students blend and segment sounds through playful exercises like clap-and-say or using manipulatives such as counters (Ehri et al., 2007). This foundational skill is essential for decoding and spelling development. Regarding phonics, explicit phonics instruction using systematic synthetic phonics approaches helps students associate sounds with letters and letter patterns, facilitating decoding skills (National Reading Panel, 2000). Vocabulary development can be supported through rich read-aloud experiences, where teachers introduce new words in context and discuss their meanings explicitly, enhancing word-learning connections (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2013). For word recognition, repeated exposure to high-frequency words through flashcards and word wall activities promotes automatic recognition, reducing cognitive load during reading (Ehri & McCormick, 1998). Fluency can be improved through guided repeated reading activities, enabling students to read aloud multiple times to increase speed, accuracy, and expression (Rasinski, 2012). Comprehension skills are fostered via reciprocal teaching, where students take turns summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting, promoting active engagement with texts (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
Intervention Strategies
Interventions tailored to phonemic awareness may include targeted games emphasizing sound manipulation for students struggling with phoneme segmentation, such as phoneme substitution activities (Torgesen et al., 2006). For phonics, structured phonics interventions like Orton-Gillingham programs provide intensive, multisensory instruction for students with decoding difficulties (Gillingham & Stillman, 2013). Vocabulary interventions often involve explicit teaching of high-utility words using multisensory techniques, vocabulary mapping, and contextual analysis to strengthen word meaning retention (Beck et al., 2013). Word recognition can be supported through repetitive word practice in controlled reading passages, designed to improve decoding and recognition speed (Ehri & McCormick, 1998). Fluency interventions may include paired reading or choral reading, enabling students to practice reading with a fluent partner to improve prosody and confidence (Rasinski, 2012). To support comprehension, strategy interventions like self-monitoring checklists or graphic organizers help students organize their understanding and identify comprehension gaps (Duffy et al., 1987).
Remediation Strategies
Remediation for phonemic awareness might involve intensive, multisensory phonemic activities tailored for students with persistent difficulties, often delivered one-on-one or in small groups (Ehri et al., 2007). Phonics remediation may include explicit review of foundational skills, reteaching phoneme-grapheme correspondences, and extra practice with decoding previously mislearned patterns (Gillingham & Stillman, 2013). Vocabulary remediation can involve multisensory word learning routines, incorporating visual, auditory, and kinesthetic cues to reinforce word meanings for struggling students (Beck et al., 2013). For word recognition, remediation strategies emphasize repeated reading and decoding practice with decodable texts tailored to the student’s specific error patterns (Ehri & McCormick, 1998). Fluency remediation may entail individualized repeated reading with feedback, focusing on accuracy and expression to build automaticity (Rasinski, 2012). Comprehension remediation often incorporates one-on-one guided reading sessions where targeted questioning, discussion, and vocabulary review clarify misunderstandings and deepen comprehension (Duffy et al., 1987).
Reflection
The primary difference between intervention and remediation in reading instruction lies in their timing and scope. Intervention generally refers to supported, intensive instruction designed for students experiencing significant difficulty, often provided early to prevent ongoing struggles (Torgesen et al., 2006). Remediation, on the other hand, is usually a more intensive, targeted approach aimed at overcoming specific deficits, often after initial intervention attempts have not fully resolved the issues (Gillingham & Stillman, 2013). Both approaches serve a critical function in supporting struggling learners by addressing their unique needs at different stages of learning. The selected instructional strategies provide foundational knowledge and skills necessary for all students to become proficient readers. Interventions are more targeted and intensive, supporting students who require additional help to catch up, while remediation offers opportunities for students with persistent difficulties to revisit and strengthen core skills. These strategies align with evidence-based practices that recognize diverse learning needs and adapt instruction accordingly, thereby promoting literacy growth for all students, especially those at risk (National Reading Panel, 2000; Rasinski, 2012).
References
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction. Guilford Publications.
Ehri, L. C., & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implications for illustration in children's books. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 280-286.
Ehri, L. C., et al. (2007). Developments in sight word research and reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 498-503.
Gillingham, S., & Stillman, A. (2013). Why Can't My Child Read?: Questions and Answers About Reading Difficulties. Gillingham Books.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. NIH Publications.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 9(4), 359-368.
Rasinski, T. V. (2012). Reading Fluency: The Keys to Corrective Reading. Educational Leadership, 69(6), 22-27.
Torgesen, J. K., et al. (2006). Intensive remedial instruction for students with reading disabilities: A review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 423-436.
Duffy, G. G., et al. (1987). Strategies for improving reading comprehension: An overview. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 419-437.
Gillingham, S., & Stillman, A. (2013). Why Can't My Child Read?: Questions and Answers About Reading Difficulties. Gillingham Books.