Applying reading research

T h o m a s Ba ke r
c h i l E

Applying Reading Research
to the Development of an
Integrated Lesson Plan

W
hat can you do when brings together methods from differ-
your English language ent perspectives. Finally, I will present
students are poor read- an integrated lesson plan that I believe
ers? I asked myself this question after can be adapted to benefit students of
half my sixth grade class in Santiago, all levels.
Chile failed a reading test. For many
Approaches to reading
students, reading is not only a prob-
instruction
lem in their second language (L2);
Any investigation into reading
it is also a problem in their first lan-
pedagogy will encounter a long-term
guage (L1). For example, 15-year-old
debate about two opposite approach-
Chilean students have poor reading
es to help children learn to read.
skills in their L1 when compared
Although there are variations of these
with their peers in other countries
two approaches, the extremes are
(OECD/UNESCO-UIS 2003). This
represented as whole language versus
data is troubling because the lack of
phonics.
literacy and poor reading ability pre-
vents individuals from participating in The whole language approach to
society (August and Shanahan 2006a; reading
OECD/UNESCO-UIS 2003). Goodman (1967) became a propo-
These facts prompted me to reflect nent for the whole language approach
on my own teaching practice and to when he claimed that beginning read-
review the research on reading peda- ers needed little direct instruction to
gogy in L1 and English as a second or decode the letters and sounds of the
foreign language (ESL or EFL) con- language. He believed that learners
texts. In this article I will discuss some have the ability to decode the let-
major trends in reading instruction, ters, syllables, words, and phrases as
including an integrated approach that they read meaningful texts by making

22 2008 N u m b e r 1 | E n g l i s h T E a c h i n g F o r u m

inferences about the linguistic data. This They stated that synthetic phonics instruction
process, which he called a “psycholinguistic “led to children from lower socio-economic
guessing game,” necessarily involved risk-tak- backgrounds performing at the same level as
ing and miscues, but he claimed it allowed children from advantaged backgrounds” and
students to become proficient readers and “to boys performing better than or as well as
users of the language. girls” (Johnston and Watson 2005, 8).
Whole language became a comprehensive
way to teach reading and other language skills Phonics and different languages
with concrete suggestions for how teachers In spite of positive results, many research-
can deal with instructional, psychological, ers have suggested that the English sound sys-
and institutional factors. For the whole lan- tem is too irregular for the teaching of phonics
guage approach, it is essential to provide a to be practical. English has 26 letters, approxi-
literate classroom environment with a wide mately 44 phonemes, and a large number of
variety of relevant texts that are attractive graphemes, which are a letter or combination
to learners. Even though students will make of letters that represents a phoneme. Many
mistakes in word recognition, spelling, and English phonemes are represented by differ-
pronunciation, they eventually will be able to ent graphemes that are pronounced identi-
create meaning out of words and sentences by cally, while other phonemes are represented
using textual cues and their own background by identical graphemes that are pronounced
knowledge to figure them out. differently. For example, the phoneme /f/ is
The phonics approach to reading spelled differently in the words fox, elephant,
Supporters of the phonics approach, also and rough, and the grapheme “ea” in the
referred to as a skills-based approach, point to words dear and pear has two different pro-
research showing that children benefit from nunciations. These issues make English words
direct instruction about the letters, syllables, notoriously difficult for beginners to spell
and corresponding sounds of English (Rose and pronounce and can interfere with word
2006; Johnston and Watson 2003). There- recognition.
fore, the phonics approach claims that reading In contrast, Spanish uses 30 letters—
instruction should start with the most basic five vowels, 22 single consonants and three
components of words, which are the letters of digraphs (ll, rr, ch)—to represent the 28
the alphabet and phonemes (speech sounds). phonemes of the language (Ijalba and Con-
As they practice, students blend individual ner 2006). The one-to-one correspondence
sounds into words and are ultimately able to between the letters of Spanish and its sounds
recognize and pronounce them in a reading make it a highly transparent language. Thus,
text. decoding can be learned more rapidly in
Many studies have indicated positive results Spanish than in English.
from skills-based instruction. For example, in
An integrated approach to reading
a study conducted in Scotland, researchers
instruction
found beneficial results from teaching syn-
thetic phonics, or the explicit instruction of Because of the importance of reading,
letter sounds and how to pronounce words by many countries in recent years have com-
sounding out and blending all the letters. In missioned studies to compile and analyze
the study, approximately 300 first grade stu- research and provide recommendations on
dents of different genders and socio-economic how to improve instruction. Among these
backgrounds were taught to read using analyt- countries are Australia (Australian Govern-
ic and synthetic phonics for 20 minutes a day ment Department of Education, Science and
over a period of sixteen weeks. At the end of Training 2005), New Zealand (Literacy Task-
the first year, the synthetic phonics group was force 1999), the United States (National
performing the best. The progress of 95 boys Reading Panel 2000), and Ireland (Eivers et
and 85 girls was then monitored over a seven- al. 2005). The final reports on the studies are
year period, after which researchers concluded notable because their recommendations com-
that the positive effects of synthetic phonics bine elements of both the whole language and
were sustained over the duration of the study. phonics approaches.

E n g l i s h T E a c h i n g F o r u m | Number 1 2008 23

A trend towards this type of integrated studies. In 2000 it released a report that
approach is clearly represented in the Chil- examined the five components of reading
ean educational system, as is recognized by discussed below.
Mabel Condemarín, winner of the Chilean 1. Phonemic Awareness is the ability to
National Prize for Education 2003, who notice, think about, and manipulate the
emphasizes the need to unite contribu- individual sounds in spoken words. For
tions from the whole language and pho- example, below is a basic activity to make
nics approaches into an integrated approach students aware of different sounds in Eng-
(Condemarín, Galdames, and Medina 1995; lish words.
Alliende and Condemarín 2002). Further-
more, in a description of first grade reading, Question Answer
the Ministerio de Educación de Chile (2007,
5) states that the most productive strate- What is the first sound of the word hat? h
gies to allow children to read various texts What is the last sound of the word map? p
independently and with comprehension will ˆ
What is the middle sound of the word top? o
“integrate the contributions of the whole
language model, which promotes immersion Add an “s” to the end of top. tops
in a world of print, with the contributions Put the “s” in front of top. stop
of the skills model.” Some whole language
Replace the “t” in the word stop with an “h.”
strategies mentioned include (1) creating shop
a lettered classroom, (2) practicing silent,
sustained reading, (3) taking a reading walk, 2. Phonics is instruction that teaches
and (4) examining a variety of authentic the relationship between letters and/or
texts relevant to the child’s world (Minis- graphemes and phonemes. For example,
terio de Educación de Chile 2007). How- the word “cat” would be pronounced: /k/
ever, research and teaching practice shows + /æ/ + /t/ = /kæt/ Students are taught to
how “only one model does not favor the pronounce words by sounding out and
development of reading,” and that immer- blending all the letters. The National
sion should be combined, especially in first Reading Panel (2000, 10) found “that
grade, with “strategies designed to develop explicit, systematic phonics instruction is
phonemic awareness and the discovery of a valuable and essential part of a classroom
the relationship between the sounds of words reading program.”
and the patterns of letters, as this helps the
majority of children to decode the meaning 3. Fluency is the ability to read a text
of texts” (Ministerio de Educación de Chile accurately, smoothly, and rapidly with
2007, 5). proper expression. The NRP found that
fluency is often neglected in the classroom,
The National Reading Panel and that guided, repeated oral reading
In 1997, the U.S. National Institute of with feedback is effective. Other tech-
Child Health and Human Development niques to promote fluency include Exten-
(NICHD) convened an influential group of sive Reading (ER) and Repeated Reading
experts to assess different approaches used to (RR). With ER, students read a variety
teach children to read. The National Reading of texts that are interesting to them and
Panel (NRP), as it was called, was directed to at the right level. With RR, learners read
report on the research, indicate if it could be a specific passage several times in order
applied in the classroom, and, if appropriate, to increase their word recognition and
present “a strategy for rapidly disseminating comprehension; both ER and RR can
this information to facilitate effective reading result in increased fluency and enjoyment
instruction in the schools” (National Reading of reading (Taguchi, Takayasu-Maass, and
Panel 2000, 1). Gorsuch 2004).
The NRP reviewed scientific, evidence- 4. Vocabulary is knowledge of words and
based research that met rigorous method- is required to communicate effectively and
ological standards while excluding qualitative understand a text. According to Nation

24 2008 Number 1 | E n g l i s h T E a c h i n g F o r u m

(2001), it takes five to sixteen meetings of language teaching methodology texts such as
a new word before it can be learned. Nagy Omaggio (1986).
(2005) has identified five components of In the United States, where minority lan-
effective vocabulary instruction: guage students generally underperform in
1. Wide reading school, a large amount of research has been
2. Developing word consciousness in conducted to learn how to help them achieve
students in reading and other English language skills.
3. Use of high-quality oral language in Between 1979 and 2005, “the number of
the classroom school-age children (ages 5–17) who spoke a
4. Direct teaching of specific words language other than English at home increased
5. Modeling independent word learn- from 3.8 million to 10.6 million, or from 9 to
ing strategies 20 percent of the population in this age range”
(National Center for Education Statistics
5. Comprehension is the understanding 2007). August and Shanahan (2006b) report
of what is being read, and it is the ultimate that in 2004 five times as many students with
goal of reading. The National Reading limited English ability failed to complete high
Panel (2000) identified seven strategies to school than did students who used English at
enhance reading comprehension:
home. This educational disparity affects these
1. Comprehension monitoring students’ ability to learn to read and write
2. Cooperative learning proficiently, and therefore prohibits them
3. Use of graphic and semantic from fully participating in American society
organizers (August and Shanahan 2006a).
4. Question generation In response to this disparity, the U.S.
5. Question answering Department of Education created the Nation-
6. Story structure al Literacy Panel (NLP) in 2002 and directed
7. Summarizing it to “identify, assess, and synthesize research
After the NRP released its report, several on the education of language minority chil-
researchers and practitioners expressed their dren and youth with regard to literacy attain-
concern over the narrow point of view and ment and to produce a comprehensive report”
exclusion of alternate research and qualitative (August and Shanahan 2006b, 2). In addition
studies (Yatvin 2000; Pressley 2001, 2006; to recommending many aspects of an inte-
International Reading Association 2006). As a grative approach to reading instruction, the
result, qualitative instructional practices relat- final NLP report underscored the importance
ing to classroom organization, motivation and of oral proficiency (August and Shanahan
engagement, differentiated instruction, oral 2006a). Students with oral proficiency in a
language, writing, and expert tutoring were second language will be better able to transfer
recommended by the International Reading their linguistic knowledge and vocabulary to
Association (2006) to be added to the five new situations and contexts (Omaggio 1986).
components of reading instruction identified Therefore, stricter attention to oral skills is an
by the NRP. In conjunction with the NRP’s essential component to an integrated approach
actual findings, these new recommendations to reading for ESL and EFL students.
offer more possibilities to make reading instruc-
tion more comprehensive and integrative. Reading progress and the Matthew
Effect
Reading instruction for second language After reviewing my course textbook, I real-
learners ized that it used the whole language model
The National Reading Panel (2000) did almost exclusively. The reading strategies of
not focus on reading for ESL or EFL students. skimming, scanning, and prediction are rou-
However, most of the reading instruction tinely taught. However, the textbook does not
techniques and activities from an L1 inte- include any direct instruction in the five com-
grated approach are applicable to L2 learn- ponents of reading identified by the National
ers and are a recognizable part of ESL and Reading Panel (2000). When faced with
EFL instruction, as can be seen from second unknown vocabulary in context, half of my


students were unable to make the contextual You can steer yourself
guesses necessary to adequately comprehend any direction you choose.
the reading text. As a result, half of my stu-
dents were losing the “psycholinguistic guess- You’re on your own. And you know what
ing game” described by Goodman (1967). you know.
My students had been left to the mercy And YOU are the guy who’ll decide where
of the Matthew Effect described by Stanovich to go.
(1986), which refers to a biblical parable in
Oh, the places you’ll go!
Matthew 25:29: “For to all those who have,
more will be given, and they will have an
References
abundance; but from those who have nothing,
Alliende, F., and M. Condemarín. 2002. La lectura:
even what they have will be taken away.” In Teoría, evaluación y desarrollo [Reading: Theory,
the Matthew Effect the good reader gets better evaluation and development]. 8th ed. Santiago,
and the poor reader gets worse. How? When Chile: Andrés Bello.
someone likes to read, they read more. Conse- August, D., and T. Shanahan, eds. 2006a. Develop-
quently, they gain vocabulary and practice in ing literacy in second-language learners: Report of
the National Literacy Panel on language minor-
fluent, automatic reading. Reading gets easier
ity children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
with practice. This virtuous cycle then repeats Erlbaum.
itself. On the other hand, when someone –––. 2006b. Introduction and methodology. In
struggles with reading or does not like to read, Developing literacy in second-language learners:
they read less. As a result, they do not gain Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-
minority children and youth, ed. D. August and
vocabulary or practice in fluent, automatic
T. Shanahan, 1–42. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
reading. This lack of reading practice makes Erlbaum.
reading even more difficult. This vicious cycle Australian Government Department of Education,
then repeats itself (Stanovich 1986, 364). Science and Training 2005. Teaching reading—
To circumvent the Matthew Effect and Report and recommendations: National inquiry
improve reading ability for all of my stu- into the teaching of literacy. Canberra: Australian
Government Department of Education, Science
dents, I created an integrated lesson plan (see and Training.
Appendix) that included the five components Condemarín, M., V. Galdames, and A. Medina.
of reading specified by the National Reading 1995. Lenguaje integrado: Manual de apoyo a los
Panel (2000). I also incorporated opportuni- talleres de perfeccionamiento de profesores de 1er
ties for students to participate in meaningful ciclo básico [Whole language: Support manual
for the professional development workshop for
conversation with each other as recommended first grade elementary teachers]. Santiago, Chile:
by the National Literacy Panel (August and Ministerio de Educación.
Shanahan 2006a) and others (Eivers et al. Eivers, E., G. Shiel, R. Perkins, and J. Cosgrove.
2005; Omaggio 1986). 2005. Succeeding in reading? Reading standards
in Irish primary schools. Dublin: Department of
Conclusion Education and Science.
Goodman, K., 1967. Reading: A psycholinguistic
By keeping abreast of new developments in guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist
reading, teachers can improve their practice, as I 6 (4): 126–35.
did by researching the topic and developing an Ijalba, E., and P. S. Conner. 2006. Multisensory
integrated lesson plan that is based on methods identification-remediation of phonological-
that have demonstrated positive results. The orthographic deficits in Spanish speakers learning
English. Paper presented at the annual conven-
lesson plan engaged my students in reading tion of the American Speech-Language-Hearing
and helped them understand what they read. Association, Miami.
Their grades improved so that by the end of International Reading Association. 2006. A call to
the semester no one was failing. They became action and a framework for change: IRA’s position
self-motivated readers, and many began to read on NCLB reform. Washington DC: Interna-
tional Reading Association. http://www.reading.
books on their own outside of class, for plea- org/downloads/resources/0608_NCLB_frame-
sure. Most importantly, they discovered that work.pdf
Dr. Seuss (1990) was right when he said: Johnston, R. S., and J. E. Watson. 2003. Accelerat-
ing reading and spelling with synthetic phonics:
You have brains in your head. A five year follow up. Insight 4. Edinburgh:
You have feet in your shoes Scottish Executive Education Department.


–––. 2005. A seven year study of the effects of National Reading Conference. Chicago: Nation-
synthetic phonics teaching on reading and spell- al Reading Conference.
ing attainment. Insight 17. Edinburgh: Scottish –––. 2006. What the future of reading research
Executive Education Department. could be. Paper presented at International Read-
Literacy Taskforce. 1999. Report of the Literacy ing Association Reading Research 2006, Chi-
Taskforce. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry cago.
of Education. Rose, J., 2006. Independent review of the teaching of
Ministerio de Educación de Chile. 2007. Prim- early reading: Final report. London: Department
er año básico: Lenguaje y comunicación [First for Education and Skills.
grade elementary: Language and communica- Seuss, Dr. 1960. Green eggs and ham. New York:
tion]. Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Educación. Random House.
http://www.mineduc.cl/doc_planesprog/1B02_ –––. 1990. Oh, the places you’ll go! New York: Ran-
Lenguaje.pdf. dom House.
Nagy, W. 2005. Why vocabulary instruction needs Stanovich, K. E. 1986. Matthew effects in reading:
to be long-term and comprehensive. In Teach- Some consequences of individual differences
ing and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research
practice, ed. E. Hiebert and M. Kamil, 27–44. Quarterly 21 (4): 360–407.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Taguchi, E., M. Takayasu-Maass, and G. J. Gor-
Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another such. 2004. Developing reading fluency in EFL:
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University How assisted repeated reading and extensive
Press. reading affect fluency development. Reading in
National Center for Education Statistics. 2007. Par- a Foreign Language 16 (2): 70–96.
ticipation in education: Elementary/secondary Yatvin, J. 2000. Minority view. In Report of the
education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department National Reading Panel—Teaching children to
of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/ read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific
coe/2007/section1/indicator06.asp. research literature on reading and its implications
National Reading Panel. 2000. Report of the Nation- for reading instruction, National Reading Panel,
al Reading Panel—Teaching children to read: An 1–6. Washington, DC: National Institute of
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research Child Health and Human Development. http://
literature on reading and its implications for www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/upload/
reading instruction. Washington, DC: National minorityView.pdf.
Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment. http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/
nrp/smallbook.cfm.
OECD/UNESCO-UIS. 2003. Literacy skills for
the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA
Thomas Baker is an International House
2000. Paris: OECD/UNESCO.
Omaggio, A. 1986. Teaching language in context: CELTA-qualified teacher who has taught
Proficiency-oriented instruction. Boston: Heinle EFL in Chile for seven years. He currently
and Heinle. teaches at the Colegio del Verbo Divino and
Pressley, M. 2001. Effective beginning reading at the Instituto Chileno Británico de Cultura
instruction: A paper commissioned by the in Santiago.

Do You Like Green Eggs and Ham?
An Integrated Lesson Plan for Reading
Applying Reading Research to the Development of an Integrated Lesson Plan • Thomas Baker

Purpose
I recommend this lesson plan for teachers who want to improve their students’ reading compre-
hension. Beyond that, it will also positively affect students’ enjoyment of reading. It can be easily
adapted to almost any teaching situation. For each activity I note the skills that are developed, includ-
ing oral proficiency and the following components from the National Reading Panel (2000):
• Phonemic awareness is evident when students can identify words that rhyme. In writing their
own new ending that rhymes, they manipulate sounds and create rhymes of their own.
• Phonics is evident when students learn the sounds that vowel combinations make and then
apply them to decode unknown words.


Do You Like Green Eggs and Ham? (continued)

• Fluency is developed by the repeated reading of the story. Students read the story several
times, each time with a different purpose. This builds their ability to automatically recognize
words on sight without sounding them out. Additionally, students practice with sight words
to build speed of recognition.
• Vocabulary knowledge appears in the read aloud/think aloud activity, and the teacher shows
students how good readers learn vocabulary in context by verbalizing thoughts. Additionally,
students use the vocabulary of the story when summarizing, retelling, and writing. Concrete
vocabulary is consolidated when students draw pictures to provide a visual representation of
the words in the story.
• Comprehension is enhanced in the read aloud/think aloud activity. The teacher demon-
strates how to make, confirm, and refute predictions, summarize while reading, monitor
understanding while reading, visualize, make personal connections to the story, and develop
word consciousness by focusing on how words are used and the sounds they make, such as
the rhyme and rhythm of the iambic pentameter used by Dr. Seuss (1960). In addition, the
Reader’s Theater frees students to interpret and express their own meaning through the use
of their voice and gestures.
Total Time: 80 minutes (2 class periods of 40 minutes each)
Materials
• Handout/Storybook: Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss (1960)
• CD or tape-recording of Green Eggs and Ham
• CD or tape player
Three presentations (presentations can be done with PowerPoint, overheads, drawings,
magazine cutouts, index cards, or an actor)
1. Green Eggs and Ham story (also downloaded Google images, drawings, realia)
2. Dr. Seuss biography (birthplace, childhood, family, marriage, career, death)
3. Sight words and Fry Phrases (index cards, chalkboard or whiteboard, paper)
First Class: (40 minutes)
Pre-reading (15 minutes)
Skills developed: Vocabulary, Comprehension, Oral Proficiency
1. Activate Prior Knowledge
a. Write the word egg on the board. Ask students in pairs to draw a spidergram with the
word egg in the center. Students make as many connections as possible.
b. Pair and Share: Each pair shares their spidergram with another pair.
c. Change Pairs and Repeat.
d. New pairs. Write the word ham on the board. Repeat steps a, b, and c.
e. Pairwork. Turn and Talk:
• “Have you ever tried to give someone something they didn’t want?”
• “Has anyone ever tried to give you something you didn’t want?”
2. Prediction Activity
a. Write the words green eggs and ham on the board. Ask students to make two predictions
about the story.
b. Pair and Share: Students discuss their predictions in pairs.
During Reading (15 minutes)
Skills developed: Vocabulary, Comprehension, Fluency, Oral Proficiency
3. Read Aloud/Think Aloud (Teacher reads text aloud and students read silently)
a. Teacher models fluent reading: Reads with rhythm, rate, intonation and expression.
b. Teacher thinks aloud periodically to show what a good reader does when a story does


Do You Like Green Eggs and Ham? (continued)

not make sense. Some examples include: reread or summarize parts; use story structure;
use pictures, maps, graphs, charts, and examples; personalize the story; guess at mean-
ings using prefixes, suffixes, root words, synonyms, and antonyms.
c. Teacher asks students to predict, summarize, retell, and visualize.
d. Students confirm predictions and make new predictions.
e. Teacher asks questions using: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? What if...?
Post-reading (10 minutes)
Skills developed: Vocabulary, Comprehension, Oral Proficiency, Phonemic Awareness
4. Teacher wraps up 40-minute class period
a. Students share their personal reaction to the story in pairs.
b. Plenary: Teacher asks students to share reactions with the whole class.
c. Teacher assigns homework from the list below:
1. Reread the story. Make a list of all the words that rhyme, such as boat/goat,
house/mouse, and train/rain.
2. Write a letter to the author. Tell him your opinion of the story.
3. List at least three ways to make green eggs. (Interview parents or use Internet
or encyclopedia.)
4. Draw all of the characters or objects mentioned in the story.
Second Class (40 minutes)
Post-reading (continued from previous class)
Skills developed: Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Vocabulary, Fluency, Oral Proficiency,
Comprehension
5. Students turn in homework (1 minute)
6. Retell Story in pairs (2 minutes). One student retells the story; the other summarizes the
retold story.
7. Shared Reading (7 minutes). All students read along aloud with CD recording of story (pos-
sibly set to music).
8. Use PowerPoint, overheads, drawings, magazine cutouts (7 minutes).
a. Share Dr. Seuss biography with students.
b. Use PowerPoint, overheads, or flash cards to practice sight words and Fry phrases.
c. Teacher asks students to find all words that rhyme and circle vowel combinations.
Teacher tells student to ask their partners about the sounds that oa, ou, ai, make.
d. Complete the rhyming rule:
When two vowels go walking, the first one does the __________. (talking)
When o goes walking with u, the rule isn’t always _________! (true)
9. Repeated Reading Role Play (7 minutes)
a. Divide the class in half.
b. Half the class is A; the other half is B. Read in character and use appropriate expression.
c. Change roles. Repeat same as above.
10. Reader’s Theater. Students read from a text while performing the story. Lines are not memo-
rized. (14 minutes)
a. Students perform Green Eggs and Ham in pairs.
b. Teacher and students give Oscars for outstanding performances.
11. Teacher assigns homework from list below (2 minutes)
a. Write a new ending for the story. The ending must rhyme.
b. Write a paragraph about the character you liked most in the story and explain why. How
are you similar or different from this character?


Applying reading research

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Applying reading research (20)

More from Baker Publishing Company (20)

Applying reading research