Author: tmmd Page 1 of 3

This resource library brings together the key readings, reports, tools, videos, podcasts, and professional texts that shaped this middle years literacy hub. Together, these sources support evidence-based literacy instruction that is explicit, inclusive, knowledge-rich, and responsive to diverse learners. I have organized them alphabetically so they are easier to browse, revisit, and use in future planning.

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.
I keep coming back to this as one of those foundational texts that helps explain how reading actually gets built over time. Even though it is focused on early literacy, it still matters in the middle years because so many older struggling readers are still missing pieces from those early stages. It reminds me that reading problems in adolescence do not appear out of nowhere, they usually have roots.

Ahn, S. K., & Jang, L. (2025). Inequitable learning environments from the lens of emergent multilinguals. In S. Karpava (Ed.), Inclusive education, social justice, and multilingualism (pp. 137–152). Springer.
This chapter really stayed with me because it centres student experiences instead of just talking about multilingual learners in abstract ways. What I found especially powerful was how clearly it showed that inequity is not always loud or obvious; sometimes it looks like missing explanations, poor support, or environments that quietly shut students out. It pushed me to think more carefully about access, dignity, and what it means to create a literacy classroom that is actually fair. 

Apel, K., & Werfel, K. (2014). Using morphological awareness instruction to improve written language skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(4), 251–260.
This source helped me see morphology as much more than a word study add-on. I found it useful because it connects morphology directly to writing, which makes it easier to justify in classrooms where time is tight and everything has to pull its weight. It also supports the idea that students need tools for unlocking meaning, not just more words thrown at them.

Archer, A. L. (2011). Explicit instruction in reading fluency [Video]. YouTube.
Sometimes I just need to see instruction in action, and this video helped with that. It made fluency feel more teachable and less mysterious, which I appreciated. I also like that it reinforces the idea that fluency is not just speed, it is something teachers can model and shape with intention.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
This is one of those books that makes vocabulary instruction feel both more ambitious and more possible. What I appreciate most is how it pushes beyond weak, one-and-done definition work and instead treats words as something students need to meet again and again in meaningful ways. It has really shaped how I think about word instruction as an access issue, not just a literacy extra.

Blevins, W. (2020). Phonics: 10 important research findings. Reading Simplified.
I found this helpful as a clear, quick way to revisit major ideas in phonics research without wading through something dense. It is one of those resources that is useful when I want to sharpen my own understanding or explain the big picture to someone else. It also helps keep phonics grounded in evidence rather than trend language.

Boscolo, P., & Gelati, C. (2019). Motivating writers. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & M. Hebert (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
What I liked about this piece is that it treats motivation as a real part of writing instruction, not just a personality trait students either have or do not have. It helped me think more carefully about task design, student voice, and why some students shut down before they even begin. For middle years teaching, that feels especially important.

Brady, S. (2020). Phoneme awareness: How knowledge about this component of the science of reading has evolved. Reading Simplified.
This source gave me a clearer way to think about phoneme awareness and why it still matters so much in foundational reading development. I appreciated that it was concise but still grounded in research.

Breiseth, L. (2021). Background knowledge and ELLs: What teachers need to know. Colorín Colorado.
I found this resource especially useful for thinking about multilingual learners and comprehension. It makes a strong case that background knowledge is not an extra; it is part of what allows students to make sense of texts in the first place. I would include it because it connects equity, comprehension, and classroom planning in a very practical way.

Breiseth, L. (n.d.). The role of background knowledge. Colorín Colorado.
This source helped reinforce the idea that reading difficulties are not always about decoding or strategy use alone. Sometimes students simply do not have the knowledge needed to connect with a text, and that can make comprehension fall apart quickly. I like it because it gives teachers a clear reminder to build knowledge before expecting deep understanding.

Cappello, M. (2017). Considering visual text complexity: A guide for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 70(6), 733–739.
I liked this piece because it reminds me that images are not automatically simple. Visual texts can ask a lot of students, and this article helped me think about that more deliberately. It is a useful reminder that literacy in modern classrooms includes far more than just paragraphs on a page.

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51.
This is one of those articles I find grounding because it cuts through the noise. It is detailed, balanced, and helpful for understanding reading development without falling into false either-or thinking. When literacy conversations get polarised, I think this source brings things back to a more thoughtful place.

CCCF. (n.d.). Parents as partners in reading. Canadian Child Care Federation.
I found this helpful because it talks about family literacy support in a way that feels realistic and non-judgmental. It does not assume every family can support reading in the same way, which I really appreciate. That makes it more useful in classrooms where home situations vary a lot.

Colorín Colorado. (n.d.). Background knowledge resources.
These resources helped reinforce something I kept seeing throughout this project: comprehension often falls apart because students do not know enough to make sense of the text. I like how practical these resources are, especially for multilingual learners. They are easy to translate into classroom moves before, during, and after reading.

Coyne, M. D., & Loftus-Rattan, S. M. (2022). Structured literacy interventions for vocabulary. Guilford Press.
This source helped me think about vocabulary instruction in a more structured and deliberate way. I found it especially useful for imagining what stronger support could look like for students who do not pick up academic language easily through exposure alone. It makes the case that vocabulary deserves explicit teaching, not just hopeful exposure.

Curenton, S. M., & Franco-Jenkins, M. (2023a). Reading for Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI): Storybook audit tool.
I appreciate this tool because it gives me actual questions to ask when looking at texts, instead of leaving “diversity” as a vague good intention. It makes representation and bias more concrete. That is helpful when I want to select texts more thoughtfully and not just assume a book is inclusive because it looks polished.

Curenton, S. M., & Franco-Jenkins, M. (2023b). Learning for Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI): Curriculum audit tool.
This one pushed me to think beyond individual books and look at curriculum more broadly. I like that it asks educators to examine what kinds of identities, families, and language practices are actually being centred. It feels like a practical social justice tool, not just a symbolic one.

Dehaene, S. (2013). How the brain learns to read [Video]. WISE Channel.
I found this video useful as a broad professional learning piece rather than a direct classroom guide. It helped me better understand why reading is biologically unusual and why explicit instruction matters. Sometimes it is helpful to zoom out and remember just how complex reading really is.

Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the Simple View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44.
This is one of the most important sources in the whole project for me. It helped deepen my understanding of reading by showing that self-regulation, inference, and background knowledge are not side issues, they are part of the real work of comprehension. I keep returning to it because it explains why students can read words and still not really understand.

Duke, N. K., & Mesmer, H. A. (2016). Teach “sight words” as you would other words. Literacy Now.
I like this source because it quietly corrects a common classroom habit without becoming preachy. It reminded me that high-frequency words do not need to be separated from the rest of word learning in some magical category. That small shift in thinking feels useful and practical.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). International Reading Association.
This chapter is one of those foundational pieces that still feels relevant. I found it especially helpful for its clarity around modelling, strategy instruction, and guided practice. It is the kind of source that helps me explain why comprehension should be taught directly, not just assigned.

Ehri, L. C. (2022). What teachers need to know and do to teach letter-sounds, phonemic awareness, word reading, and phonics. The Reading Teacher, 75(5), 613–623.
This article is practical in the best way. It is clear, specific, and useful for connecting research to actual instruction. I think it is especially valuable for teachers working with older students who still need foundational support but want that instruction to feel intentional and informed.

First Literacy. (n.d.). Parent literacy: Impact on children’s success and summer learning.
This source helped me think more compassionately about home literacy realities. It makes the point that parent literacy matters, but in a way that does not slide into blame. I found that especially useful for thinking about students who come from homes where adults care deeply but have their own literacy struggles.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Text-dependent questions, grades K–5: Pathways to close and critical reading. Corwin Press.
I like this resource because it pushes questions back into the text instead of away from it. It helps make close reading more purposeful and less performative. Even though it is written for younger grades, the underlying approach still feels very transferable.

Flanigan, K., Hayes, L., Templeton, S., Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., & Johnston, F. (2022). The “P” word revisited: Principles for tackling misconceptions about phonics instruction. The Reading Teacher, 75(3), 341–352.
This article felt useful to me because it addresses the tone of phonics debates as much as the content. It helps pull the conversation back toward nuance and evidence. I think it is a good source to revisit when literacy conversations start becoming overly rigid.

Goldenberg, C. (2023). The bilingual brain and reading research: Questions about teaching English learners to read in English. Colorín Colorado.
I found this especially helpful because it speaks directly to multilingual learners without flattening their experience. It helped me think about English reading instruction in a way that still honours students’ broader linguistic repertoires. That balance matters a lot in diverse classrooms.

Goldstein, B. (2016). Visual literacy in English language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
This book widened my sense of what counts as literacy instruction. It treats visual interpretation as something worth teaching deliberately, which feels very relevant now. I found it useful for thinking about multimodal classrooms and the demands students face there.

Gottlieb, M., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (Eds.). (2014). Academic language in diverse classrooms: Promoting content and language learning. Corwin.
This source helped me think about academic language as something that has to be taught across subjects, not just in English class. I appreciate how it keeps language and content connected rather than splitting them apart. It feels especially relevant in classrooms where academic language quietly becomes the gatekeeper.

Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 277–303.
This source is one I found useful for stepping back and looking at the bigger writing picture. It helped me think about what writing instruction still gets wrong, and why so many students struggle with it. I like it because it is research-heavy without losing sight of classroom implications.

Graham, S. (2020). The sciences of reading and writing must become more fully integrated. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S35–S44.
This article really shaped how I think about the reading-writing relationship. It makes such a strong case that the two should not be treated like separate school subjects living in different buildings. I kept returning to it because it helped me frame writing as part of literacy, not an add-on.

Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
This source matters because it gives strong evidence that writing supports reading. I found it especially helpful for justifying writing-to-learn tasks across subjects. It is a resource I would point to anytime someone treats reading and writing as unrelated.

Graves, M. F. (2016). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. Teachers College Press.
I leaned on this source a lot. What I really appreciate is that it gives a fuller view of vocabulary instruction, including direct teaching, rich language experiences, word-learning strategies, and word consciousness. It helped me think about vocabulary as something students grow into, not just something they memorise.

Graves, M. F., Schneider, S., & Ringstaff, C. (2018). Empowering students with word-learning strategies: Teach a child to fish. The Reading Teacher, 71(5), 533–543.
This article felt especially practical. I like that it focuses on independence, helping students figure out unfamiliar words instead of always waiting to be told. That feels really important in the middle years, when texts get more demanding and vocabulary gaps widen.

Hasbrouck, J., & Glaser, D. (2018). Reading fluently does not mean reading fast [Literacy leadership brief]. International Literacy Association.
I think this is an important source because it pushes back against one of the most common misunderstandings about fluency. It reminds teachers that fluency is about accuracy, phrasing, and meaning, not just speed. That matters a lot in classrooms where students already feel pressured to perform reading rather than understand it.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.
What I take most from this source is the emphasis on clarity. It pushed me to think about whether students actually know what success looks like, or whether they are just guessing. For literacy instruction, that feels like a useful challenge.

Henry, M. K. (2019). Morphemes matter: A framework for instruction. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Spring 2019, 23–26.
This article helped reinforce why morphology deserves more space in literacy teaching. It is short, clear, and easy to connect to real classroom needs. I especially like it because it makes morphology feel accessible rather than overly technical.

International Literacy Association. (2018). Reading fluently does not mean reading fast.
This brief is useful because it gives a clear, teacher-friendly explanation of what fluency really is. I would keep it in the bibliography if you want a professional organization source that is short and easy to revisit. It works well alongside more detailed fluency readings because it is concise and practical.

Kang, E. Y., McKenna, M. C., Arden, S. V., & Ciullo, S. (2016). Integrated reading and writing interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(3), 141–152.
I found this source useful because it refuses to separate reading and writing support too neatly. It helped me think about intervention in a more integrated way, which makes sense for students whose literacy difficulties overlap across areas. It also fits well with inclusive practice.

Knowledge Quest. (2021). Partnering with parents to improve student literacy.
What I like here is the practical, relational tone. It talks about partnership in a way that feels realistic rather than idealised. That makes it easier to imagine using in communities where family-school relationships have been uneven or strained.

Lammert, C., & Riordan, E. (2019). She’s not going to tell you what to ask: Three strategies for writing in science. The Reading Teacher, 73(3), 367–373.
This piece helped me picture disciplinary literacy more clearly. I like that it is not just about writing more, but about writing in ways that fit the subject. It is a good reminder that genre and purpose shift across disciplines.

Lane, H. (2023). Multisensory instruction: What is it and should I bother? Collaborative Classroom.
I appreciated the straightforward tone of this resource. It helped cut through some of the hype around multisensory instruction and made the idea more usable. That felt helpful when trying to decide what actually belongs in evidence-informed practice.

Letchford, L., & Rasinski, T. (2021). Moving beyond decoding: Teaching pronoun resolution to develop reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 75(2), 233–240.
This article gave me one of those “yes, that explains it” moments. It shines a light on a very specific but important comprehension problem that can easily hide in plain sight. I think it is especially useful for students who look fluent but still lose the thread of the text.

McElhone, D. (2019). Text talk: Engaging students in productive text-based discussion. International Literacy Association.
I keep returning to this because it treats talk as part of literacy learning, not as a break from it. It helped me think about how discussion can deepen comprehension rather than just fill time. It also gave me stronger language for why structured conversation matters.

Melissa & Lori Love Literacy. (n.d.). Re-thinking the Reading Rope with Nell Duke [Podcast episode].
This podcast made some fairly complex ideas feel much more approachable. I found it especially useful for thinking about where the Reading Rope helps and where newer thinking adds more depth. Sometimes hearing a conversation is exactly what helps the theory click.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
This article introduced one of the most influential collaborative comprehension approaches. It shows how predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing can support comprehension and monitoring. It is still highly relevant for teachers wanting structured comprehension talk.

Phillips Galloway, E., Stude, J., & Uccelli, P. (2015). Adolescents’ metalinguistic reflections on the academic register in speech and writing. Linguistics and Education, 31, 221–237.
This source matters because it focuses on how adolescents think about academic language itself. It helps teachers understand that students often need explicit support noticing the differences between everyday and academic registers. It is especially useful for middle years and secondary classrooms where academic language demands rise quickly.

Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
This book argues for thoughtful, comprehensive reading instruction rather than narrow extremes. It helps teachers think across decoding, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension in connected ways. It is especially useful for educators who want practical and balanced literacy guidance.

PRISM Framework. (n.d.). Plurality, linguistic justice, and decolonization: Addressing current issues in teaching first-year writing to multilingual learners. University of British Columbia Okanagan.
This framework treats multilingualism and linguistic diversity as assets rather than deficits. It encourages teachers to recognize plurilingualism, codemeshing, and linguistic justice in teaching and assessment. It is especially useful for literacy work that aims to be more equitable and identity-affirming.

Rasinski, T. V. (2021). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (2nd ed.). Scholastic.
This source connects fluency directly to comprehension and word recognition. It helps teachers think about expression, phrasing, and accuracy together instead of reducing fluency to speed. It is especially useful for older students who need fluency support that still feels respectful.

Reading Rockets. (n.d.). Literacy-rich environments.
This resource is important because it reminds teachers that literacy is shaped by classroom environments as well as individual instruction. It helps make visible the role of materials, routines, print, talk, and opportunity in students’ literacy growth. It is especially useful when designing classrooms that support learners with uneven literacy experiences outside school.

Reading Rockets. (n.d.). Reciprocal teaching.
This resource is helpful because it provides a teacher-friendly overview of reciprocal teaching. It makes the strategy accessible and easier to implement with students. It is especially useful for teachers wanting structured comprehension routines right away.

Reading Rockets. (n.d.). Using Collaborative Strategic Reading.
This source is a practical collaborative reading approach with clear roles and routines. It helps teachers support strategy use, discussion, and comprehension within group work. It is especially valuable for classrooms that want a structured, inclusive comprehension routine.

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading.
This source underpins the strands later represented in the Reading Rope. It helps teachers see that reading development is woven from multiple interacting components. It is especially useful when explaining why one weak strand can affect broader reading performance.

Sedita, J. (2022). The Writing Rope: A framework for explicit writing instruction in all subjects. Brookes.
This book gives teachers a clear framework for understanding the many strands involved in writing. It helps make writing instruction more explicit by naming elements like syntax, text structure, and transcription. It is especially useful for cross-curricular writing instruction in the middle years.

Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S235–S247.
This article encourages teachers to think critically about evidence rather than accepting slogans at face value. It helps clarify the difference between basic research, applied research, and instructional claims. It is especially useful in professional conversations where the phrase “science of reading” is being used too loosely.

Study Aid 6. Genre, purposes, elements, and signal words.
This study aid makes genre and text structure more visible and teachable. It gives teachers a practical way to organize how different text types work and what signals they contain. It is especially helpful for writing and comprehension lessons across subject areas.

Study Aid 7. Read the Visual.
This study aid supports students in reading images and multimodal texts more deliberately. It helps teachers move beyond surface-level reactions to visual material. It is especially useful in classrooms that want to include visual literacy as part of comprehension.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
This source is explains learning as social, cultural, and mediated by interaction. It helps teachers think about scaffolding, support, and the importance of context in literacy development. It is especially useful for framing inclusive and responsive teaching.

Wexler, N. (2020). The knowledge gap: The hidden cause of America’s broken education system, and how to fix it. Avery.
This book helped me think about how knowledge-building supports comprehension. What I take from it most is the reminder that literacy is not just strategy instruction; students also need broad knowledge to make sense of increasingly complex texts. I would include it because it strengthens the knowledge-and-comprehension thread running through your project.

Wilson, J. S. (2013). The role of social relationships in the writing of multicultural adolescents. In L. C. de Oliveira & T. Silva (Eds.), L2 writing in secondary classrooms (pp. 87–103). Taylor & Francis.
This source is important because it reminds teachers that literacy development is shaped by relationships as well as instruction. It helps explain why peer dynamics, belonging, and classroom culture matter for writing participation. It is especially useful in diverse middle years classrooms where identity and safety shape learning.

Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 45(9), 696–703.
This article is important because it clearly explains phonemic awareness and its importance in reading development. It is helpful for teachers who want a strong conceptual grounding in one of the most discussed foundational skills. It remains useful when thinking about why some older readers still need early-skill support.

Every Literacy Classroom Is Already Diverse

If there is one thing I keep learning over and over, it is this: there is no such thing as a neutral literacy classroom. Students walk in every day carrying languages, dialects, identities, histories, strengths, frustrations, and school experiences that shape how they meet reading and writing. That means literacy instruction is never just about “skills.” It is also about access, belonging, and whose ways of speaking and knowing get treated as valid in school. In my earlier post, The Importance of Language: Understanding Dialectal Differences in the Classroom, I argued that nonstandard dialects are not errors and that when schools mock or devalue home language, they risk harming both confidence and participation. That still feels central here.

Research on learning supports this too. Vygotsky (1978) reminds us that learning is social, cultural, and mediated through language, which means students do not arrive as blank slates. They arrive already shaped by the language practices and communities they come from. If schools ignore that, we are not being neutral, we are just privileging one version of language and literacy over others. Ahn and Jang (2025) make a similar point in their discussion of emergent multilinguals in Canadian high schools, arguing that students’ success depends partly on whether school environments help or hinder their access to the language, literacy, and ways of doing school that are valued there. 

Inclusion Is More Than Letting Students In the Room

In my post Designing Reading Interventions for Students with Intellectual Disabilities, one idea kept rising to the top: structure builds freedom. Clear teaching, predictable routines, visible supports, and respectful scaffolding do not limit learners, they help them access learning more fully. That same principle belongs in inclusive literacy classrooms more broadly.

Inclusion is not just physical placement. It is whether students can actually access the language, tasks, and texts in front of them. It is whether they see themselves in what they read. It is whether their home language, dialect, or communication style is treated as a strength rather than a problem. As I wrote in The Importance of Language: Understanding Dialectal Differences in the Classroom, language differences should not be treated as deficits.

Ahn and Jang (2025) strengthen this point by showing how multilingual students can be treated as deficient even when they had been successful learners in their home countries. In their chapter, both students described strong prior school experiences, functional literacy in their first languages, and positive histories as learners, yet they were still positioned in Canada in ways that limited access and dignity rather than building on their strengths. The problem was not that they lacked intelligence or motivation. The problem was the inequitable environment around them. 

Multilingualism Is an Asset, Not a Detour

The PRISM Framework is especially helpful here because it pushes against the idea that students should leave their full language repertoires at the classroom door. Its raciolinguistic ( the study of how race and language shape one another) and plurilingual (the ability to use more than one language, dialect, or register in flexible and connected ways) stance recognizes multilingualism as a resource and argues for creating space for home languages, other English dialects, codemeshing, and diverse student narratives in teaching and assessment (PRISM Framework, n.d.). The framework also recommends shared classroom resources, translingual practices, identity-conscious pedagogy, and safe spaces for multimodal learning and emotional exchange (PRISM Framework, n.d.).

Multilingual learners are not empty vessels waiting to be filled with ‘correct English’. They are already making meaning across languages and varieties. Good literacy teaching should build on that. It should not ask students to trade identity for academic success (PRISM Framework, n.d.). Goldenberg (2023) makes a similar point in discussing English learners and reading research: strong literacy instruction in English should not ignore students’ broader linguistic knowledge. Multilingualism is not a detour from literacy development; It is part of it.

Ahn and Jang (2025) also show that students’ prior literacies matter. Both learners in their study brought existing language knowledge, literacy practices, and academic strengths with them, yet those resources were not always recognized or used as foundations for school learning in Canada. That is a reminder that multilingual students do not enter classrooms empty-handed; Too often, schools are just failing to notice what we are already carry. 

Vocabulary Instruction Is an Equity Issue

One of the clearest places equity shows up is vocabulary. Students cannot fully access school literacies if they do not understand the words those literacies are built from. Beck et al. (2013) argue for robust vocabulary instruction that goes beyond quick definitions and instead gives students repeated, meaningful encounters with words. Coyne and Loftus-Rattan (2022) similarly emphasize structured vocabulary instruction as a way of improving access for learners who need more direct support. That matters a lot for students who may not have had the same exposure to academic language outside school.

This is where equity becomes very practical. If we know that some students are not arriving with the same level of vocabulary access, then explicit instruction is not unfair, it is necessary. It is one of the ways we make school language more visible and more reachable. Pressley (2006) and Duke and Pearson (2002) both support the idea that comprehension and word knowledge develop best through deliberate, well-supported instruction rather than assumption and hope.

Ahn and Jang (2025) reinforce this directly through the students’ own words. One student specifically said teachers should explain difficult words more clearly, while the other described needing more individualized support with academic language and paraphrasing in writing. Those comments are powerful because they are not abstract theory. They are students telling us exactly where access is breaking down. 

Social Justice Belongs in Literacy Instruction

The JEDI audit tools make another important point: curriculum and literacy materials can be examined for whose identities are affirmed, whose communities are represented, and whether texts open space for conversations about justice, diversity, and inclusion. The tools are explicitly grounded in a culturally responsive, anti-bias, and anti-racist framework and are meant to help educators reflect on curriculum and storybooks through that lens (Curenton & Franco-Jenkins, 2023a, 2023b).

The audit materials also point out that racially marginalized learners often do not see their lived experiences reflected in school, and that their cultural backgrounds, communication styles, and learning needs are frequently silenced. They argue that students need to see themselves represented in what they are learning and hear their families and communities reflected as well, because that supports engagement and belonging (Curenton & Franco-Jenkins, 2023a, 2023b).

I appreciate that these tools move us beyond vague good intentions. They ask practical questions. Do our texts include diverse cultural representation? Do they challenge stereotypes? Do they create opportunities for conversations about justice? Do they reflect more than one “acceptable” way of using language? Those are the kinds of questions literacy teachers should be asking regularly (Curenton & Franco-Jenkins, 2023a, 2023b).

Ahn and Jang (2025) push this conversation further by documenting how inequity can also show up in peer relationships, teacher responses, and basic access to information. In their study, one student avoided asking peers questions because classmates laughed when he asked for help. Another described crying, being afraid to speak, and not knowing how to ask for help. These are not minor social details. They are literacy conditions. If students do not feel safe enough to ask questions, participate, or admit confusion, then access to learning is already compromised. 

So What Does This Mean for Teachers?

For me, it means literacy teaching has to be both explicit and humane. It means teaching academic language without shaming home language or abilities. It means choosing texts that reflect a wider range of identities and experiences. It means treating multilingualism, bidialectalism, disability, and difference as part of the classroom’s richness, not as side issues to deal with later. It also means checking our own materials and routines. If a curriculum assumes one “right” way of speaking, one kind of family, one kind of culture, or one kind of learner, then some students are being asked to disappear to succeed. As both The Importance of Language: Understanding Dialectal Differences in the Classroom and Designing Reading Interventions for Students with Intellectual Disabilities argue in different ways, access matters, and respectful support matters too.

It also means remembering that explicit instruction and equity are not opposites. Clear modelling, purposeful vocabulary instruction, scaffolded discussion, and responsive feedback help more students access literacy, not fewer (Beck et al., 2013; Coyne & Loftus-Rattan, 2022; Hattie, 2012). In that sense, inclusion is not soft teaching. It is deliberate teaching.

Ahn and Jang (2025) add an important caution here: one-size-fits-all teaching can deny access just as much as openly deficit thinking can. Their chapter shows that students need intellectually respectful support, not watered-down instruction, not silent assumptions, and not being treated like much younger children because they are still learning English. That feels like an important reminder for all of us. 

Literacy for diverse learners is not a niche topic. It is the work. Equity, inclusion, multilingualism, and social justice are not extras we tack on after the “real” reading and writing instruction. They shape who gets access to literacy in the first place. And if we want students to become confident readers, writers, speakers, and thinkers, then the classroom has to be a place where their language, identity, and humanity are not obstacles to work around, but foundations to build from. That is a thread running through both The Importance of Language: Understanding Dialectal Differences in the Classroom and Designing Reading Interventions for Students with Intellectual Disabilities, and it feels just as important here.

Ahn and Jang’s chapter leaves me with one more important thought: inequity is not always loud. Sometimes it looks like missing explanations, inappropriate placement, unasked questions, unsafe peer interactions, or a teacher assuming everyone already knows how school works. That kind of inequity can still do real harm. Which means noticing it, and changing it, is part of literacy instruction too. 

---

References

Ahn, S. K., & Jang, L. (2025). Inequitable learning environments from the lens of emergent multilinguals. In S. Karpava (Ed.), Inclusive education, social justice, and multilingualism (pp. 137–152). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-81194-4_8

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Coyne, M. D., & Loftus-Rattan, S. M. (2022). Structured literacy interventions for vocabulary. Guilford Press.

Curenton, S. M., & Franco-Jenkins, M. (2023a). Reading for Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI): Storybook audit tool. In Literacy for social justice, diversity, and inclusion: Curriculum audit & book review audit. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, UNC Chapel Hill.

Curenton, S. M., & Franco-Jenkins, M. (2023b). Learning for Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI): Curriculum audit tool. In Literacy for social justice, diversity, and inclusion: Curriculum audit & book review audit. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, UNC Chapel Hill.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). International Reading Association.

Goldenberg, C. (2023). The bilingual brain and reading research: Questions about teaching English learners to read in English. Colorín Colorado.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.

Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

PRISM Framework. (n.d.). Plurality, linguistic justice, and decolonization: Addressing current issues in teaching first-year writing to multilingual learners. University of British Columbia Okanagan.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

When School Sounds Like a Different Language

One of the easiest ways to lose students in school is to assume they already speak the language of school. A lot of our students do not. By the middle years, texts get denser, vocabulary gets more abstract, and the language of school starts expecting students to explain, compare, infer, justify, and synthesize, often all before lunch. For students who come from literacy-rich homes, that language may feel familiar; it’s easier for them. For students from homes with fewer books, less time, more stress, who have been diagnosed with or have potential learning disabilities or have parents who struggled deeply in school themselves, school literacy can feel like being handed a map in a language they were never taught to read. Literacy growth is shaped not only by instruction but also by access, exposure, and the kinds of literacy experiences students have outside school (Graves, 2016; Duke & Cartwright, 2021).

In my own teaching context, many students come from households where education has not been encouraged consistently, and many also come from homes where parents had painful school experiences of their own. Those parents’ experiences matter regarding the student experience. Not because families do not care, but because support at home can look very different when adults are working multiple jobs, carrying their own school wounds, or struggling with reading and writing themselves. Parent literacy levels affect how confidently adults can support school tasks, summer reading, and everyday literacy routines (First Literacy, n.d.).

Why Vocabulary Is Really About Access

Students cannot fully access a text if they do not understand the words it is built from. Graves (2016) argues that effective vocabulary instruction includes rich language experiences, direct teaching of important words, word-learning strategies, and word consciousness. In practical classroom terms, that means we need to teach key words explicitly, revisit them often, and help students notice how words work across reading, discussion, and writing. The bigger struggle is making classes accessible when you have a class full of students who struggle to attend on a regular basis.

Genre Should Not Be Secret Teacher Knowledge

Genre matters for the same reason that morphology is important. When students learn roots, prefixes, and suffixes, they gain tools for unlocking meaning rather than waiting for someone else to translate everything for them (Apel & Werfel, 2014; Henry, 2019). When they learn genre, they learn how to navigate the world.

Students do not magically know how a lab explanation works, how a historical argument is structured, or how a narrative builds tension. Sedita (2022) reminds us that text structure is part of explicit writing instruction, and that students benefit when we make genres visible rather than treating them like secret teacher knowledge. If we name the purpose, features, and signal words of a genre, we give students a better shot at both reading and writing it.

Academic Language Without Shame

Academic language matters too, but I think this is where we have to be especially thoughtful. Teaching academic language should not mean acting like students’ home language or everyday speech is wrong. It means helping them add another register to their toolkit. They need language that supports them in comparing, explaining, arguing, and summarizing texts because school asks them to do this constantly. Sentence frames, mentor texts, oral rehearsal, and structured discussion can all help make that language more accessible (Sedita, 2022; Graham, 2020).

When Home Support Is Limited, School Has to Step In

For students who do not get strong literacy support at home, school has to become a place where language is visible and usable – but this isnt always as easy as it might sound.

Reading Rockets describes literacy-rich environments as classrooms where materials, talk, labels, books, and purposeful instruction all work together to support speaking, reading, and writing. Those environments matter especially for students who may have had less exposure to literacy outside school, because they make language impossible to miss. They put words, genres, and print into daily classroom life instead of saving them for worksheets and quizzes (The Access Center, n.d.).

Families still matter here, of course. Reading aloud, everyday literacy routines, and visible reading at home can support vocabulary, background knowledge, and positive reading habits (Croft, 2021; CCCF, n.d.). But support does not have to look like a parent confidently helping with a five-paragraph essay. Support can be conversation, listening, shared reading, routines, and showing that language matters; most importantly, support can look like parents consistently encouraging their student(s) to regularly attend school.

What This Means for My Classroom

For me, this means I cannot assume students are coming in already fluent in school literacy. I need to teach the language of school clearly, directly, and respectfully. That means teaching vocabulary before expecting comprehension. It means making genre visible. It means giving students access to academic language without making them feel like the way they speak at home is somehow wrong. It also means remembering that for some students, school may be the most stable literacy-rich environment they have. That is not a small responsibility.

What to take away from this all

If we want students to access school literacies, we cannot just hand them harder texts and hope for the best.We need to teach the language of school clearly, directly, and respectfully. Vocabulary. Genre. Academic language. Not as gatekeeping tools, but as access tools. For a lot of kids, school may be the place where that door to literacy gets opened for the first time.

---

References

Apel, K., & Werfel, K. (2014). Using morphological awareness instruction to improve written language skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(4), 251–260.

CCCF. (n.d.). Parents as partners in reading. Canadian Child Care Federation.

Croft, M. L. (2021, November 11). Partnering with parents to improve student literacy. Knowledge Quest.

Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the Simple View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44.

First Literacy. (n.d.). Parent literacy: Impact on children’s success and summer learning.

Graham, S. (2020). The sciences of reading and writing must become more fully integrated. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S35–S44.

Graves, M. F. (2016). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. Teachers College Press.

Henry, M. K. (2019). Morphemes matter: A framework for instruction. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Spring 2019, 23–26.

Sedita, J. (2022). The Writing Rope: A framework for explicit writing instruction in all subjects. Brookes.

The Access Center. (n.d.). Literacy-rich environments. Reading Rockets.

If reading gets most of the glory in literacy conversations, writing is often the tired younger sibling quietly doing a huge amount of work in the background. But writing matters a lot. It matters for school, for communication, for knowledge building, and frankly, for life beyond the classroom. Writing helps students demonstrate understanding, share ideas, participate in academic communities, and communicate in personal, civic, and digital spaces (Graham, 2019; Nobel, 2021). Across subjects, teachers already use writing to support learning, which tells us something important: writing is not an “extra.” It is part of how students think, learn, and show what they know (Gillespie et al., 2014; Nobel, 2021).

That is exactly why good writing instruction matters so much. Strong writing does not simply appear because students are given a prompt and a quiet room. Writing is complex. It draws on planning, organizing, sentence construction, transcription, revising, motivation, and working memory all at once (Hayes & Flower, 1980; Hayes, 1996; Nobel, 2021). When students struggle with spelling, handwriting, typing, grammar, or vocabulary, those demands can eat up the cognitive space they need for generating and organizing ideas (Nobel, 2021). In other words, many struggling writers are not lazy or careless. They are overloaded.

That is one reason explicit instruction matters. Students do not just magically know how to write a narrative, an explanation, or an argument. As I kept coming back to in my course notes when thinking about how best to teach my kiddos, for many of them have basically been asked to build the plane while flying it when they don’t even know how to fold a paper airplane. Teaching text structures, genre expectations, sentence construction, and planning strategies makes writing more visible and more teachable (Philippakos & Graham, 2023, as cited in Study Aid 6; Sedita, 2022). Sedita’s Writing Rope is especially helpful here because it reminds us that writing is a braided process made up of critical thinking, syntax, text structure, writing craft, and transcription. If one strand is weak, the whole thing gets shakier (Sedita, 2022).

So Good Instruction?

Good writing instruction matters because reading and writing should not be separated as if they live in different neighbourhoods. Graham (2020) argues that they are mutually supportive literacy processes. Writing about reading, taking notes, answering questions in writing, and analyzing how texts are structured can all improve reading. Reading, in turn, supports writing through vocabulary, syntax, background knowledge, and text models (Graham, 2020). That overlap between them is one of the most useful notions I acquired from my Cont 937 course at Queen’s University because it makes writing instruction feel less like one more thing to squeeze in and more like a powerful way to build literacy across the board.

Motivation matters too. Students are more likely to write when the task feels meaningful, social, and manageable, not just like another thing to hand in for marks. They want something with authentic purpose, opportunities for choice, collaboration, teacher modelling, and step-by-step supports can all make writing feel more possible, but most importantly, we want our students to recognise that their work in school is transferable to the quote on quote “real world”(Boscolo & Gelati, 2019). That matters especially in the middle years, where students who may already see themselves as “bad writers” start to shut down before they even begin – constantly, my grade 9’s ponder dropping out as they can’t understand why school matters, especially English class.

Where do we go from here?

The encouraging part is that we do know quite a bit about what helps. Research summarized in Writing Instruction Matters points to explicit teaching of the writing process, explicit teaching of text structures, guided feedback, strategy instruction, self-regulation, prewriting supports, and scaffolds such as graphic organizers as effective approaches for struggling writers (Gersten & Baker, 2001; Gillespie & Graham, 2014; Nobel, 2021). The SRSD framework is especially promising because it combines strategy instruction with self-regulation, helping our students plan, draft, and revise more independently over time (Harris & Graham, 1992; Nobel, 2021). That kind of instruction does not make writing easy, but it does make it more possible.

For me, that is the heart of it. Good writing instruction matters because writing is too important to leave to chance. If we want students to become stronger thinkers, clearer communicators, and more confident learners, then writing deserves explicit, thoughtful, evidence-informed teaching.

That includes more than telling them to “just write a paragraph.”

---

References

Boscolo, P., & Gelati, C. (2019). Motivating writers. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & M. Hebert (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 251–272.

Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 454–473.

Gillespie, A., Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., & Hebert, M. (2014). High school teachers’ use of writing to support students’ learning: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 27(6), 1043–1072.

Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 277–303.

Graham, S. (2020). The sciences of reading and writing must become more fully integrated. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S35–S44.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Self-regulated strategy development: A framework for teaching students writing strategies and self-regulation.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing.

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes.

Lammert, C., & Riordan, E. (2019). She’s not going to tell you what to ask: Three strategies for writing in science. The Reading Teacher, 73(3), 367–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1824

Nobel, K. (2021). Writing instruction matters: Research on writing instruction and technology-based writing instruction for students with writing difficulties (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cologne). 

Sedita, J. (2022). The Writing Rope: A framework for explicit writing instruction in all subjects.

Planting the Seeds Early

If there is one thing I keep coming back to in literacy learning, it is this: reading comprehension is not just “understanding what you read.” That definition is not wrong, but it is a little too neat. It makes comprehension sound simple when it is actually doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Comprehension is active meaning-making. It involves decoding, vocabulary, background knowledge, inference, sentence-level understanding, attention, and self-regulation (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). In other words, students do not just read a text and automatically understand it. They have to build meaning as they go, and that is where things get tricky.

Reading the words is not the same as understanding

One of the biggest shifts in my own thinking has been realizing that students can read words aloud and still not understand the text. They might miss the pronoun reference; They might not know the vocabulary; They might not have the background knowledge; They might not notice when meaning breaks down, but they aren’t doing all of this on purpose. Duke and Cartwright (2021) explain this through bridging processes and active self-regulation. Readers need to connect ideas, use what they already know, monitor understanding, and repair confusion when it happens.

That means comprehension is not passive. It is not a thing that just arrives once decoding shows up. It is something readers do.

The seeds get planted early

The good news is that comprehension does not need to wait until students are “good readers.” In fact, some of the best seeds are planted in the primary years.

That can look like:

• think-alouds during read-alouds
• asking students what they think and why
• teaching story structure
• building vocabulary in meaningful contexts
• helping students retell and summarize
• encouraging them to notice when something does not make sense

At this stage, comprehension needs to be visible. Students need to hear what strong readers do in their heads before they can start doing some of that work themselves.

Then we keep growing it

As students move into the junior years and middle school, comprehension instruction should grow with them.

This is where text structure, vocabulary, morphology, discussion, and strategy instruction become even more important. Oakhill, Cain, and Elbro (2015) remind us that students do better when they understand how texts are organized. Letchford and Rasinski (2021) show that even pronoun resolution matters because students need to know who or what a sentence is referring to. Tiny things are not always so tiny when comprehension is involved.

By middle school, students still need:

• vocabulary and background knowledge support
• explicit strategy instruction
• discussion routines
• writing about reading
• help noticing when meaning breaks down
• age-respectful scaffolds that do not feel childish

What I want to remember

If I had to boil it all down, I would say this: comprehension grows when we stop treating it like a mystery.

We plant the seeds early through talk, stories, vocabulary, and thinking aloud. We keep watering those seeds through discussion, text structure, writing, and strategy instruction. And we keep doing that well into the middle years, because reading the words is not the same thing as understanding them.

That, to me, is where comprehension instruction really begins.

---

References

Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the Simple View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44.

Letchford, L., & Rasinski, T. (2021). Moving beyond decoding: Teaching pronoun resolution to develop reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 75(2), 233–240.

Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2015). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: A handbook. Routledge.

Suppose the foundations page is the “what,” this page is more of the “why is this all so complicated?” post. Honestly, literacy growth in the middle years is a bit of a wild beast that I am still attempting to tame.

By middle school, we often expect students to read independently, write clearly, discuss thoughtfully, and handle increasingly complex texts in every subject. The trouble is, literacy growth does not depend on one single skill suddenly clicking into place. It depends on a whole mix of factors: knowledge, vocabulary, motivation, self-regulation, discussion, text structure, and whether our students feel safe enough to try in the first place (feeling safe goes beyond the physical classroom, but with their peers, with you, etc.). Duke and Cartwright (2021) argue that comprehension depends not only on word recognition and language comprehension, but also on bridging processes and active self-regulation. Shanahan (2020) similarly reminds us that strong literacy instruction should be grounded in evidence across multiple components, not reduced to phonics alone. 

Motivation and engagement matter more than we sometimes admit

Students are far more likely to grow when literacy feels meaningful, manageable, and worth doing. If the teacher doesn’t seem excited about a lesson, the students won’t either- similarly, if the teacher doesnt make emphasis of important milestones, students won’t know to recognize them. That sounds obvious, but it is easy to forget when students are avoiding tasks, staring at the ceiling, or insisting they are “just bad at reading.” From my studies at Queen’s University, where I am completing a Childhood literacy diploma, I have learned that students are more engaged when tasks have a real purpose, some room for voice, and enough support that the task does not feel impossible or overwhelming (Boscolo & Gelati, 2019). Confidence matters. So does classroom culture. When students expect failure, they often avoid the very reading and writing practice they need most. 

A few small shifts can help. Tell students why they are reading or writing before they begin. Build in choice where you can, topic, text, partner, or response format. Break larger tasks into smaller steps so students can actually experience success before giving up. Most importantly, treat literacy as communication and thinking, not just evaluation (Boscolo & Gelati, 2019). 

Background knowledge helps students make meaning

Sometimes students are not struggling because they are lazy or careless. Sometimes the bridge just is not there yet. Duke and Cartwright (2021) describe bridging processes as the moves that connect word reading and language comprehension, including inference and the use of background knowledge. When students do not know enough about a topic, time period, vocabulary set, or context, comprehension can fall apart quickly. That is why older students can sometimes read fluently aloud and still not understand much of what they have just read. 

This is where teachers can do a lot with very practical moves. Pre-teach a few key ideas before reading. Use images, maps, short clips, timelines, or anticipation guides. Ask yourself, “What would a reader need to know before this text makes sense?” That one question alone can improve instruction quite a bit.

Vocabulary and morphology are not extras

Students cannot fully access texts if they do not understand the language in which those texts are written. Graves (2016) emphasizes rich language experiences, direct teaching of words, word-learning strategies, and word consciousness as key parts of vocabulary growth. Morphology matters too because morphemes carry meaning and support decoding, spelling, and vocabulary development (Apel & Werfel, 2014; Henry, 2019). In the middle years, this becomes even more important because school language gets more abstract, more academic, and more discipline-specific. 

A few useful reminders here: teach fewer words, but teach them more deeply. Revisit them across reading, discussion, and writing. Pause to notice interesting word choices in authentic texts. Teach roots, prefixes, and suffixes in ways that feel age-respectful, not babyish. Secondary students may look old enough to know word-learning strategies already, but many have never actually been taught how to use context, morphology, or reference tools effectively (Graves et al., 2018). 

Comprehension depends on active reading, not just word calling

This is one of the strongest ideas that I have been taught during my time at Queen’s, and honestly, it is one of the most important when it comes to literacy instruction.

Reading words is not the same thing as understanding a text. Students may decode accurately but miss pronoun references, connectives, appositives, text structure, or the larger meaning of a passage. Letchford and Rasinski (2021) argue that pronoun resolution matters because readers must identify the correct referent to understand who is speaking, acting, or being described. Mesmer and Rose-McCully (2018) similarly show that sentence-level structures such as anaphora, connectives, and appositives are essential for building meaning across a text. 

This is also where active self-regulation becomes a major factor. Duke and Cartwright (2021) highlight the importance of monitoring comprehension, noticing confusion, and using strategies to repair meaning when it breaks down. That is especially important for students with attention difficulties, anxiety, executive functioning challenges, or weak confidence as readers. Helpful teacher moves include asking, “Who does this refer to?”, naming signal words like however and because, and modelling what to do when meaning slips away. 

Discussion helps students think their way into understanding

Talk is not something that happens after learning. Very often, it is part of the learning. McElhone (2019) emphasizes that purposeful text-based discussion helps students deepen and transform their thinking. Nash (2019) also highlights the value of structured partner talk and low-risk speaking opportunities. Students often make sense of a text by paraphrasing, clarifying, questioning, and hearing how others interpret the same passage. 

That means discussion needs structure. Think-pair-share can lower the social risk of participation. Sentence starters can help students speak in academic language without inventing it from scratch. Reciprocal teaching roles, predictor, questioner, clarifier, summarizer, can make comprehension talk feel more manageable and purposeful (McElhone, 2019; Nash, 2019).  Now my only struggle is encouraging resistant classes to begin discussions!

Text structure gives students a map

Sometimes students get lost in a text not because they cannot read it, but because they do not know how it is built.

Authors Oakhill, Cain, and Elbro (2015) make a strong case that text structure knowledge supports comprehension because it helps readers anticipate how ideas are organized and connected. Narrative and informational texts work differently, and students do not always absorb those patterns naturally. Therefore, explicit instruction in signal words, common structures, and graphic organizers can help students identify main ideas and relationships across a text (Oakhill et al., 2015). 

This is one of those areas where very small teaching shifts can make a big difference.

• Name the structure before students read.
• Use one consistent organizer for each structure type.
• Teach signal words directly.
• Ask students how the text is organized, not just what it says.

Classroom conditions shape growth too

This part matters just as much as the academic pieces. Literacy cannot be separated from the realities students bring with them. Anxiety, shame, previous failure, trauma, attention, and uneven participation all shape whether students can engage with literacy tasks at all. What looks like disengagement is often overwhelm, confusion, or years of accumulated frustration rather than simple defiance. That makes classroom culture a literacy factor, not just a behaviour factor. 

That means support needs to be normal, not stigmatizing. Routines should be predictable. Scaffolds should be age-respectful. Asking for help, rereading, and saying “I’m confused” should be treated as smart reader behaviours, not failures. In middle years classrooms, that kind of humane support can make a real difference in whether students are willing to keep trying. 

---

References

Apel, K., & Werfel, K. (2014). Using morphological awareness instruction to improve written language skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(4), 251–260.

Boscolo, P., & Gelati, C. (2019). Motivating writers. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & M. Hebert (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the Simple View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44.

Graves, M. F. (2016). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. Teachers College Press.

Graves, M. F., Schneider, S., & Ringstaff, C. (2018). Empowering students with word-learning strategies: Teach a child to fish. The Reading Teacher, 71(5), 533–543.

Henry, M. K. (2019). Morphemes matter: A framework for instruction. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Spring 2019, 23–26.

Letchford, L., & Rasinski, T. (2021). Moving beyond decoding: Teaching pronoun resolution to develop reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 75(2), 233–240.

McElhone, D. (2019). Text talk: Engaging students in productive text-based discussion. International Literacy Association.

Mesmer, H. A., & Rose-McCully, M. M. (2018). A closer look at close reading: Three under-the-radar skills needed to comprehend sentences. The Reading Teacher, 71(4), 451–461.

Nash, R. (2019). Incorporating structured conversations. In The interactive classroom: Practical strategies for involving students in the learning process (3rd ed.). Corwin.

Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2015). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: A handbook. Routledge.

Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S235–S247.

If I’ve learned one thing about reading intervention, it’s this: structure builds freedom.

When students know what to expect, when routines are predictable, lessons are clear, and goals feel reachable, they start to relax. That’s when learning actually sticks.

Dr. Anita Archer (2011) calls this kind of instruction explicit teaching – the idea that we show students exactly what success looks like and walk with them every step of the way. Her “I do, we do, you do” model has become my north star in small-group reading. It’s simple, effective, and most importantly, respectful of every learner’s time and effort.

For students with intellectual disabilities, clarity and repetition aren’t just helpful—they’re oxygen. As Dehaene (2013) explains, the brain literally wires itself to connect letters, sounds, and meaning. That wiring takes practice, patience, and lots of chances to succeed.

Start with What They Can Do

It’s very negative and tiring to start with, listing everything my students are unable to do yet. From my experience and knowledge shared with me through many research papers, it is best to start a student’s intervention by looking at what is working for them.

Vygotsky (1978) called this the Zone of Proximal Development – the sweet spot where learning happens when the teacher offers just enough help. Students with intellectual disabilities often have amazing visual memories or strong listening comprehension. We can use those strengths to scaffold new reading skills.

And like Hattie (2012) reminds us, teacher clarity, being transparent about what we’re learning and why, has one of the biggest impacts on student growth.

So I tell my students exactly what we’re doing:

Today we’re going to learn how to read words that end in -ing. By the end, you’ll be able to find them in any story we read.

It’s a small thing, but it shifts the tone from “intervention” to “learning journey.”

Phonics, Phonemes, and Finding the Right Entry Point

Let’s talk phonics. The word itself can feel like a buzzword lately, but the truth is, it works when it’s systematic and cumulative. Blevins (2020) stresses that new learning has to build on old learning in logical steps.

That starts with phonemic awareness – helping students hear and play with sounds. Brady (2020) explains that when students can separate the m in map or blend the s–a–t in sat, they’re doing the brainwork that makes decoding possible.

Ehri (2022) calls this process orthographic mapping – linking letters to sounds until words become automatic. It’s how readers stop “sounding out” and start recognizing.

But here’s the catch: drills alone don’t make strong readers. Flanigan et al. (2022) remind us that phonics is the gateway to meaning, not the destination. So after decoding comes talking—about what words mean, how they connect, and where students have seen them before.

The Magic of Multisensory Learning

I’ve never met a student who didn’t love hands-on work (anything to get out of reading, I find, works wonders with my grade 9s). When we bring movement, texture, and sound into reading, learning suddenly becomes real.

Lane (2023) explains that multisensory instruction – seeing, saying, hearing, and touching letters—activates more parts of the brain. I’ve seen this firsthand: tracing letters in sand, tapping out syllables on the table, or using colour-coded vowel cards can transform a blank stare into an “Oh! I get it!” moment, or as I like to say a “huzzah” moment.

Yopp (1992) wrote about using Elkonin boxes for phonemic awareness decades ago, and they’re one of my new favourite tools. The tactile act of pushing a counter for each sound is pure magic for students who need concrete experiences.

Words Need a Life of Their Own

Once decoding starts to click, vocabulary is the next mountain. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2013) talk about “robust vocabulary instruction”, choosing powerful, everyday words and revisiting them often.

For my students, that means using words in stories, drawings, and silly skits. Coyne and Loftus-Rattan (2022) found that students with memory challenges learn best when vocabulary is repeated in different contexts. So “fortunate” might pop up in our morning meeting, our read-aloud, and our writing prompt.

When reading aloud, I borrow from Fisher and Frey (2015): I ask text-dependent questions that send students back into the story – “How do you know she was nervous?” – so comprehension grows alongside vocabulary.

Fluency Is More Than Speed

Rasinski (2021) says fluency is “the bridge between decoding and comprehension.” It’s not about reading fast; it’s about reading with feeling.

That’s why we practice with short, meaningful texts, songs, jokes, even scripts for mini plays. Archer (2011) shows that brief, daily fluency practice can double progress for struggling readers. When kids get to perform their reading, they own it.

Mesmer (2023) adds that decodable texts, stories written to match the phonics patterns students are learning, give readers a safe space to practice. They build confidence instead of frustration.

Progress Isn’t Linear—And That’s Okay

Here’s where I check myself: not every student will move through interventions neatly. Some will leap ahead; others will camp out on one skill for weeks.

Hattie (2012) reminds us that visible learning means using data to see learning through the student’s eyes. I keep quick notes after every one-on-one student session I have- what clicked, what didn’t, what sparked joy.

Miles, Ehri, and DeFord (2018) found that the best teachers aren’t the ones who stick rigidly to a program- they’re the ones who adapt. When something isn’t working, change it. The program serves the student, not the other way around.

Teaching for Dignity and Joy

One of the most important shifts for me has been treating every reading session as an act of dignity. These learners deserve high expectations, choice, and stories that reflect who they are.

Goldenberg (2023) talks about bilingual students, but his message applies here too: literacy instruction must never imply deficiency; it must affirm identity.

And as Fountas and Pinnell (2017) remind us, responsive teaching is about meeting readers where they are—and believing they can grow from there.

Takeaways (and a Little Encouragement)

Here’s what I hope you carry into your next reading sessions:

• Teach clearly and consistently.
• Engage multiple senses.
• Give words a life. 
• Celebrate small steps.
• Hold high expectations for all. 

Reading interventions for students with intellectual disabilities aren’t about fixing what’s broken. They’re about unlocking what’s already there: curiosity, persistence, and the human desire to make meaning through words.

So the next time you sit down at that small group table, remember—you’re not just teaching reading. You’re opening doors.

---

References:

Archer, A. L. (2011). Explicit instruction in reading fluency [Video]. YouTube.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Blevins, W. (2020). Phonics: 10 important research findings. Reading Simplified.

Brady, S. (2020). Phoneme awareness: How knowledge about this component of the science of reading has evolved.Reading Simplified.

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert.Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51.

Coyne, M. D., & Loftus-Rattan, S. M. (2022). Structured literacy interventions for vocabulary. Guilford Press.

Dehaene, S. (2013). How the brain learns to read [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25GI3-kiLdo]. WISE Channel.

Duke, N. K., & Mesmer, H. A. (2016). Teach “sight words” as you would other words. Literacy Now.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). International Reading Association.

Ehri, L. C. (2022). What teachers need to know and do to teach letter-sounds, phonemic awareness, word reading, and phonics. The Reading Teacher, 75(5), 613–623.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Text-dependent questions, grades K–5: Pathways to close and critical reading. Corwin Press.

Flanigan, K., Hayes, L., Templeton, S., Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., & Johnston, F. (2022). The “P” word revisited: Principles for tackling misconceptions about phonics instruction. The Reading Teacher, 75(3), 341–352.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2017). Guided reading: Responsive teaching across the grades. Heinemann.

Goldenberg, C. (2023). The bilingual brain and reading research: Questions about teaching English learners to read in English. Colorín Colorado.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.

Lane, H. (2023). Multisensory instruction: What is it and should I bother? Collaborative Classroom.

Mesmer, H. A. (2023). Ep. 132: The research on decodable text. Melissa and Lori Love Literacy Podcast.

Miles, J., Ehri, L. C., & DeFord, D. (2018). Applying reading science to classroom practice: A review of evidence-based methods. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(4), 489–507.

Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Rasinski, T. V. (2021). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (2nd ed.). Scholastic.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 45(9), 696–703.