I.

Foundational Knowledge

International Literacy International Dyslexia Association Course/Artifact

Association

ILA Standard 1: Foundational IDA Standard 1: Foundations of Artifact #1

Knowledge Literacy Acquisition SPED 637
6th grade case
study

Synthesis of Assessment Standards

The ILA standard 1 is about foundational knowledge. Having the knowledge of major
theoretical, conceptual, historical, and evidence-based foundations of literacy and language as well as
their interrelationship. Having an understanding of the role of literacy coach and how to be effective
with the professional learning and school wide literacy programs. A literacy coach understands
language acquisition, reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, cross curricular disciples and can
make connections. Literacy coaches have knowledge of major concepts, theories, and evidence-based
foundations of effective professional learning, adult theory, school change, community-school
partnerships, collaboration, coaching, and leadership. Literacy coaches can develop, implement, and
evaluate school-wide comprehensive literacy instruction and curriculum.
The IDA standard 1 is foundations of literacy acquisition. Understanding phonological,
orthographic, semantic, syntactic, discourse as well as most people learn to read requires explicit
instruction. There is a reciprocal relationship among phonemic awareness, decoding, word
recognition, spelling, and vocabulary knowledge. A literacy leader also can identify environmental,
cultural, and social factors that contribute to literacy development. Lastly, literacy leaders know the
phases in the typical development progression of oral language, phoneme awareness, decoding skills,
printed word recognition, spelling, reading fluency, reading comprehension, and written expression.
The similarities of the first standard in the ILA and IDA standard is that both standards focus
on the foundational knowledge of the professional being critical for the implementation of accurate
teaching. The leader needs to have solid foundational skills and an understanding in the learning
process. The learning process of both literacy and the process of where students can struggle during
their development. The differences are small, but the main difference is ILA focuses on literacy
development, whereas IDA focuses on how the phases and struggles a learner has can be linked back
to literacy development.
Within the classroom my responsibilities would be to assist the classroom teacher with literacy
development with struggling learners. As a coach I could facilitate small group instruction, whole class
instruction, implement testing and take anecdotal notes during my time within the classroom. Outside
of the classroom I would get materials ready for both myself and the classroom teachers I would be
helping. What I plan and coordinate with each individual teacher is what I am getting ready when I am
not within the classroom. The implications for my responsibilities both within and outside the
classroom is an emphasis on the foundational skills each student will need. Whether I’m in the room or
out of the room my role is to advocate for research based practices, time, materials, supplemental
programs, and professional development that will be most beneficial for foundational instruction.
Evidence of Application

Foundational Knowledge (ILA 1).

 The first ILA standard can be shown through my artifact 1. This is a case study and I feel it is
appropriate. I worked with one of my colleagues in the middle school. She and I met and discussed that
I was looking to help a student who needed foundational skill development. She told me a sixth grade
boy she knew of would benefit from explicit instruction on foundational skills. I met with her student
and did a pre assessment. I chose our Fountas and Pinnell assessment, which was a school wide
Response to Intervention tool. I also used the Words Their Way assessment to see what deficits he had
with language. His pre assessment showed he lacked basic spelling and phonics rules (prefixes and
suffixes). He also didn’t use complete sentences or proper syntax in his written comprehension
responses. These two deficits became his goals to improve upon; and what I explicitly taught. By using
a school wide assessment my data would be effective because it followed professional learning and
school wide literacy programs. This would be a test that the student was familiar with, as well as a
data point that his classroom teacher could use for her planning. Being able to physically show this
understanding as a literacy leader is important. Testing for the sake of testing is not helpful, but
collecting another data point with already used programs and to progress monitor is beneficial. This is
an element of ILA standard 1.
His lessons consisted of part spelling followed by reading and written comprehension practice
together. I used visuals, sorting, matching, flashcards, practiced finding the answer within the text and
writing his answer by using the question, and lastly gave tasks to practice and review each time we met
for our lessons before I would continue to explicitly teach the next lesson. As a leader to showcase ILA
standard 1 I understood language acquisition, reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, cross
curricular disciples and can make connections. In sixth grade and with only three lessons for my case
study I needed to assist with the deficits that would be most effective to improve upon in the limited
time I had. I realized this student needed help with both spelling and comprehension.

Foundations of Literacy Acquisition (IDA 1).

IDA standard 1 states that almost every single person requires explicit instruction in order to
learn how to read. There is a reciprocal relationship among phonemic awareness, decoding, word
recognition, spelling, and vocabulary knowledge. If these connections are not taught than students
struggle with reading, writing, and comprehension. Artifact 1 demonstrates my ability to teach key
concepts together and stress the relationship between reading, writing, and comprehension. For
example, to set up my lessons I had about 60 minutes and each lesson I followed the same format:
review, teach spelling concept, comprehension and writing practice, lastly give practice assignment to
my student. By teaching these concepts all within 60 minutes I was showing how all three have a strong
relationship and cannot be used without the other.
Another example of how artifact 1 showcases my understanding of IDA standard 1 is
understanding the phases of typical development progression of oral language, phoneme awareness,
decoding skills, printed word recognition, spelling, reading fluency, reading comprehension, and
written expression. Reading fluency is key in order for comprehension and written expression can be
shown. However, a student can not read fluently if they struggle still with decoding skills. As I was
working with my sixth grader I realized that he could decode simple words, but did still struggle with