







































Article                            1 

 

Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021  

 

A Structured Literacy Approach to Support Striving 

Readers in Secondary Grades: Meaningful Transactions 

through Morphological Awareness and Fluency Building 
 

Samantha Bart-Addison 

University of West Georgia 

 

Dr. Robert A. Griffin 

University of West Georgia 
 

Abstract 
A high school English teacher and a university literacy professor provide secondary teachers with 
structured literacy strategies to support striving readers in the middle and high school grades. 
The authors present strategies that can be utilized with diverse texts across learning contexts. 
As a structured literacy approach, morphological awareness and prosodic fluency are 
emphasized to foster deeper, more meaningful transactions between students and texts. An 
example of a full structured literacy lesson is also provided that includes multiple strategies and 
is based on a gradual release model with guided and independent reading cycles. Applicable 
strategies for delivery of these skills for in-person, digital, or concurrent teaching are also 
discussed. 
 

Keywords: striving readers, structured literacy, transactional theory of reading, morphological 
awareness, fluency, prosody, comprehension 

 

Introduction 

Teachers are responsible for addressing the learning needs of diverse students who possess 

a gamut of abilities, and teachers work to the best of their abilities to meet the needs of 

every learner. However, a sizable subset of students are falling behind their peers in reading 

achievement. Students with documented learning disabilities make up 14% of students 

nationwide (Hussar et al., 2020), a small percentage compared to the over 60% of students 

in grades 8 and 12 in 2019 who read below grade level (National Center for Education 

Statistics, 2019). These statistics show most secondary students who are not reading on 

grade level are best identified as striving readers—students who need extra support and 

scaffolding within the general education setting. To compound the problem, curricular 

standards do not explicitly reference foundational literacy skills after elementary school, 

leaving strivers without opportunities to acquire or practice critical reading competencies 

needed for grade-proficient comprehension (T. Rasinski, personal communication, 

September 27, 2020). Moreover, high school teachers are also often at a loss when it comes 

to supporting striving readers, as many secondary educators, to include English language 

arts teachers, have not received explicit training in teaching foundational reading skills. 

Recognizing students as strivers is not new. Secondary educators have long worked 

to support these students through careful planning of skills-focused, highly engaging 

lessons. High school teachers know striving readers need targeted support, but such 

differentiation can prove challenging for even the most effective teachers (Smale-Jacobse 

et al., 2019; Zehr, 2019). Teacher burnout has been a cause for concern, but in the era of 

COVID-19, teacher exhaustion is at an all-time high (El Helou et al., 2016). Teachers are 

7



2                            Georgia Journal of Literacy 

 

 Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021 

 

now expected to utilize new and unfamiliar methods of teaching, including fully online, 

hybrid, and concurrent instruction. In effect, what was already more than a full-time job 

has become unsustainable, even for our most committed colleagues. When survival takes 

front stage, seeking out differentiation techniques is simply not a top priority, and effective 

implementation is more challenging than ever (Singer, 2020). 

Not unexpectedly, the students who were below grade level in reading before the 

pandemic are falling further behind (Kuhfeld & Tarasawa, 2020). Targeted and intentional 

support is needed now more than ever. This paper, therefore, explores literacy best 

practices across learning contexts for secondary teachers, including how strategies can be 

adapted for online learning. As such, this paper highlights the importance of basic 

morphological knowledge and the impact of prosodic fluency on comprehension, which 

foster deeper, more meaningful transactions between students and texts. Applicable 

strategies for delivery of these skills for in-person, digital, or concurrent teaching are also 

explored. 

 

Collaborative Context 

The authors, a high school English teacher and a university literacy professor and former 

high school English and ESOL teacher, embarked on this timely collaborative project for 

several reasons. First, both authors are keenly aware of the pressure classroom teachers 

face nationwide to ensure success for all their students, including those who enter 

secondary classrooms without the prerequisite reading skills necessary to succeed. One of 

us currently feels this pressure, while the other has felt this pressure himself and now works 

daily with pre-service and in-service teachers who feel this pressure.  

Second, the first author was a student of the second author, and because she felt 

inspired by the strategies covered in several of the courses she took with him, she began to 

immediately implement the techniques in her classroom and to evaluate their impact on her 

students’ engagement and comprehension. The two courses, Literacy Theory Development 

and Practice and Language and Literacy Assessment and Intervention, were brimming 

with methods which readers could use to boost their independence. As a teacher, the 

transfer of course discussion to classroom implication was obvious.  

Lastly, and most importantly, the current situation globally with the COVID 

pandemic exacerbates the need for a collaborative support system among educators to 

support striving readers. Growing inequalities and inequities, widening achievement gaps, 

and what has been described as the “COVID-19 slide” (Kuhfeld & Tarasawa, 2020, p. 2) 

all underscore the importance of supporting teachers helping striving readers. Creating 

support networks for striving teachers who are working to support striving students—what 

this piece attempts to do in some small way—is a matter of social justice and more urgent 

now than ever before (Cochran-Smith, 2020). 

 

Starting with a Theoretical Foundation: Transactional Theory 

The strategies and tools presented here are all given with the ultimate goal of fostering 

meaningful transactions between striving readers and texts. Therefore, the theory that 

ultimately frames this exploration is reader response theory, though in this article the name 

Louise Rosenblatt (1978, 1993) first applied to it is used: transactional theory. Although 

Rosenblatt studied the works of John Dewey—perhaps the theorist who most influenced 

her thinking—she also incorporated her own knowledge of languages, anthropology, and 

8



 

Bart-Addison & Griffin 3 

 

Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021  

 

philosophy to develop the basis for her most notable concept of reader-text transactions 

(Connell, 2005; Rosenblatt, 1978, 1993).  

Rosenblatt (1993) believed individuals’ perceptions drove their unique 

interpretations of literature, which meant accurate understanding of a text varied from 

person to person. She welcomed the probability people would hold such different opinions 

because her conviction in the uniqueness of literature was paramount to her reading beliefs 

(Connell, 2005). Put differently, textual interpretation is the product of a transaction, a 

give-and-take process, between the reader and the text.  

Rosenblatt defined two types of reading for meaning: efferent and aesthetic (Tracey 

& Morrow, 2017). Efferent reading is reserved for facts found in texts where correct 

answers could be definitively located. Aesthetic reading, however, is not as clear-cut 

because literary interpretations are rooted in a reader’s beliefs, opinions, and feelings. 

Rosenblatt (1993) stressed these two reading purposes do not exist in isolation of each 

other but rather are in fluctuation from one text to another (Figure 1). 

 

Figure 1 

Similarities and Differences between Aesthetic and Efferent Readings 

 

 
 

Put differently, the act of reading elicits a transaction between a reader’s schema or 

background knowledge to the information presented in the text. Rosenblatt (1993) 

acknowledged while basic transactions between reader and text may happen naturally, the 

teacher plays an integral role in promoting its growth. Connell (2005) also maintained the 

transaction was merely the first step in true understanding and that a reading-guide—a 

teacher—was necessary. 

 

Framing a Pedagogical Approach for Structured Literacy 

Due to its emphasis on connecting meaningfully with texts, transactional theory in P–12 

settings has largely been associated with whole language or constructivist approaches to 

literacy instruction (Woodruff & Griffin, 2017). However, the pendulum regarding what 

constitutes effective reading instruction has largely swung in the opposite direction; there 

is renewed focus on foundational reading skills, such as phonological awareness, phonics, 

fluency, morphological awareness, etc.—an approach that has recently come to be referred 

9



4                            Georgia Journal of Literacy 

 

 Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021 

 

to as “the science of reading” (SOR; Shanahan, 2020, p. S235) or structured literacy (Spear-

Swerling, 2019).  

In secondary settings, most striving readers need explicit instruction in fluency and 

morphological awareness, as most enter these grades having already acquired phonological 

awareness and a basic understanding of phonics. Of course, secondary teachers should be 

on the lookout for students who exhibit trouble with phonics; however, ongoing research 

with striving readers at the secondary level determines the key areas needing emphasis are 

morphological awareness and fluency building (James et al., 2020; Lovett et al., 2020). 

This is where this article offers a unique contribution. Instead of viewing morphological 

awareness, fluency, and student-to-text transactions as separate, isolated components, 

educators are encouraged to see how the three blend together; such a holistic approach that 

emphasizes both skills-based reading instruction and meaningful transactions can lead to 

stronger, more confident readers. 

 

Morphological Awareness 

Many educators assume students at the middle and high school level have already mastered 

basic morphological awareness; breaking down words is often associated with younger 

grades when students are first learning to read (Collins et al., 2020). Because of this 

misguided assumption about student skill, educators do not recognize they should provide 

direct instruction in morphology. However, striving readers need reinforcement of word-

level skills so they can apply word analysis skills to texts quickly and easily (Catts & 

Kamhi, 2004; Hendrix & Griffin, 2017). 

Decoding is not enough. While many secondary students may be able to decode 

words, if they do not know how to break apart words and analyze word parts for meaning, 

comprehension is impeded (Catts & Kamhi, 2004). Collins et al. (2020) found 

morphological practice strengthened reading skills overall for adolescents and therefore 

should be part of secondary instruction across content areas. Morphological awareness and 

word analysis skills allow students to make sense of unknown words (James et al., 2020). 

By incorporating morphology instruction into everyday reading lessons, teachers can 

maximize the likelihood of their students understanding words in context (Collins et al., 

2020). Along with decoding, easily recognizing the meanings of unfamiliar words leads to 

enhanced fluency. 

 

Fluency Building 

Fluency is more than reading words accurately through speed reading or word calling 

(Scholastic, 2014). True fluency is achieved with prosody—reading with contextual 

expression and purposeful inflection (Rasinski, 2017). A prosodic read aloud sounds like 

a conversation among people or the ordinary flow of thoughts in one’s head. It is not 

theatre, so it is not meant to be overly pronounced or dramatic; rather, prosodic fluency is 

meant to be natural. Prosodic reading demonstrates comprehension because the reader is 

fully connected with a text, so much so that the reader has the ability to determine the 

emotions of characters and the emphases of the author, enabling a read aloud with proper 

expression. In order to achieve this deep connection, striving readers may need to read 

through a text several times to achieve understanding. 

Repeated reading is the best way to achieve this highest level of fluency (Cypert & 

Petro, 2019; Rasinski, 2017). Multiple readings allow for striving readers to overcome 

10



 

Bart-Addison & Griffin 5 

 

Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021  

 

obstacles to comprehension by paring down what draws their “internal attention” (Tracey 

& Morrow, 2017, p. 201). Reading through a text only once forces the student to focus on 

pronunciation and unfamiliar word meanings. Multiple readings allows for clarification of 

these difficulties, so instead of solely concentrating on decoding, students can focus on 

meaning through interpreting dialect, inflection, and rhythm of the text (Paige et al., 2017).  

Striving readers will find increased confidence and strengthened comprehension if 

these repeated readings are done aloud and together as a chorus (Cypert & Petro, 2019). 

Choral reading reinforces the correct pronunciation and emphasis of the sentences in a safe 

environment where no single student’s voice is heard above others. After several readings, 

students will read independently with such fluency and begin to build the skill on their 

own. Even though this practice is a group read aloud, the skill translates to increased 

comprehension during silent reading (Cypert & Petro, 2019; Rasinski, 2014). 

Prosodic fluency, therefore, bridges the divide between decoding and 

comprehension. Moreover, prosody cultivates a reader’s “inner conversation” (Harvey & 

Goudvis, 2017, p. 88), through the necessary analysis and decision-making of how to speak 

the word. As such, prosodic fluency engenders meaningful transactions and connections 

with texts (Cypert & Petro, 2019). 

 

Meaningful Transactions 

Readers approach texts with inimitable experiences, biases, and background knowledge, 

all of which influence their interactions with texts (Tracey & Morrow, 2017). Teachers 

should encourage students to use that individuality when reading. Asking dialogic 

questions to promote reflection on the text’s information based on a student’s experience 

will develop the desired reader-text relationship. Feeling part of a text, as if immersed in 

its words, allows readers to gain a sense of fulfillment from the reading experience (Beers 

& Probst, 2017). However, an objection Rosenblatt (1993) raised regarding classroom 

application of her philosophy involved educators placing so much emphasis on students’ 

actions that they lost a balanced focus on the role of the text and reading guide (i.e., teacher) 

in the informational exchange (Connell, 2005). Therefore, it is important that conversation 

and engagement also include what the text offers to the reader, not solely the reader’s 

reactions to it. 

Teachers can model immersive reading by asking their students for efferent and 

aesthetic responses to texts. Think alouds are also effective strategies for modeling how to 

connect with texts (Warner et al., 2015). Like with morphological study and fluency 

building, a reader response framework requires modeling and guidance from a teacher or 

reading guide to demonstrate how to call upon background knowledge to willingly extract 

new information from the text. As such, the teacher guides readers to recognize their inner 

dialogue and how to communicate that text-to-self conversation with others (Warner et al. 

2015). Dialogic teaching is a natural expression of transactional theory as applied to 

classroom practice. As reading-guides, teachers should practice asking dialogic questions, 

which help students become more aware of their own ideas in conjunction with information 

presented in the text so they can become better critical thinkers (Kim & Wilkinson, 2019). 

  

Moving from Theoretical and Pedagogical Knowledge to Practice 

Recognizing the necessity for a multidimensional structured literacy pedagogical approach 

that emphasizes morphological study and fluency building as tools to elicit meaningful 

11



6                            Georgia Journal of Literacy 

 

 Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021 

 

transactions with texts is only the first step toward independent reading success. Teachers 

need practical strategies for applying this pedagogical knowledge in their classrooms to 

encourage and foster authentic student engagement with texts. The strategies that follow 

teach or review a single skill in only a few minutes. It is important, however, for students 

to see the connection of one skill to the next and how comprehension is dependent upon 

various skills working in lockstep. Therefore, what follows in this section are suggestions 

for structured literacy strategies and an example of a full literacy lesson, all of which are 

easily implemented in order to make the most of instructional time. Reiteration of skills 

through strategy-based minilessons and application of skills in tandem during full lessons 

can together help striving readers become thriving readers (Harvey & Ward, 2017). 

 

Structured Literacy Strategies 

 

Morphological Awareness: Anchor Charts and Word Walls 

Word parts anchor charts posted in the classroom can provide students with constant 

reminders of reviewed word parts and their definitions (Hendrix & Griffin, 2017). To 

reinforce this skill, challenge students to find morphemes in words they encounter in their 

day-to-day lives—from, for example, a billboard, television commercial, tweet, or 

Instagram post. Students can capture these words in their original context and add them to 

a word wall (Hiebert, 2020). For digital classrooms, word walls can be maintained through 

Padlet or Google’s Jamboard, which both allow live widgets on a classroom webpage, so 

students can add words at their leisure. 

For each word added, the contributing student will identify and define the 

morpheme, then define the word in the context of the example. The possibility for 

repetitiveness is one reason this strategy is so powerful. If students find the same morpheme 

multiple times, the instructional impact is only strengthened as the various applications of 

morphological awareness become more apparent. Additionally, with this strategy, striving 

readers have autonomy over their learning while acquiring new vocabulary from authentic, 

real-life settings. 

 

Fluency Building: Choral Reading of Poetry 

Conversations with middle and high school English language arts (ELA) teachers will 

reveal that many of these educators chose the secondary level because of an intrinsic love 

of literature and the desire to impart that love to their students. That passion for literacy 

easily blends with the fluency strategy of choral reading a poem a week (Cypert & Petro, 

2019; Rasinski, 2017). A prosody lesson in a secondary ELA classroom might include 

exposing students to copious poems with a variety of themes from diverse authors; while 

students exercise general comprehension techniques, teachers share their favorite poems. 

Beginning on Monday, the class spends a minute reading through a poem, which 

should be projected on the screen and given to the students on paper in order to meet diverse 

visual learning needs (Figure 2). Teachers should allow students to read through silently 

so they feel prepared to read aloud expressively. As a class, the students read through the 

poem, only once. The teacher asks students for initial thoughts and reactions, including 

emotions, questions, or opinions. Students are not expected to discuss or analyze, and the 

teacher should not ask any comprehension questions about the poem; all verbal discussion 

12

https://padlet.com/
https://jamboard.google.com/


 

Bart-Addison & Griffin 7 

 

Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021  

 

should be voluntary from students. Before moving on, students should rate the poem on a 

linear scale in the corner of the poem. 

Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday move through the same choral reading 

process, but instead of asking for student reactions, the teacher focuses on one literary 

element each day—analyzing a metaphor’s meaning and contribution to the theme, 

discussing the function of the speaker, understanding the necessity for the poem’s shift, 

etc. Each day the students are practicing fluency and increasing comprehension, and they 

are able to focus on one deep-level literary analysis at a time; striving readers need to chunk 

this process in order to master the many skills required for higher thinking (Cypert & Petro, 

2019).  

By Friday, the students feel more confident in their reading, evidenced by their 

volume and articulation. As a culminating activity and to provide a sense of purpose and 

foster community, teachers should offer opportunities for small groups of students to 

embellish the poem’s recitation and “perform [for] classmates” (T. Rasinski, personal 

communication, September 27, 2020).  

 

Figure 2 

Choral Reading Daily Lesson Schedule 

 
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 

• Choral reading 
of the poem 

• Students ask 
questions or 
share thoughts 

• Choral reading 
of the poem 

• Analysis of one 
literary 
element (ex. 
metaphors) 

• Choral reading 
of the poem 

• Analysis of 
one literary 
element (ex. 
shift) 

• Choral reading 
of the poem 

• Analysis of 
one literary 
element (ex. 
role of the 
speaker) 

• Students 
voluntarily 
perform poem 
for classmates 

 

Many secondary teachers have lamented that their online students do not speak 

during class or do not turn on their cameras; this prosodic practice using poetry may help 

these students become more active participants in class as they join in with the others online 

or in person. For their Friday performance, digital students can share Instagram or TikTok 

videos or simply upload a video in Google Classroom. Giving students freedom to express 

their interpretations will increase digital participation. 

Teachers may be surprised by the active participation of their students; it does not 

require much coercion to have the students read aloud. Of course, once a routine for choral 

reading has been established, students have no hesitation to read as one voice. When one 

of the authors implemented this strategy in her tenth-grade ELA classroom, a student 

reported, “I read with more enthusiasm and not bland.” In fact, several reluctant readers in 

the class said they enjoyed reading poetry as a large group. One student responded, “My 

favorite class activity was when we found poems and presented them. I found it fun to read 

new poems.” Another celebrated, “I feel more comfortable reading out loud, and I feel like 

I have more of an understanding of what I am reading.” Happily, this exercise only takes a 

few minutes from each class period, but it can enhance fluency and overall comprehension. 

 

Meaningful Transactions: Delayed Discussion Strategy 

Students should be able to interact with a text in a variety of ways, and providing students 

opportunities to do so outside of typical classroom discussions may enhance student 

13

https://www.instagram.com/
https://www.tiktok.com/en/


8                            Georgia Journal of Literacy 

 

 Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021 

 

engagement (Hardie, 2019). Striving readers especially are more motivated when given the 

opportunity to move about during text discussion and analysis, and they respond with 

greater confidence when given time to reflect and refine their responses to analysis or 

synthesis questions (Kamdideh & Barjesteh, 2019; Webster et al., 2015). Considering these 

two facts, combining them into one activity will engage striving readers.  

The delayed discussion strategy poses a question without requiring an immediate 

answer. The teacher should capture one aesthetic question at a time on large chart paper 

and present it at the end of class; students ponder the question until they return the next day 

when they write their reasoning on a sticky note, all of the same color. After students have 

placed their responses on the chart paper, they can read and review the inferences and 

interpretations of their peers, either from their own class or a different class period. On 

another sticky note of a different color, they respond to one or two of the original notes 

with their support or refutation. Below are examples of responses for two aesthetic 

questions about “The Fall of the House of Usher” by Edgar Allen Poe (Figure 3). Students 

will come to class and see that they have a response and can, in turn, reply back once again. 

This discussion develops over the course of several days, but there is no time taken away 

from the lesson of the day. 

 

Figure 3 

Examples of Aesthetic Responses about Poe’s “The Fall of the House of Usher” 

 

        
 

Delayed discussions can easily convert to online platforms, such as Google 

Classroom, where students asynchronously give an initial response before reviewing and 

replying to their peers. Padlet or Google’s Jamboard would also work well as virtual 

question charts. Because of the versatility offered in a digital classroom, students can also 

create delayed verbal discussions with tools such as VoiceThread. 

By giving striving readers the time to mull over the question and their answer, 

teachers increase students’ likelihood to participate with deeper insight and achieve greater 

equitability in assessing students’ comprehension (Kamdideh & Barjesteh, 2019). In 

14

https://padlet.com/
https://jamboard.google.com/
https://voicethread.com/


 

Bart-Addison & Griffin 9 

 

Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021  

 

addition, delayed discussions promote thoughtful communication and peer relationships 

from different class groups, all of which encourages student participation.  

After several days of students volleying responses on the question chart, the teacher 

reads students’ insights and contrasting viewpoints as a review for the text or to initiate a 

verbal classroom discussion. As a culminating activity, the teacher reiterates the skill of 

the question, corrects or reinforces student thinking, and provides positive feedback to 

students. 

 

Structured Literacy Lesson 

Strategy-based minilessons are an effective way to deliver instruction and reinforce skills 

in isolation; however, it is important for students to understand these skills are not 

independent of each other and to see how they work in conjunction with one another. A 

typical class lesson should incorporate several components of structured literacy 

instruction. Striving readers are particularly positioned to benefit from pairing lessons like 

the one that follows with ongoing strategy-based minilessons. This lesson can be adapted 

to any text or genre in any content area, and it guarantees morphological review, prosody 

practice, and meaningful transactions with selected texts.  

Short stories or informational articles may be chosen for this lesson. Most text 

selections at the secondary level, however, are lengthy and may require an excerpt. When 

choosing a piece from a longer text, the teacher should focus on a passage that gives 

opportunity for deep analysis and contributes to the meaning of the text as a whole. Using 

a gradual release model, what follows are detailed outlines of both the guided and 

independent reading cycles for this lesson. 

 

Guided Reading Cycle 

 

Before Reading. Before the lesson, teachers should proactively identify words 

which may pose a problem for striving readers (Rasinski, 2014). Pulling four or five words 

with affixes or roots simultaneously gives striving readers morphological review and builds 

their vocabulary without distracting students from the text’s purpose (Collins et al., 2020). 

To preview the text, isolate the parts of these selected words and verbally analyze (i.e., 

think aloud) how they contribute to the meaning of the word in context.  

After the initial discussion, adding these roots and affixes to an anchor chart in the 

room will serve as a visual reference for the students throughout the year (Hendrix & 

Griffin, 2017). Anchor charts are meant to be living documents and continuously revised; 

making additions to the chart with words from each class text will increase student buy-in 

and interaction with the information. Because anchor charts are easily accessible and can 

be reviewed as needed, students are more likely to transfer their knowledge of word parts 

in one context to words in other reading contexts (Bacchioni & Kurstedt, 2019). 

There are some digital options for anchor charts. Padlet offers live updates for 

information on sticky notes, and Glogster provides visually engaging online posters. 

Google Classroom materials can be updated regularly as needed, and Quizlet creates 

flashcards which can display meanings of morphemes on a loop. Widgets displaying 

anchor charts can be embedded in common learning spaces within digital classrooms, as 

they would be displayed in a physical classroom. 

 

15

https://padlet.com/
http://edu.glogster.com/
https://quizlet.com/


10                            Georgia Journal of Literacy 

 

 Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021 

 

First Reading: Question the Author. As the lesson moves from previewing to 

reading, the teacher should plan to demonstrate an oral reading through a read-aloud and 

think-aloud. The think-aloud process serves two important functions: (a) it models the 

transactions between reader and text, and (b) it gives the students a strong example of 

proper fluency because of the teacher’s prosodic reading (Cypert & Petro, 2019). The read-

aloud focuses on text transactions, such as personal background connections, interesting 

information, and confusing sentences or concepts (Tracey & Morrow, 2017; Vacca et al., 

2019).  

In a modified question-the-author strategy, after reading the selected text aloud, the 

teacher will think aloud about what she would be able to contribute to the author’s text 

(Vacca et al., 2019). Such contributions include editorial suggestions, such as how the 

author might be more concise by eliminating superfluous details or determining which 

claims and ideas need more clarifying commentary. Suggesting these edits to the author 

maintains student-text engagement; using the ideas from this post-read strategy sets the 

stage for the next reading by giving a purpose for reading. 

 

Second Reading: Choral Reading and Stop and Jot. For the students’ initial oral 

reading, partners will read chorally and engage with the text through the stop-and-jot 

strategy (Englert & Mariage, 2020). Using the teacher’s model as a guide for their own 

thought focus, they will jot on sticky notes about their own connections, interesting 

information, and confusing sentences or concepts and place the sticky notes directly on the 

text. They will end with sticky notes at the end of the selection with lingering questions 

and their editorial contributions to the author. 

 

Third Reading: Choral Reading and Efferent Questioning. At this point in the 

lesson, the students are seeing the text for the third time and reading chorally for the second 

time. This reading’s focus, while still encouraging prosody to enhance comprehension, is 

also focused on Rosenblatt’s (1993, 2005) efferent questions. Explicitly stated 

comprehension questions that ask for factual details which cannot be disputed guide the 

students through the text and reinforce comprehension (Del Nero, 2019). While monitoring 

students as they respond to efferent questions, teachers may informally assess striving 

readers’ fluency and comprehension. After this second round of choral reading and efferent 

questioning, the teacher brings the class together to review the answers and clarify 

misconceptions in the whole group setting. 

 

Fourth Reading: Aesthetic Questioning and Discussion Groups. The fourth and 

final reading offers students the deeper, discussion-level questions students typically enjoy 

most. They will connect with the text through aesthetic questions, which may be interpreted 

differently (Del Nero, 2017/2019). Striving readers will find they are better able to 

verbalize their conclusions following the repeated choral readings (Cypert & Petro, 2019; 

Paige et al., 2017).  

Students can answer the aesthetic questions on paper and then post on the classroom 

walls for a gallery walk. In digital settings, this is simply having students share thoughts in 

any format that allows for public display, so any of the online tools previously mentioned 

could be used. Verbal discussion is most engaging for students; students can discuss all of 

the questions in small groups of five or six, or questions can be posted around the room for 

16



 

Bart-Addison & Griffin 11 

 

Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021  

 

students to choose which question to discuss as they gather in a designated area. Teachers 

can facilitate a four-corner debate (Hopkins, 2017) or full or modified Socratic seminars. 

For online classes, Zoom breakout rooms work well for small group discussions, and sites 

such as Seesaw allow opportunities for debate. Responses to aesthetic questions can be 

done in a variety of ways; what is most important is that students understand there are 

multiple, diverse conclusions and takeaways from the same text (Rosenblatt, 1993, 2005). 

 

Independent Reading Cycle 

 

Repeated Readings. Following the gradual release model, the students move 

independently through the entire instructional cycle using a new excerpt or text (Webb et 

al., 2019). The teacher identifies four to five focus words, using the same affixes and roots 

introduced in the guided cycle. Students have to refer to the anchor chart as they read in 

order to define the words in context. As in the first cycle, the students will choral read 

repeatedly with a partner, concentrating on a new focus with each reading. For the first 

reading, student partners define the selected words, use the stop and jot strategy, and 

suggest revisions to the author. During the second reading, efferent questions will be asked; 

the final reading engages students in discussion through aesthetic questions. While 

monitoring student progress, only informal assessments should be noted. Formal 

assessments should only come after the repeated readings when striving readers will have 

the greatest ability to respond with full comprehension. 

 

Student Pairs. During the independent cycle, students will use a reciprocal reading 

strategy to assess one another’s comprehension (Silver & Strong, 2007). In order to ensure 

correct answers to efferent questions, the students will have the answers to their question 

set. In this fun and engaging reciprocal learning method, the student pairs essentially quiz 

each other on the passage. Student A will have a set of efferent questions with answers so 

they can quiz Student B, while Student B will have a different set of questions and answers 

for Student A. As instructed by their given question sets, each student will stop the choral 

reading at their designated places in the text and then ask the assigned questions. In this 

way, student pairs independently engage in a repeated choral reading at their own pace and 

feel confident in the accuracy of their comprehension without needing the supervision of 

the teacher. Examples of questions for student pairs as they read the first paragraph from 

Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Fall of the House of Usher” are included in Figure 4 below. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17

https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/206476313-Managing-Breakout-Rooms
https://web.seesaw.me/


12                            Georgia Journal of Literacy 

 

 Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021 

 

Figure 4 

Student-Pairs Efferent Questions for the First Paragraph of “The Fall of the House of 

Usher” 

 

 

 
 

The student pairs will discuss the aesthetic questions together before the teacher 

poses them to the whole class for open discussion. Because the students know these 

questions are not meant to have one decidedly correct answer, they are at liberty to agree 

or disagree and even to amend their answers after hearing from their partner. In order to 

cultivate this exchange of ideas, these discussion questions are general and open-ended, 

though the students are expected to use text evidence to support their thinking and 

conclusions (Harvey & Ward, 2017). Because students bring their backgrounds and biases 

to their interactions with the text, these aesthetic questions guarantee student exposure to 

novel ideas and opinions (Beers & Probst, 2017).  

This instructional cycle will add to the students’ vocabulary and give them the tools 

for independently increasing their comprehension for texts they will encounter in different 

classes or real-world situations. With the focused repeated readings, the striving students 

will have a safe environment to practice fluency. They will also build applicable 

morphological knowledge and maintain continuous engagement with the text. 

 

18



 

Bart-Addison & Griffin 13 

 

Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021  

 

Online Contexts. The independent cycle can be easily adapted to hybrid and 

concurrent teaching contexts. For online learning, the independent practice can be broken 

into sections, dividing the readings into two parts: stop-and-jot thinking and transactional 

questions. Students can record themselves reading on a platform such as Flipgird or read 

synchronously with their partners using video conferencing. Padlet would work well as an 

online board for back-and-forth sticky notes. If the school uses a hybrid model, the 

transactional questions can be saved for the day when the students are in-person, but for 

all-online classes, using a Zoom breakout room will still ensure the reciprocal reading 

happens in real time. 

For concurrent teachers, the students can participate in each step of the instructional 

cycle through Zoom or the school’s preferred video classroom platform. Students can move 

into breakout rooms and read aloud as requested. In concurrent classrooms, teachers can 

assign in-person students to breakout rooms with digital students so there is a blend of 

student learning environments, and the teacher can more easily listen to readings for 

informal formative assessments. Mixing the students fosters a greater sense of community 

and encourages participation in the lessons (Pinner, 2020). 

Because of its versatility, this lesson framework can be applied to any text of any 

length; teachers can use short stories which can be read in one reading or whole works 

which take numerous days to complete. This instructional cycle also lends itself to literary 

nonfiction, further broadening the selections for teachers. The texts can change while the 

cycle stays the same, which means teachers do not have to consume themselves with 

creating new material in order to ensure quality instruction. Most importantly, striving 

readers will develop a routine for engaging with and analyzing various texts, a skill which 

adolescents need beyond the classroom. 

 

Call to Action 

Secondary teachers feel a sense of urgency regarding how best to support striving readers, 

especially during the ongoing COVID pandemic. Some teachers have never met their 

students in-person because of widespread online learning, creating unique challenges to 

establishing important teacher-student relationships. Information and directives change 

day to day, and educators constantly speculate about the next month’s teaching 

environment. Bombarded with such uncertainty during this extended COVID pandemic, 

teachers are searching for trusted methods that are effective and efficient. Supporting 

striving readers, even in this environment, does not require major adaptation. Striving 

readers, even at the secondary level, need structured support with foundational literacy 

skills, such as morphological awareness and fluency building to foster comprehension and 

meaningful transactions with texts. Without intentional instruction, striving readers will 

move forward into adulthood without the vital capabilities needed for life-long success. 

Structured literacy approaches, like the one described in this article, can empower striving 

readers to thrive. 

 

References 

Allred, J. B., & Cena, M. E. (2020). Reading motivation in high school: Instructional shifts 

in student choice and class time. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(1), 

27–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1058 

19

https://flipgrid.com/
https://padlet.com/
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1058
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1058


14                            Georgia Journal of Literacy 

 

 Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021 

 

Ash, G. E. (2002). Teaching readers who struggle: A pragmatic middle school framework. 

Reading Online, 5(7), Article 7. 

Bacchioni, S., & Kurstedt, R. L. (2019). Personalized anchor charts: Bridging small‐group 

work to independence. The Reading Teacher, 72(5), 652–658. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1772 

Beers, K., & Probst, R. E. (2017). Disrupting thinking: Why how we read matters. 

Scholastic. 

Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (Eds.) (2004). The connections between language and 

reading disabilities. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612052 

Cho, E., Toste, J. R., Lee, M., & Ju, U. (2018). Motivational predictors of struggling 

readers’ reading comprehension: The effects of mindset, achievement goals, and 

engagement. Reading and Writing, 32(5), 1219–1242. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9908-8  

Cochran-Smith, M. (2020). Teacher education for justice and equity: 40 years of advocacy. 

Action in Teacher Education, 42(1), 49–59. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2019.1702120 

Collins, G., Wolter, J. A., Meaux, A. B., & Alonzo, C. N. (2020). Integrating 

morphological awareness in a multilinguistic structured literacy approach to 

improve literacy in adolescents with reading and/or language disorders. Language, 

Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 51(3), 531–543. 

https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_lshss-19-00053  

Connell, J. M. (2005). Continue to explore: In memory of Louise Rosenblatt (1904–2005). 

Education and Culture, 21(2), 63–79. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/593680 

Cypert, R., & Petro, M. (2019). Prosody instruction intervention as a means to improved 

reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(6), 1305–1311. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3593  

Del Nero, J. R. (2017). Slaying monsters: Students’ aesthetic transactions with Gothic 

texts. The Reading Teacher, 70(5), 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1551 

Del Nero, J. R. (2019). “Cultural capital”: Versus “getting it done:” An adolescent reader’s 

experience with Gothic texts. Reading Improvement, 56(4), 181–196. 

El Helou, M., Nabhani, M., & Bahous, R. (2016). Teachers’ views on causes leading to 

their burnout. School leadership & Management, 36(5), 551–567. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1247051 

Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (2020). Strategy instruction to support struggling readers 

in comprehending expository main ideas. Intervention in School and Clinic, 56(2), 

74–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220914892 

Hardie, E. (2019). The relevant classroom: Six steps to foster real-world learning. ASCD. 

Harvey, S. (2016, June 28–29). Reading is thinking: Comprehension, collaboration, and 

inquiry [Seminar presentation]. Reading is Thinking Summer Literacy Institute, 

Hoffman Estates, IL, United States. https://stephanieharvey.com/reading-is-

thinking 

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2017). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for 

engagement, understanding, and building knowledge, grades K–8 (3rd ed.). 

Stenhouse Publishers. 

20

https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1772
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612052
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9908-8
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2019.1702120
https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_lshss-19-00053
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/593680
https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3593
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1551
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1247051
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1247051
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1247051
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220914892
https://stephanieharvey.com/reading-is-thinking
https://stephanieharvey.com/reading-is-thinking


 

Bart-Addison & Griffin 15 

 

Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021  

 

Harvey, S., & Ward, A. (2017). From striving to thriving: How to grow confident, capable 

readers (Illustrated ed.). Scholastic Professional. 

Hendrix, R. A., & Griffin, R. A. (2017). Developing enhanced morphological awareness 

in adolescent learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(1), 55–63. 

https://doi.org/110.1002/jaal.642 

Hiebert, E. H. (2020). The core vocabulary: The foundation of proficient comprehension. 

The Reading Teacher, 73(6), 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1894 

Hopkins, G. (2017). Four corner debate. Education World. 

https://www.educationworld.com/a_lesson/03/lp304-04.shtml 

Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., Cui, J., Smith, M., Bullock Mann, 

F., Barmer, A., & Dilig, R. (2020). The condition of education 2020 (NCES 2020-

144). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020144.pdf 

James, E., Currie, N. K., Tong, S. X., & Cain, K. (2020). The relations between 

morphological awareness and reading comprehension in beginner readers to young 

adolescents. Journal of Research in Reading. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-

9817.12316 

Kamdideh, Z., & Barjesteh, H. (2019). The effect of extended wait-time on promoting 

Iranian EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. International Journal of 

Instruction, 12(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12312a  

Kim, M. Y., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, 

deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture 

and Social Interaction, 21, 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003 

Kuhfeld, M., & Tarasawa, B. (2020). The COVID-19 slide: What summer learning loss 

can tell us about the potential impact of school closures on student academic 

achievement. Northwest Evaluation Association. https://bit.ly/3bzsXiQ 

Lovett, M. W., Frijters, J. C., Steinbach, K. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. D. (2020). 

Effective intervention for adolescents with reading disabilities: Combining reading 

and motivational remediation to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational 

Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000639 

Mart, C. T. (2019). Reader-response theory and literature discussions: A springboard for 

exploring literary texts. The New Educational Review, 56(2), 78–87. 

https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2019.56.2.06 

National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES). (2019). National assessment of 

educational progress (NAEP) reading: National achievement-level results. 

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=12 

Paige, D. D., Rupley, W. H., Smith, G. S., Rasinski, T. V., Nichols, W., & Magpuri-Lavell, 

T. (2017). Is prosodic reading a strategy for comprehension? Journal for 

Educational Research Online, 9(2), 245–275. 

https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2017/14951/ 

Pinner, S. (2020, September 18). Zoomies and roomies: The hybrid classroom experience 

at Kellogg this summer. Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University. 

https://blogs.kellogg.northwestern.edu/inside/2020/09/18/hybrid 

Rasinski, T. (2014, April/May). Delivering supportive fluency instruction—Especially for 

students who struggle. Reading Today, 26–28. https://bit.ly/35A16vc 

21

https://doi.org/110.1002/jaal.642
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1894
https://www.educationworld.com/a_lesson/03/lp304-04.shtml
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020144.pdf
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020144.pdf
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020144.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12316
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12316
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12312a
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003
https://bit.ly/3bzsXiQ
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000639
https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2019.56.2.06
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=12
https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2017/14951/pdf/JERO_2017_2_Paige_et_al_Is_prosodic_reading.pdf
https://blogs.kellogg.northwestern.edu/inside/2020/09/18/hybrid-experience-sarah-pinner/
https://www.timrasinski.com/presentations/delivering_supportive_fluency_instruction_article.pdf
https://bit.ly/35A16vc


16                            Georgia Journal of Literacy 

 

 Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021 

 

Rasinski, T. V. (2017). Readers who struggle: Why many struggle and a modest proposal 

for improving their reading. The Reading Teacher, 70(5), 519–524. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1533  

Rasinski, T., Rikli, A., & Johnston, S. (2009). Reading fluency: More than automaticity? 

More than a concern for the primary grades? Literacy Research and Instruction, 

48(4), 350–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070802468715 

Rosenblatt, L. (2005). Making meaning with texts. Heinemann.  

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the 

literary work. Southern Illinois University Press. 

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1993). The transactional theory: Against dualisms. College English, 

55(4), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/378648 

Scholastic. (2014, September 11). Dr. Tim Rasinski: The “essentials” of developing 

reading fluency [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM-

mi_4usvE 

Seidenberg, M. S. (2013). The science of reading and its educational implications. 

Language Learning and Development, 9(4), 331–360. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2013.812017 

Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction? Reading Research 

Quarterly, 55(S1), S235–S247. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.349 

Silver, H. F., & Strong, R. W. (2007). The strategic teacher: Selecting the right research-

based strategy for every lesson. ASCD. 

Singer, N. (2020, December 3). Teaching in the pandemic: ‘This is not sustainable.’ The 

New York Times. https://nyti.ms/3byImjt 

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study 

of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001  

Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated 

instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. 

Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2366. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366 

Spear-Swerling, L. (2019). Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding 

differences to create instructional opportunities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 

51(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917750160 

Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2017). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories 

and models (3rd ed.). Guilford Press 

Vacca, R., Vacca, J. A., & Mraz, M. (2019). Content area reading: Literacy and learning 

across the curriculum (12th ed.). Pearson. 

Warner, L., Crolla, C., Goodwyn, A., Hyder, E., & Richards, B. (2015). Reading aloud in 

high schools: students and teachers across the curriculum. Educational Review, 

68(2), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1067881  

Webb, S., Massey, D., Goggans, M., & Flajole, K. (2019). Thirty‐five years of the gradual 

release of responsibility: Scaffolding toward complex and responsive teaching. The 

Reading Teacher, 73(1), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1799 

Webster, C. A., Russ, L., Vazou, S., Goh, T. L., & Erwin, H. (2015). Integrating movement 

in academic classrooms: Understanding, applying and advancing the knowledge 

base. Obesity Reviews, 16(8), 691–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12285  

22

https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1533
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070802468715
https://doi.org/10.2307/378648
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM-mi_4usvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM-mi_4usvE
https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2013.812017
https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2013.812017
https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2013.812017
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.349
https://nyti.ms/3byImjt
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0040059917750160
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1067881
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1799
https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12285


 

Bart-Addison & Griffin 17 

 

Volume 44 | Issue 1 | Spring 2021  

 

Woodruff, A. H., & Griffin, R. A. (2017). Reader response in secondary settings: 

Increasing comprehension through meaningful interactions with literary texts. 

Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 5(2), 108–116. 

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1162670.pdf 

Zehr, M. A. (2019, February 22). ‘Striving readers’ tough to measure. Education Week. 

https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/striving-readers-tough-to-

measure/2009/10 

23

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1162670.pdf
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/striving-readers-tough-to-measure/2009/10
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/striving-readers-tough-to-measure/2009/10



