Creating a Mentor Text: Strategies for Tackling the RICA Subtest 3 Case Study
The Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA), required for aspiring teachers in California, has been a controversial and challenging test for many, including myself. Despite its aim to ensure teachers are well-prepared to teach reading, I find it problematic for several reasons. Post-COVID, teachers have until they clear their Level 1 teaching credential to pass this test, adding to the pressure. The RICA stems from the so-called ‘science of reading’ (SOR), a framework ostensibly intended to improve reading instruction. However, it fails to address the needs of Gestalt Language Processors (GLPs) in the classroom. This oversight means that whilst Analytic Language Processors (ALPs) benefit from SOR methods and achieve satisfactory reading scores, GLPs often struggle, leading to stagnant literacy rates.
The persistent struggle with literacy among GLPs suggests that the problem is not with the teachers’ understanding of SOR but with the SOR’s applicability to GLPs. This issue highlights a fundamental flaw in the RICA’s design. The test assumes that all students process language analytically, thus neglecting the significant portion of students who process language gesturally. As an autistic GLP (aka, non-verbal), I am acutely aware of this gap. The RICA’s focus on traditional reading instruction methods means that I have to navigate this assessment with an understanding that it does not fully recognise or address the unique challenges faced by GLPs, which are often the root of literacy struggles.
The Subtest 3 Case Study and Testing Stress
Subtest 3 of the RICA is particularly challenging due to its focus on fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary—three critical components of reading instruction. This subtest includes a case study that requires candidates to analyse a student’s reading abilities and devise instructional strategies based on provided data. Typically, a case study prompt presents a detailed student profile, including reading errors, comprehension struggles, and vocabulary gaps. Candidates must then formulate a comprehensive plan to address these issues, all within a strict time limit and without access to any external resources.
The pressure to perform under these conditions is immense. The case study demands not only a deep understanding of reading instruction but also the ability to recall and apply this knowledge perfectly in a high-stress environment. This expectation is unrealistic, considering that perfect recall is quite rare among humans. In the real world, educators rely on a variety of resources, notes, and collaborative support to develop effective instructional strategies. The RICA’s requirement to perform without any support or reference materials does not reflect the collaborative and resource-rich nature of actual teaching.
Moreover, the time constraints imposed by the test exacerbate the stress. Candidates must quickly analyse the student’s needs and craft a detailed instructional plan, all whilst under the pressure of a ticking clock. This high-stakes scenario does not allow for the thoughtful consideration and resource consultation that is typical in real-world educational settings. As a GLP without perfect linear recall, this aspect of the RICA is particularly daunting. The test’s design fails to accommodate the diverse ways in which individuals access and apply their knowledge, adding an unnecessary layer of difficulty to an already challenging profession (oh, and there’s no accommodation offered for this by the corporation who has the monopoly to run this test).
Common Data Elements in the Case Study
In the RICA Subtest 3 case study, candidates are presented with common data elements that are crucial for evaluating a student’s reading abilities. These typically include detailed observations of student reading behaviours, such as their fluency, accuracy, and expression. Additionally, errors and self-corrections are meticulously recorded, categorised into Meaning (M), Structure (S), and Visual (V) errors. These categories are significant because they provide insight into the student’s reading strategies and challenges. Meaning errors indicate a lack of understanding of the text’s context, structure errors point to grammatical misunderstandings, and visual errors suggest difficulties with word recognition. Understanding these errors is essential for diagnosing comprehension and engagement issues.
Comprehension and engagement data further enrich the case study, offering a window into how well the student understands the text and stays interested in reading. Observing how a student interacts with the text—whether they can answer questions about it, make predictions, and connect it to their own experiences—provides invaluable information about their reading comprehension skills. Engagement levels, indicated by their willingness to read and their overall enthusiasm, are also critical markers of reading success.
These elements are vital for accurately assessing reading levels and needs, particularly in Analytic Language Processors (ALPs). For ALPs, detailed data on errors and comprehension provide a clear picture of their reading development (but this falls short for GLPs. More on that later in the article.). Teachers can use this information to tailor their instruction to address specific weaknesses and reinforce strengths, ensuring that each student receives the support they need to become proficient readers. By focusing on these elements, educators can create targeted interventions that foster both reading skills and a love for reading, ultimately leading to improved literacy outcomes.
Running Records: An Essential Tool
Running Records are an essential tool in assessing and improving student reading performance, and candidates taking the RICA must be fluent in using this tool and its cryptic shorthand. Running Records involve a teacher listening to a student read aloud and meticulously noting their reading behaviours on a standardised form. This form captures correct words, substitutions, omissions, insertions, self-corrections, and repetitions. The shorthand used in Running Records allows teachers to quickly and accurately record these behaviours, creating a detailed profile of the student’s reading ability in real-time.
Conducting a Running Record involves selecting a passage appropriate for the student’s reading level and having them read it aloud. As the student reads, the teacher marks the text to indicate any errors and self-corrections. This real-time documentation is crucial for capturing the nuances of the student’s reading process. After the reading session, the teacher calculates various rates to interpret the results.
Key metrics include the error rate, accuracy rate, and self-correction rate. The error rate is calculated by dividing the total number of words read by the number of errors made. The accuracy rate, a percentage, is found by subtracting the number of errors from the total words read, dividing by the total words read, and then multiplying by 100. The self-correction rate is determined by adding the number of errors and self-corrections, then dividing by the number of self-corrections. These metrics provide a snapshot of the student’s reading proficiency and their ability to monitor and correct their own mistakes.
Miscue analysis, another critical aspect of Running Records, involves categorising errors into Meaning (M), Structure (S), and Visual (V) types. This analysis helps teachers understand the underlying causes of reading difficulties. For example, if a student frequently makes visual errors, they might benefit from phonics-based interventions. If meaning errors are common, strategies to improve comprehension and contextual understanding may be necessary.
Candidates must not only know how to conduct and interpret Running Records but also be adept at linking results to appropriate teaching strategies. This skill is vital for developing effective, individualised instruction plans that address each student’s unique reading needs. The ability to swiftly analyse and respond to Running Record data is a critical competency for any reading instructor, making it a cornerstone of the RICA assessment.
Bias Towards ALPs in RICA
The RICA demonstrates a clear bias towards ALPs, which significantly affects the assessment and its outcomes. Remember, ALPs process language in a linear, sequential manner, breaking down sentences into individual words and sounds. They excel in traditional phonics-based instruction, where the focus is on decoding words through systematic, step-by-step approaches. This method aligns well with the so-called ‘science of reading’ framework that the RICA is built upon.
However, this alignment creates a bias in the RICA, favoring ALPs and sidelining GLPs. GLPs, like myself, process language holistically, understanding and using language in larger, context-rich chunks. We tend to grasp the meaning of phrases and sentences as wholes rather than decomposing them into smaller parts. This fundamental difference in language processing means that GLPs often struggle with phonics-focused tasks that are central to the RICA.
The RICA’s design inherently favors the analytic approach, making it challenging for GLPs to perform well. The test’s emphasis on discrete phonemic and phonological skills does not account for the holistic processing strengths of GLPs. This bias is particularly problematic for individuals like me, an autistic GLP, who find it difficult to navigate an assessment that does not recognise or value our language processing style. Consequently, responses that consider the needs and strategies effective for GLPs might score lower because they deviate from the traditional methods the RICA expects.
The impact on scores is significant. My tutor even suggested leaving behind my knowledge of holistic reading instruction and responding to the RICA’s prompts as though GLPs do not exist. This advice highlights the test’s exclusionary nature. It’s disheartening and tough to be unseen in such important professional assessments, particularly when the methods that resonate with my own processing style are disregarded. The RICA’s narrow focus on analytic strategies not only undermines the diverse ways in which students learn to read but also fails to prepare teachers for addressing the full spectrum of language processing styles in their classrooms. This bias ultimately hinders the goal of fostering inclusive and effective literacy instruction for all students.
Adapting Running Records for GLPs
Beyond the test, understanding and accommodating GLPs is crucial for effective literacy instruction. GLPs process language in holistic chunks rather than in a linear, sequential manner. They grasp phrases and sentences as whole units, which can lead to different patterns of reading behaviour compared to ALPs. This distinction necessitates modifications in assessment tools like Running Records to better capture and support GLPs’ reading abilities.
To adapt Running Records for GLPs, several key changes can be made. Traditional Running Records focus on individual word accuracy, but for GLPs, the emphasis should be on the accuracy and fluency of larger chunks of text. This approach requires noting how well students read phrases and sentences, rather than just individual words. For instance, when a GLP reads “going to the store” as “heading to the shops,” this substitution should be recognised as maintaining meaning, even if the exact words differ. This holistic approach aligns better with how GLPs naturally process language.
Examples of adaptations in Running Record forms include adding sections to capture chunk-based reading behaviours and contextual comprehension. The form should allow for detailed miscue analysis that categorises errors into Meaning (M), Structure (S), and Visual (V) types, but with a focus on phrase-level understanding. Common GLP “mistakes” in miscue analysis might include substituting words that fit the context but differ visually, or rephrasing sentences whilst retaining the original meaning. These patterns help identify GLPs in my classroom and caseload, enabling targeted support.
The effectiveness of these adapted methods is significant for GLPs. By focusing on their strengths in contextual understanding and phrase-level processing, teachers can provide more meaningful feedback and tailored instruction. This approach not only acknowledges the unique ways GLPs read but also enhances their engagement and confidence. As a result, GLPs are more likely to improve their reading skills in a way that feels natural and supportive to them.
Overall, adapting Running Records to account for GLP reading behaviours ensures a more inclusive and accurate assessment. It allows educators to recognise and nurture the diverse ways students process language, ultimately leading to more effective and personalized literacy instruction. This inclusivity is essential for fostering a supportive learning environment where all students can thrive.
Running Records for ALPs vs. GLPs
With the shift in the US towards full inclusion of students with IEPs in the general education classroom, adapting Running Records for different language processing styles has become increasingly crucial. The traditional approach to Running Records, which suits ALPs well, needs to be broadened to accommodate GLPs. This adaptation, which must be done by the individual teacher, is essential because the current educational system often assumes all students are ALPs, overlooking the unique needs of GLPs.
Standard Running Records focus on individual word accuracy, fluency, and phonemic awareness, supporting ALPs by reinforcing their linear, sequential approach to language processing. However, for GLPs, this method falls short. GLPs understand and use language in larger, context-rich segments, requiring a different approach to accurately capture their reading abilities. Adapting Running Records to focus on the accuracy and fluency of phrases and sentences, rather than isolated words, is key. This involves noting how well students read and comprehend whole chunks of text, providing a more accurate reflection of GLPs’ reading skills.
Using adapted Running Records not only helps identify GLPs in the classroom but also ensures they receive the appropriate support. The education system often fails to recognise GLPs, treating all students as if they process language analytically (thus seeing GLPs as disabled ALPs). By identifying GLPs through these adapted tools, educators can tailor their instruction to better support each student’s natural processing style. This approach has proven effective in my own experience, where I have seen significant improvements in my students’ standardised assessment scores after identifying their processing style and providing appropriate support.
The need for these adaptations is critical for fostering an inclusive learning environment where all students can thrive. By recognising and accommodating the diverse language processing styles in the classroom, educators can use tools like Running Records to support both ALPs and GLPs effectively. This not only enhances individual student outcomes but also contributes to a more equitable and supportive educational system overall.
Holistic Language Instruction: Bridging the Gap
In my latest book, “Holistic Language Instruction: Addressing Literacy in Standard and Non-Standard Populations,” I explore innovative strategies for bridging the gap between ALPs and GLPs. The book is organised to align the stages of language development, as outlined in the Natural Language Acquisition paradigm, with typical ages and developmental milestones. This structure helps educators understand which GLP and ALP stages are likely to be present at different age ranges or grade levels.
The main focus of the book is to provide educators with a comprehensive framework that supports both types of learners, ensuring that all students can achieve literacy success. For ALPs, the book outlines strategies such as phonics-based instruction and systematic decoding practices. These methods reinforce their natural processing style and aid in developing their reading skills effectively. For GLPs, the book offers methods like using context-rich texts and encouraging chunk-based reading comprehension. These approaches cater to the holistic language processing style of GLPs, providing them with the support they need to succeed.
The benefits of these inclusive strategies are illustrated through numerous success stories and examples of impact. Again, in my own classroom, I have witnessed significant improvements in standardised assessment scores among students identified as GLPs after implementing these tailored instructional methods. For instance, students who previously struggled with traditional phonics instruction began to show remarkable progress when taught with holistic strategies that aligned with their natural language processing styles. These success stories highlight the transformative potential of inclusive literacy instruction.
Thus, “Holistic Language Instruction" underscores the necessity of inclusive assessment and teaching methods that recognize and accommodate diverse language processing styles. By bridging the gap between ALPs and GLPs, educators can create a more equitable and supportive learning environment, fostering literacy success for all students. My book aims to be a valuable resource for teachers seeking to implement effective, inclusive strategies in their classrooms, ultimately leading to improved literacy outcomes and a more inclusive educational landscape.
Resources
Adapting Running Records for GLPs
Focus on Phrases and Chunks - Instead of marking individual word errors, note how the student processes phrases or chunks of text. Observe if they read entire phrases correctly and fluently, or if they break them down into smaller parts.
Emphasise Comprehension and Context - Pay special attention to how GLPs understand and use context. They might rely heavily on context to decode and comprehend text. Include a section in your form to record observations about their use of contextual clues and overall comprehension.
Allow for Alternative Responses - Recognise that GLPs might use different but meaningful substitutions based on their chunk-based learning. Again, if a student reads “going to the store” as “heading to the shops,” note the substitution but acknowledge the preserved meaning. Modify the error analysis to differentiate between meaningful substitutions and errors that change the meaning.
Include Behavioural and Engagement Observations - GLPs might show different engagement patterns or behaviours when reading. Include sections in the form to record these observations, such as facial expressions, body movements, gestures, or verbalizations that indicate understanding or frustration.
Use Visual and Multisensory Supports - Incorporate visual aids or multisensory supports during the reading session. Note how these supports impact the student’s reading performance and comprehension.
Modified Running Record Form for GLPs
Here’s an example of how a Running Record form can be modified to better suit GLPs:
Student Information:
- Name: ________________
- Date: ________________
- Grade: ________________
Text Information:
- Title: ________________
- Level: ________________
- Total Words: ________________
Reading Observation:
| Phrase/Chunk | Correct | Substitution (Meaning Preserved) | Substitution (Meaning Changed) | Comments |
|--------------|---------|----------------------------------|-------------------------------|----------|
| 1 | ✓ | | | |
| 2 | ✓ | | | |
| 3 | ✓ | | | |
| ... | ... | | | |
Comprehension and Context Use:
| Observation | Notes |
|-------------|-------|
| Use of Contextual Clues | |
| Overall Comprehension | |
| Engagement and Behavior | |
Error Analysis:
| Type of Error | Tally |
|---------------|-------|
| Meaning Preserved | |
| Meaning Changed | |
Summary:
- Total Errors (Meaning Changed): _______
- Total Substitutions (Meaning Preserved): _______
- Total Self-Corrections: _______
- Error Rate (Meaning Changed): _______
- Accuracy Rate (Meaning Changed): _______
- Self-Correction Rate: _______
Comments/Notes:
- ____________________________________________________________________
- ____________________________________________________________________
Additional Strategies
Repeated Readings of Familiar Texts: - Encourage repeated readings of familiar texts to help GLPs develop fluency and confidence. Note improvements over time in the Running Record.
Integrating Gestalt Language Processing Strategies: - Use strategies that align with GLP approaches, such as script training or chunking activities, and record their effectiveness.
Collaborative Discussions: - Engage students in discussions about the text before and after reading to help them build context and meaning. Note their contributions and comprehension during these discussions.
By making these adjustments, Running Records can be a more inclusive and effective tool for assessing the reading progress of GLPs, providing valuable insights into their unique reading behaviors and needs.
Final thoughts …
As a GLP, writing articles like this one helps me study and this Substack serves as a ‘script repository,’ allowing me to create the gestalts necessary to manage the myriad tasks in my complex professional life. This article functions much like a mentor text, a concept I discuss in my book. For GLPs, the ability to write multi-paragraph essays is one of the last literacy skills to develop, so educators and parents should not panic if their learners are not writing novels at age 10.
By understanding and adapting to the unique needs of both ALPs and GLPs, we can create more inclusive and effective literacy instruction. This inclusive approach ensures that all students, regardless of their language processing style, can achieve literacy success. Unlike the SOR and the RICA, my book provides a comprehensive framework to support these diverse learners, emphasising the importance of tailored instructional strategies.
Ultimately, fostering an inclusive learning environment where all students can thrive is essential. By recognising and accommodating the diverse ways students process language, we can improve literacy outcomes and create a more equitable educational landscape for all.