Over the course of the semester, I learned how to develop beneficial intervention

opportunities to support the individual development of the student. First, I learned the

importance of developing interventions that are systematic and focus on specific aspects of

students’ needs (Jones et. al, 2016). As highlighted in “Matching Interventions to Reading

Needs,” it is important that the specific abilities of the student are taken into consideration when

developing an intervention program. In a similar fashion, in scaffolding a child, I learned that the

scaffold should be adjusted in terms of type and amount based on observation of the student’s

current need (Mikita et. al, 2018). For instance, while Geoffrey read the high frequency readers, I

differentiated how I provided scaffolding for words he struggled to decode. At times, I pointed

him to use context clues, other times I reminded him if it was a sight word he had been

practicing, and still in other scenarios I highlighted for him specific aspects of the word, such as

the final letter. In this manner, rather than simply telling him to sound it out, I was able to give

specific scaffolds that were intentionally chosen based on my knowledge of his abilities in

reference to the word or portion of difficulty (Cunningham, 2017). Lastly, I learned the

importance of motivation in a student’s learning. It became clear through observation of

Geoffrey that his success was highly influential to his motivation to read and partake in the

phonics activities. Therefore, I have found that it is important to give students opportunities to

succeed in order to encourage students to continue to learn.

I believe one of my strengths was differentiation of activities. As Geoffrey experienced

difficulty grasping letter-sound correspondences, I looked for new strategies to make the ideas

more concrete. Using Cunningham’s “Letter Actions” activity, I started to connect letters and

their sounds to an action. For instance, when teaching that h says /h/, I had Geoffrey hop,

reiterating the /h/. This proved incredibly beneficial to his recollection as he came back each
week recalling the letters learned the week before based on the letter actions associated with

them. In a similar manner, for sight words, I tried to plan various activities for practice.

Sometimes, we used the “Word Wall Cheers,” other times we wrote in shaving cream, and other

times Geoffrey used paint to trace the words on a piece of paper. Repeated exposure through

multiple avenues enabled Geoffrey to develop a more concrete understanding of the words.

In regards to Geoffrey’s performance, I have one remaining question. How do you

support a child such as Geoffrey in the classroom when he has not been identified as needing

special education supportive services? Conversations with Geoffrey’s mom demonstrated that

she did not believe he required special education. Through observation, however, it is very clear

that Geoffrey will continue to fall behind until he receives supportive services. It would be

incredibly difficult to find time to support Geoffrey’s individual needs while still meeting the

needs of the other students in the classroom.

 Resources

Cunningham, P. M. (2017). Phonics they use: Words for reading and writing. In Phonics they

use: Words for reading and writing (p. 168). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Jones, J. S., Conradi, K., & Amendum, S. J. (2016). Matching interventions to reading needs: A

case for differentiation. Reading Teacher, 70(3), 307-314.

Mikita, C., Rodgers, E., Berenbon, R., & Winkler, C. (2018). Targeting prompts when

scaffolding word solving during guided reading. Reading Teacher, 72(6), 745-749.