TExES STR 293 common mistakes
TExES STR 293 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a student cannot blend or count the sounds in a spoken word (e.g., /f/ /i/ /sh/), the candidate selects an activity using letter cards, magnetic letters, or a decodable text to fix it.
The terms 'phonological awareness', 'phonemic awareness' and 'phonics' all use the word 'sound', so under time pressure the candidate equates 'working with sounds' with 'working with letters'.
What to do instead
Before answering, check for print: if no letters are involved and the task is listening/ speaking only, it is phonological or phonemic awareness; if letters and letter-sound correspondences are involved, it is phonics. Read each answer choice for the presence or absence of print.
The candidate recommends a fluency intervention aimed at accuracy or speed when the student reads accurately and quickly but in a monotone with no attention to punctuation and phrasing.
Candidates treat 'fluency' as a single trait and reach for the most familiar remedy (repeated reading for rate) rather than identifying which of the three components (accuracy, automaticity/rate, prosody) is weak.
What to do instead
Label the deficit in the stem in one phrase first: accuracy, rate, or prosody. Then choose the matching practice: for prosody, teacher modeling of expressive reading, echo reading, phrase-cued reading, and reader's theater rather than more timed repeated readings.
The candidate applies a syllable rule incorrectly, e.g., calling 'camel' an open first syllable with a long /a/ or calling 'table' a V/CV open-syllable word, or choosing to divide a word in a way that violates VC/CV or V/CV patterns.
The six syllable types and division patterns are memorized as a list of labels but not practiced on actual words, so the candidate matches a rule to the wrong word shape.
What to do instead
For every syllable item, write the word out and mark it: count vowel sounds, then test divisions. Practice a set of anchor pairs until automatic (ti-ger = V/CV open/long; cam-el = VC/V closed/short; rab-bit = VC/CV closed/closed).
The candidate chooses an answer that directs the teacher to correct every misspelling in a first grader's journal entry, or that expects conventional spelling in a student who is writing a letter for every sound heard.
The candidate equates good teaching with error elimination and does not relate the expectation to the developmental spelling continuum (pre-phonemic, phonemic/semi-phonemic, within-word pattern, syllables and affixes, derivational relations).
What to do instead
First place the student's sample on the continuum using evidence (e.g., 'I LV MTR' = letter-name/semi-phonemic). Then choose the answer that targets the next stage's feature, and keep ungraded writing time for fluency separate from explicit spelling instruction.
For a fifth grader who reads grade-level text with weak comprehension because multisyllabic word decoding is inaccurate, the candidate selects comprehension-strategy instruction, more independent reading time, or a vocabulary program.
The candidate assumes foundational skills are finished after third grade and that older students' problems are automatically comprehension problems, so grade level overrides the actual data in the stem.
What to do instead
Intervention follows the assessed deficit, not the grade level. Name the deficit (word reading vs language comprehension) and pick the option that teaches the missing foundational skill explicitly, even in upper grades.
The candidate selects a diagnostic or benchmark instrument when the stem asks which assessment the teacher should use at the start of the year to identify which students are at risk, or selects a one-time test to answer 'is this intervention working'.
Screening, diagnostic, progress-monitoring and summative assessments are remembered as a list of labels rather than by function, frequency and audience.
What to do instead
Match on three features: purpose, timing, and who receives it. Screen = brief, whole class, beginning of year, who is at risk; diagnostic = individual, after screening, what specifically is wrong; progress monitoring = brief, frequent (weekly/biweekly), is the intervention working; summative/outcome = end of year, program-level.
All answer choices are sound pedagogy, and the candidate picks the one that feels most generally beneficial rather than the one that addresses the specific deficit described in the stem.
On scenario items the candidate reads the alternatives as separate teaching tips and evaluates each on its own merit instead of testing each against the data given.
What to do instead
Restate the stem data in one sentence before looking at the choices ('Student reads 60 wcpm with 99% accuracy but cannot retell'). Then eliminate every option that targets a different component, even if the practice is otherwise excellent.
The candidate picks basic, high-frequency words the class already knows (e.g., 'dog', 'chair') when the question asks which words to select for explicit vocabulary instruction from a read-aloud.
Any word taken from a text looks like a vocabulary word, and the Tier 1/Tier 2/Tier 3 framework is known as labels rather than as a selection rule.
What to do instead
Apply the tiers as a filter: Tier 1 = everyday, typically already known, not a target; Tier 2 = high-utility, cross-content, likely unfamiliar but definable from context, the best targets; Tier 3 = content-specific terms taught with the content. Also prefer words the text does not fully define.
The candidate chooses 'summarizing', 'predicting' or 'making inferences' for a student whose real need is, respectively, monitoring comprehension, activating/building background knowledge, or understanding text structure, or confuses a comprehension strategy with a comprehension skill.
The strategies are memorized as a checklist and the candidate matches on vague familiarity ('comprehension strategies') rather than on the function each one serves before, during or after reading.
What to do instead
Map each strategy to its purpose and timing before choosing: predicting/previewing and building background = before; monitoring and fix-up, questioning, visualizing = during; summarizing and retelling = after. Then confirm the chosen strategy addresses the exact difficulty in the stem.
The candidate chooses incidental, embedded or 'as they come up' instruction (e.g., pointing out letter sounds during read-alouds, letting the child guess from pictures and context) over a planned, explicit, systematic approach with modeling and gradual release.
Candidates bring prior beliefs about child-centered or whole-language practice, and all the answer choices are written to sound reasonable and respectful of the learner.
What to do instead
Prefer the option that is explicit (teacher states and models the skill), systematic (follows a scope and sequence), cumulative, and includes gradual release (I do, we do, you do) with corrective feedback and practice to mastery; also prefer flexible small-group, data-driven grouping over whole-class uniformity.