In
traditional urban school systems, students exhibiting academic, behavioral,
and/or social/emotional learning deficits are provided few options. Should the teacher or parents believe such
deficits exhibit a major concern, then the student is often evaluated through special
education or other categorical programs such as Title I, ESL, or literacy
services, etc…. Since NCLB (2001) the Response
to Intervention (RTI) movement has
resulted in at-risk students with learning and/or behavioral challenges being
provided more flexible and responsive service options without having to rely
solely on special education. In contrast
to previous traditional assessment and service delivery models, an RTI approach
offers several key differences:
(1)
emphasizes early intervention in the typical, general education learning
environment,
(2)
maximizes all staff’s expertise and services, and makes effective use of all
existing resources,
(3)
intends to assess the student’s strengths and weaknesses based on their
academic performance or behavior in the regular educational setting,
(4)
delivers interventions regular educational setting and interventions are based
on reliable and measurable information,
(5)
response to the intervention is directly and frequently monitored and charted,
and
(6)
intends to de-emphasize categories and labels while encouraging creativity, problem
solving, and providing support to students in a timely manner.
The
RTI approach presents a problem-solving model for schools. As such, this model allows application of a
systemic, school-wide problem-solving approach.
Therefore, rather than perceptions or assumptions, effective curriculum
and instructional decisions are based on collected and analyzed
student-centered data.
Vacca
& Padak (1990) find at-risk learners are seldom more academically vulnerable
than during instructional situations that require them to engage in acts of
literacy. Kletzien & Bednar (1990)
view at-risk readers as students who see themselves “as poor learners who have
limited aptitude to benefit from educational opportunities. They are at risk by being constantly
discouraged and by having an inadequate understanding of their own learning
abilities and potential” (p 528).
As noted in the January 2016 blog post,
most research-based reading intervention programs utilize a phonemic and
phonological awareness approach as the foundation for their model of reading
intervention. The most effective reading
programs for at-risk
students utilize a multisensory and systematic approach ( Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan,
2001; Kim, Wagner, & Lopez, 2012; Kruidenier, MacArthur, Wrigley, 2010). Many RTI initiatives utilize these approaches
within Tier 3 (Intensive) reading programs. Research by Slavin,
Lake, Davis, and Madden, (2009)
found one-to-one intervention effective for students at-risk for reading
failure. This blog post will identify
tenets and critiques of some of the most popular reading programs utilized as
Tier 3 RTI.
The
aim of the Reading Recovery® program is to reduce the number of children
that experience difficulty with reading and writing. Specially trained Reading Recovery®
teachers identify children for the program. The identified children “are
the lowest achievers in the first-grade cohort as evidenced on a standardized
test and the Diagnostic Survey (Clay, 1985), excluding none” (Lyons, 1989, p
126). The Reading
Recovery® approach to identifying at-risk students involves a relative
notion of risk, rather than an absolute one. Students are selected for
the Reading
Recovery® intervention program because of their performance relative to
their classmates according to teacher judgment and performance on a diagnostic
battery.
During
the Reading
Recovery® intervention program, children are pulled out of their classrooms each day for
thirty-minute individual lessons. The lessons supplement regular
classroom instruction for 12 to 20 weeks. The Reading Recovery®
program does not rely on consumable materials or step-by-step programs.
Rather, the knowledgeable Reading
Recovery® teacherdevelops an individualized lesson for each child.
Each lesson provides the child with an opportunity to think and problem solve
while reading and writing. A detailed, daily running record is kept of
the student’s progress and the teacher then designs the next day’s lesson
(Lyons, 1989).
Reading
Recovery®
is available on a nonprofit, no royalty basis. Reading Recovery®
in the United States is a collaboration between universities and school
districts. Therefore program costs include tuition for initial training and
continuing professional development. Establishment of a Reading Recovery®
site requires training of a teacher leader. Additional start-up
costs include the teacher leader’s salary, the university tuition for the
Reading Recovery® coursework, and costs for books and materials. Each
site must provide a “cognitive lab” (a room with a one-way mirror and sound
system), which will optimize subsequent training for teachers. Trained
teacher leaders work at the site level and provide professional development to
subsequent Reading
Recovery® teachers. Subsequent costs support the teacher leader and a
proportional part of the Reading Recovery® teachers’ salaries and benefits. Specially
trained Reading
Recovery® teachers work part of the day implementing Reading Recovery®
interventions and the balance of the day in assigned duties such as classroom
teaching or providing small group literacy instruction. Data reported for
2010-2011 identifies the average Reading Recovery®
teacher in the United States provided eight students with Reading Recovery®
interventions and provided instruction to nearly 40 additional students.
Reading
Recovery®
is not meant to be a perfect program for every need. It is an
intervention that appears best suited for students with moderate reading or
language disorders. Evidence identifies Reading Recovery as a successful
early intervention reading program.
Reading
Recovery®
also has its critics. Center, Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred, &
McNaught (1995); Rasinski (1995); and Shanahan & Barr (1995) all level
criticism on its methodological effectiveness. Hiebert (1994) questions
the level of gains that are maintained over time. Dudley-Marling &
Murphy (1997) criticize the Reading Recovery®
program for maintaining the “status quo by protecting the structure of schools”
(p 460). A What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) report on the Reading Recovery®
program identified 202 studies that investigated Reading Recovery®
in relation to the reading skills of at risk beginning readers (U.S. Department
of Education, 2013). While only three of the initial five studies
reviewed by Chapman and Tunmer (2015) met WWC evidence standards, Chapman and
Tunmer still felt justified in suggesting “there is little empirical evidence
to indicate that successful completions in Reading Recovery result in sustained
literacy achievement gains. On the contrary, there is strong evidence
indicating students who have received Reading Recovery®
benefit little from the program” (p. 6).
However,
a WWC
report (2013) found Reading Recovery®
to have positive effects on general reading achievement and potentially
positive effects on alphabetics, reading fluency, and comprehension for beginning
readers. In response to critics, it is only logical to believe sustained
student progress will depend upon subsequent support, both in school and at
home. This logic reinforces the published beliefs of Clay (2005):
Children who successfully complete early literacy
interventions like Reading Recovery should operate in reading and writing in
ways that put them on track for being silent readers with self-extending
systems during the next two years at school. With good classroom instruction
and moderate personal motivation that should be achievable. (p. 52).
Teachers
trained in Reading
Recovery® procedures succinctly observe student literacy behaviors.
Running records and observation monitor the student’s changes in reading
behaviors, what elements of literacy the student attends to, and how the
student resolves problem during reading. Teachers trained in Reading Recovery®
procedures also focus on the child’s strengths while attending to areas needing
development in the context of reading continuous text within real books and
through writing authentic messages (Clay, 2005).
The Wilson Language Training® (WLT) empowers individual educators,
schools, and districts to achieve literacy with all students. Approximately 25,000 teachers in United
States schools have achieved WRS Level I Certification. While WLT initially focused solely on the
education of teachers who were working with individuals with dyslexia, since
2002 WLT programs provide professional
development to the general education classroom teachers as well.
WLT serves as a provider of
research-based reading and spelling programs for all ages. Its programs offer a
multisensory and structured curricula. Programs include Fundations®, Wilson Just Words®, the Wilson Reading
System®, and Wilson Fluency®/Basic. The
approaches utilized within WLT programs have proven highly effective
(Melby-Lervåg, Lyster, & Hulme, 2012).
The Wilson Reading System® exhibit
potentially positive effects on alphabetics but no discernible effects on
fluency and comprehension. One study,
which included more than 70 third-grade students in Pennsylvania, used a
modified version of Wilson Reading System®.
The study met the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence
standards. As a result, of their literature review (2007), the WWC considered the extent of evidence
for Wilson Reading System® to be small for alphabetics, fluency, and
comprehension. No studies meeting WWC
evidence standards, with or without reservations, addressed general reading
achievement.
Reading Rescue® provides a
systematic reading intervention model based on tenets of Reading Recovery® (Clay, 1993).
Ehri, Dreyer, Flugman, and Gross (2007) found Reading Rescue® to be an
effective tutoring intervention model for first-grade struggling readers. The Reading Rescue® program offers
staff development designed to implement the intensive early intervention
program. Using trained tutors rather
than certified reading specialists, the intervention specifically targets
students who will benefit from one-on-one instruction to reach grade-level
reading. Training tutors rather than reading
specialists offers school districts a less expensive alternative to providing
Tier 3 RTI.
The Reading Rescue®
program’s twelve-part professional development protocol is delivered over
two-years. The structured training seeks
to equip participating staff with knowledge and skills typically associated
with reading specialists. Ideally, this
approach increases the school’s culture of high expectations for successful
literacy and builds the school's capacity to promote learning for all
students. However, one reality of a
cost-efficient two-year plan for professional development is that at-risk
students may not be served by tutors as fully trained as those studied by Ehri,
et. al (2007), thereby impacting the generalizability of those findings. Additionally, spreading the full training
protocol over two years, may adversely impact the necessary development and
implementation of a systemic process for subsequent monitoring of program
completers for sustained success.
Since
1973, the Project Read®
curriculum (Greene and Enfield) has provided an intervention program to be
delivered in the regular classroom by the regular classroom teacher. As such, Project Read® can
be considered for Tier 1 or Tier 2 RTI rather than primarily Tier 3 RTI. The Phonics Strand of the program is based on
the Orton-Gillingham
method. The Reading Comprehension and Written
Expression Strands are based on three foundational principles:
1. Direct instruction of
the concepts and skills of language
2. Presentation of
concepts and skills in their dependent order, from simplest to most complex
3. Multisensory
strategies and materials created specifically for each concept and skill
The
Project Read® curriculum has been successful for students in
K-12, ESL/ELL, Special Education, and Title I Reading programs. The Project Read curriculum strands include
Phonics, Reading Comprehension, and Written Expression. Using multisensory activities and direct
instruction, the Project Read phonics program uses a systematic teaching
approach for decoding, encoding, and reading comprehension strategies.
Related
to its potential use as Tier 3 RTI, Project Read® Phonology
Strand was found to have no discernible effects on general reading achievement
for students with learning disabilities (WWC, 2010). The
WWC review of the effectiveness of Project Read® Phonology
was based on Acalin (1995). That study included
66 students with learning disabilities in kindergarten through grade 4 from
five school districts. As a result, the
WWC considered the extent of evidence for Project Read® Phonology
on students with learning disabilities to be small for general reading
achievement.
Regardless
of the intervention, it is crucial to recognize teaching does not entail
instruction alone. A highly qualified
teacher will understand the ongoing relationship between the curriculum, his or
her instruction, and ongoing assessment of learning. Competency regarding this relationship should
be exhibited through increased classroom assessment literacy whereby
standards-based instruction is continually provided and monitored through
diverse and consistent formative and criterion assessments.
Providing
instructional leaders with the skills to advance these competencies and promoting
professional development in the area of classroom assessment literacy will
address the need to optimize learning and sustain success. Professional development that promotes
literacy instruction grounded in the philosophies and principles advocated by
Marie Clay, Jeanne Chall, Richard Anderson, David Rumelhardt, Kenneth Goodman,
and current contemporaries in reading theory will help an effective school
reach its reading goals. Such an
endeavor exhibits the vision for excellence in education and promotes the mission
of learning for all.
Undoubtedly,
programs that utilize a phonemic and
phonological awareness approach in a multisensory, systemic reading
intervention model offers research-based Tier 3 RTI. However, for at least two years following
successful participation in any early intervention program, the effective
school needs to ensure the student is exposed to “good classroom instruction
and moderate personal motivation that should be achievable” (Clay, 2005, p. 52). Next month’s post will
address the need for a systemic follow up program for successful completers of
early intervention reading programs. A
follow-up program needs to offer techniques that address the students’ “affective
needs to help them see themselves as capable learners and good thinkers” (Coley
& Hoffman, 1990, p 497).
References;
Big
Ideas in Beginning Reading (2009) University of Oregon Center on Teaching and
Learning
Retrieved from:
http://reading.uoregon.edu/resources/bibr_pa_concepts.pdf
Chall, J.S. (1983)
Stages of reading development. New
York: McGraw Hill.
Clay,
M.M. (1985). The early detection of
reading difficulties: A diagnostic survey with recovery
procedures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
procedures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay,
M.M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled. New Zealand journal of educational
studies, v22, 155-173.
studies, v22, 155-173.
Clay,
M. M. (1993). Reading recovery. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann
Coley,
J.D. & Hoffman, D.M (1990). Overcoming learned helplessness in at-risk readers.
Journal of Reading v33. n7 497-508.
Journal of Reading v33. n7 497-508.
Ehri,
L.. Dreyer, L.,Flugman,B. and Gross, A. Alan. (2007) Reading Rescue: An
effective
tutoring intervention model for first-grade struggling readers. American Educational
Research Journal,44,414-448.
tutoring intervention model for first-grade struggling readers. American Educational
Research Journal,44,414-448.
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S.
R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T.
(2001)
Phonemic awareness instruction
helps children learn to read: Evidence from the national
reading panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly 36 (3). 250-287.
Enfield M.L., (1976). An alternate
classroom approach to meeting special learning needs of children
with
reading problems (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1976). Digital
Dissertations,
DAI-A 37/12, p. 7632, Jun 1977.
International Dyslexia Association.
(2008). Just the Facts: Multisensory Structured Language Teaching.
Baltimore: MD.
Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250-287. doi:
10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2
Hoover, N. L., (2011). Reading
Rescue®: A literacy intervention for elementary students,
Gainsville,
FL: The Literacy Trust.
Kame'enui,
E. J., Simmons, D. C., Baker, S., Chard, D. J., Dickson, S. V., Gunn, B.,
Smith, S. B.,
Sprick, M., & Lin, S. J. (1997). Effective
strategies for teaching beginning reading.
In E. J.Kame'enui, & D. W. Carnine (Eds.), Effective Teaching Strategies That
Accommodate Diverse Learners. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
In E. J.Kame'enui, & D. W. Carnine (Eds.), Effective Teaching Strategies That
Accommodate Diverse Learners. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Kim, Y.-S., Wagner, R. K., &
Lopez, D. (2012). Developmental relations between reading fluency
and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from grade 1 to grade 2. Journal of
and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from grade 1 to grade 2. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology , 113(1), 93-111. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.03.002
Kletzien,
S.B. & Bednar, M.R., (1990). Dynamic assessment for at-risk readers. Journal
of Reading v33. n7 528-533
of Reading v33. n7 528-533
Kruidenier, J. R., MacArthur, C. A.,
Wrigley, H. S. (2010). Adult Education Literacy Instruction: A
Review of the Research. Washington DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Lyons,
C.A. (1989) Reading recovery: A preventative for labeling young at-risk
learners.Urban
Education v 24, n2 125-39.
Education v 24, n2 125-39.
Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S.-A. H.,
& Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their role in learning
to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological
Bulletin, 138(2), 322-352.
doi: 10.1037/a0026744
doi: 10.1037/a0026744
National
Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing Early Literacy: A Scientific
Synthesis of
Early Literacy Development and
Implications for Intervention.
Jessup, MD:
National
Institute for Literacy.
National
Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment
of
the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction
Ouelette, G., & Senechal, M.
(2008). Pathways to literacy: A study of invented spelling and its
role
in learning to read. Child Development, 79(4), 899-913.
Roberts, T. A., & Meiring, A.
(2006). Teaching phonics in the context of children’s literature or
spelling:
Influences on first grade reading spelling and writing and fifth-grade
comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 690-713.
Rosenthal, J., & Ehri, L. C.
(2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary
learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(1), 175-191.
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A.
(2011). Effective programs for struggling
readers:A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1–26.
readers:A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1–26.
doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.002
Vacca,
R. T. & Padak, N. D. (1990). Who's at risk in reading? Journal of Reading v33. n7
486-88.
To cite:
Anderson, C.J. (February 29. 2016) A
review of research-based reading intervention programs used for
