What is dyslexia? We can all benefit from a deeper understanding of what dyslexia is, learning how to identify signs of it, and adding effective strategies to prevent reading difficulties into our "pedagogical toolbox." In these endeavors, the linked whitepaper should be considered a resource: Understanding Dyslexia: Defining, Evaluating, and Teaching Students at Risk of Reading Problems (Brown, 2021).
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 Response to Intervention (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®
teacher
develops
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.
The 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.
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.
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 offer 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). It should be considered essential to plan for and implement 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).
To cite:
Anderson, C.J.
(September 30, 2021) Understanding dyslexia [Web log post] Retrieved
from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/
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
Brown, R. (2021).
Understanding dyslexia. A whitepaper published by for Illuminate Education
Chall, J.S. (1983) Stages
of reading development: McGraw Hill.
Clay, M.M. (1985). The early detection
of reading difficulties: A diagnostic survey with recovery procedures:
Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled. New Zealand journal of educational studies, v22, 155-173.
Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading recovery: Heinemann
Coley, J.D. & Hoffman, D.M (1990). Overcoming learned helplessness in at-risk readers. 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.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/rrq.36.3.2
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: 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: 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 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
Kruidenier, J. R., MacArthur, C. A., Wrigley, H. S. (2010). Adult Education Literacy Instruction: A Review of the Research: 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.
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
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing Early Literacy: A Scientific Synthesis of Early Literacy Development and Implications for Intervention: 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 [online]. Retrieved from: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm.
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.
Remediation Plus System Teacher Training White Paper (2017) Retrieved from: https://issuu.com/remediationplus/docs/r__teacher_training_white_paper
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. 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.
