What are effective literacy strategies for elementary students



WHAT ARE EFFECTIVE LITERACY STRATEGIES FOR ELEMENTARY STUDENTS WITH READING DISABILITIES?

As a K-5 Reading Specialist, I teach many students that have difficulty reading. I instruct these students using instructional methods that I have been trained to use through workshops, professional development, and Master’s classes. The interventions help most of my students and I see growth. However, some of my students are not improving and they are not responding to the individual or small group instruction. These students have severe difficulty reading and are way below grade level. I need to know what to do to help them. These students are the reason that I ask this question:

What are effective literacy strategies for elementary students with reading disabilities?

Reading Disability

Reading disability is an unexpected discrepancy between achievement and intellect in the reading process. Lovett and Steinbach (1997) define developmental reading disability as “a term used to describe otherwise intelligent and healthy children who unexpectedly fail to acquire reading, spelling, and written language skills.” It is estimated that three to six percent of otherwise normal children have a reading disability (Lovett & Steinbach, 1997). Children with reading disabilities are not struggling readers; they have more severe difficulties than strugglers do. In addition, reading disabled students may or may not have learning disabilities. For children with reading disabilities, current instructional methods have failed to teach them to read.

There are three main types of reading disabilities (Mathes, 2009). Dyslexia is the most widely known. People with this disability have difficulty reading single words and decoding words quickly. Another type of reading disability is associated with poor language comprehension and these people have difficulty with inferences and summaries. The third type of reading disability is people who experience difficulty in both decoding and language comprehension; these people are the most severe (Mathes, 2009).

Effective Literacy Strategies

The research in this annotated bibliography showed the most effective literacy strategy for younger elementary students with reading disabilities is systematic direct instruction in phonological awareness (Abbott & Berninger, 1999; Lovett, Borden, Lacerenza, Frijters, & Steinbach, 2000; Lovett & Steinbach, 1997; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000; Simos, Fletcher, Sarkari, Billinglsey-Marshall, Denton, & Papanicolaou, 2007; Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Lindamood, Rose, Conway, & Garvan, 1999). The specific phonological awareness program is not as important as the instruction of phonologically-based reading skills (Lovett et al., 2000). There are many concepts that fall under the phonological awareness umbrella. Two of these are phonemic awareness and phonics. Instruction in phonemic awareness, the manipulation of sounds, is effective for students with reading disabilities (O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000; Schuele & Boudreau, 2008; Torgesen et al., 1999; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997; Torgesen et al. 1999). Also instruction in phonics, the relation between letters and sounds, is also effective (Abbot & Berninger, 1999; Lovett & Steinbach, 1997; Menzies, Mahdavi, & Lewis, 2008; Rankin-Erickson & Pressley, 2000; Simos et al., 2007; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007). One effective sequence for beginning readers is instruction in rhyme, initial sounds, final sounds, blending, and segmenting (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). Another effective strategy is instruction in guided reading (Menzies et al.; Torgeson et al., 1997; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010), which helps to accomplish the ultimate goal of reading for understanding.

Effective strategies for older students with reading disabilities are instruction in syllable patterns (Abbott & Berninger, 1999) and morphology (Goodwin & Ahn, 2010). These students do not have to wait until they have mastered phonological awareness before they can be instructed in the next step. If the concept is developmentally appropriate, it is acceptable to combine steps, especially combining phonological awareness with syllable and morpheme patterns. It is not effective to teach nonsense words, rather teach real words and patterns (Abbott & Berninger, 1999). Before beginning instruction, determine the student’s area of need and instruct from that point (Menzies, et al., 2008). Start with the simple and move to more complex skills. Begin intervention as soon as the problem is recognized (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007).

An effective comprehension strategy for students with reading disabilities is the use of Rainbow Dots to help students get a clear understanding of the text. A colored dot is placed on the text where the student used the strategy. The four steps are visualization, summarization, inferences, and making connections. Additional dots and steps can be used for questioning, rereading, and using context clues (Moore & Lo, 2008).

Vocabulary instruction in the classroom needs to be reinforced for reading disabled students. Many opportunities need to be provided for the students to experience the targeted words in the context of the story and outside the context of the story. Activities to engage the student and allow them to interact with the vocabulary words are also effective (Pullen, Tuckwiller, Konold, Maynard, & Coyne, 2010).

Additional Important Factors for Students with Reading Disabilities

Although the instructor may not be a strategy, she is still an important part of the equation for reading success in students with reading disabilities. For effective outcomes, the instructor needs to be experienced, educated, and trained in the instructional method or program (Torgesen, et al., 2001). The teacher needs to provide a motivating supportive environment for the reading disabled student (Rankin-Erickson & Pressley, 2000). Small group remediation is beneficial (Lovett, et al., 2000; Lovett & Steinbach, 1997; Menzies, et al. 2008; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000; Rankin-Erickson & Pressley, 2000; Simos, et al., 2007) and needs to be at the student’s instructional level (Menzies, et al., 2008; Simos, et al., 2007). Ample time needs to be given to practice the skills that have been learned (Rankin-Erickson & Pressley, 2000). The end goal of instruction for students with reading disabilities is to read text for meaning and understanding.

Annotated Bibliography

Menzies, H. M., Mahdavi, J. N., & Lewis, J. L. (2008). Early intervention in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 29 (2), 67-77.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect that early intervention had on the occurrence of reading difficulties in students. An urban school in Southern California was chosen for the study and 42 first graders participated. The school was considered at-risk with 78% on free or reduced lunch, 26% were English Language Learners, and 28% of parents did not graduate from high school. This school also had a high transfer rate because the school district included three shelters for homeless women and women with substance abuse problems. Besides the first grade teachers, there were four paraprofessionals, a special education teacher, and a literacy coach. For the study, three new techniques were implemented: progress monitoring, low student-teacher ratio, and a differentiated phonics instruction. DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) was used to determine instructional level and as an on going assessment. Progress monitoring was administered weekly to track students’ phonological awareness and their understanding of the alphabetic principle. Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) was also used to assess student fluency, decoding, and comprehension. This test was given every twelve weeks. Small instructional groups were formed using the data from DIBELS and DRA. A teacher or paraprofessional led each small group for 45 minutes daily. After the students were grouped by similar skills, the assessments were used to decide what type of instruction was needed. One instructional area was phonemic awareness, another decoding and fluency, and the third was guided reading techniques. At the end of one year, 90% of the first graders were on or above grade level and 75% of the remaining students were eligible for special education. The study was limited to one school and it was not determined, which of the three new techniques was the most effective. A follow up study could be administered to see if the students were able to maintain their gains made in first grade.

Effective strategies to minimize the occurrence of reading disabilities are instruction in phonics, decoding, fluency, and guided reading. Using an assessment that pinpoints the areas of need is essential; then the instructional methods can be directed at the specific problem. Progress monitoring shows the teacher when instruction needs to be changed and when progress is being made. Teaching in small groups, where instruction is differentiated, is also effective.

Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L., Lacerenza, L., Frijters, J. C., & Steinbach, K. A. (2000). Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: Combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (2), 263-283.

The researchers of this study wanted to determine if phonological based remediation or a combination of phonological and metacognitive approaches had the best outcomes for children with reading disabilities. Also if there was a sequence of instruction that produced better results. Eighty-five children ages six to thirteen participated in this study in Toronto, Canada. All of these English speaking students were referred because of their severe reading disabilities. Each student was in the lower to average range of intelligence. The students were divided into five groups for one hour a day of remediation until 70 hours were completed. The student teacher ratio was 3:1 and the sessions were in laboratory classrooms. One group had 35 hours of direct instruction in phonological analysis and blending, then 35 hours of instruction in word identification strategies. Group two had 35 hours of instruction in word identification and then 35 hours of phonological analysis and blending. Group three had 70 hours of phonological analysis and blending. Group four had 70 hours of instruction in word identification. Finally, group five, the control group, had 35 hours of study skills then 35 hours of instruction in math. All the participants were assessed five times: once at the beginning of the study, three times during the study, and once at the end. Groups one through four resulted in significant growth in word identification accuracy and decoding skills. This suggests that effective remediation can happen in more than one sequence and using different strategies. A combination of the two programs, groups one and two, showed the most growth in nonword reading, letter-sound, and word recognition. The best combination of phonological awareness instruction was phonological analysis and blending followed by instruction in word identification. This study found that systematic instruction in phonological awareness could improve phonological reading skills in reading disabled children throughout the elementary grades. It also found that the strategies taught transferred over to reading.

Neither the specific phonological awareness program nor the sequence of combining programs is as important as the systematic direct instruction of phonologically–based reading skills. Remediation in phonological awareness can be beneficial for the elementary students with reading disabilities. Effective strategies for these children are instruction in phonological analysis, blending, and word identification. The four word identification strategies are instruction in word identification-by-analogy, affixes, seeking familiar parts of unfamiliar words, and vowel pronunciation.

Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36 (4), 541-561.

This synthesis looked at eighteen studies, which were published between 1995 and 2005, concerning research on early reading interventions. All the studies were extensive with 100 or more sessions. The researchers questioned the effectiveness of the implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI). Specifically they looked at early identification, targeted intervention for at-risk students, ongoing progress monitoring, and tiers of research based interventions. In the RTI model, they looked at the types of intervention, the amount of time, who taught the intervention, and if the instruction was individualized. The studies with the highest effects taught both phonics instruction and text reading, which included decodable or leveled text. The phonics instruction included either letter-sound correspondence with word blending or word patterns. Some of the studies incorporated spelling within the phonics instruction. The interventions in this synthesis ranged from five months to two and a half years of instruction, but there was not a significant difference in growth compared with the length of the intervention. This does not mean that students in the longer interventions did not make more progress, just that the effect size was not significantly larger. The group size was also evaluated in this synthesis. The best outcome for student growth was one-on-one tutoring. Some studies had groups ranging from two to eight students. The three studies that had the largest groups, six to eight students, reported the lowest effects. Beginning interventions in first grade had higher effects than interventions that began in second or third grade. This research found that there was no sizeable difference between well defined, standardized lessons and lessons organized by the teacher based on individual need. In fourteen of the eighteen studies, the interventions were led by school personnel for all or part of the intervention. Each of the personnel was given specific training that included feedback on the instruction. This synthesis suggested that those that make the decisions concerning the implementation of the RTI have research to help make the best choices for intervention.

The effective strategies for children with reading disabilities are instruction in phonics and text reading. The phonics instruction needs to include letter-sound correspondence with word blending or word patterns, and spelling. The best grouping is one-on-one instruction, but the next best range is two to five students. For the best outcomes, intervention needs to begin in the first grade if possible before students face the reading difficulties of second or third grade.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1997). Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1 (3), 217-234.

This article looked at the instruction for children with severe reading disabilities in two different ways. First, the researchers evaluated three studies and presented a hierarchy of instructional goals to improve reading. Second, the result of a two and a half year study was evaluated to determine the effect of three different instructional methods. For the hierarchy, the researchers examined Lovette, Borden, Deluca, Lacerenza, Benson, and Brackstone’s (1994) study. This study found that students with reading disabilities made greater gains in phonetic reading skills with an instructional method that directly taught these skills rather than another method that did not teach the skills explicitly. Torgesen, Wagner, and Rashotte point out that the actual growth in phonetic reading skill was small and the gains in phonetic reading skill did not transfer to real-word reading ability. The next study by Wise and Olson (1995) showed that following instruction students with reading disabilities made improvements in phonetic reading skills, but these skills did not transfer to real-word reading ability either. They did not make growth in their reading vocabulary. The third study by Brown and Felton (1990), showed that instruction in a phonic and linguistic approach were stronger on all reading measures than the context approach (general classroom reading instruction). Neither of the groups in this study improved in reading comprehension. Looking at all three studies, reading disabled students were improving in the skills taught, but they were not making the ultimate goal of reading text for meaning. According to the article, the results of these studies point to the need for a hierarchy of instructional goals. It is not enough to say that an intervention is beneficial for students with reading disabilities, if they are not able to read with understanding at the developmentally appropriate time. The participants of Torgesen, Wagner, and Rashotte’s study were 138 kindergarten students. They were chosen based on their low scores in letter-naming and phonological awareness. The students were placed into four groups: phonological awareness, embedded phonics, regular classroom support, and no intervention. The children received 20 minutes of one-on-one tutoring four days a week for two and a half years during the school year. Two sessions were led by certified teachers and two by paraprofessionals who used the teachers’ plans to support the prior lessons. The phonological awareness group used Lindamood’s, Auditory Discrimination in Depth Program, which instructed in phonemic awareness and developing phonemic decoding skills. These students also read text. The embedded phonics group received instruction in recognizing whole words, letter-sound correspondence in context of words, and writing the words in sentences. When they had a small vocabulary of words, they began reading from a basal series. Students in the regular classroom support group received individual tutoring in skills that were taught in the regular classroom reading programs. The results showed that the phonological awareness group was significantly stronger in phonetic reading skills than all the other groups. Even though this group made strong growth, they did not grow in real-word reading. Because of these results and the results of the earlier three studies, these researchers state that the effectiveness of research outcomes should be evaluated by the growth of phonetic reading skills that lead to accurate and fluent reading.

The effective strategies for students with reading disabilities are to instruct in phonemic awareness and phonemic decoding skills. Once these skills have been attained, keeping the end goal in mind, instruct in multisyllabic words and fluency. Begin real-word reading as soon as possible. When looking at research, evaluate the end goal. Determine if the interventions led to the students begin able to read and comprehend.

O’Shaughnessy, T. E., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). A comparison of two reading interventions for children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (3), 257-277.

The main cause of reading disabilities for a majority of children is a deficit in phonological processing, which weakens the development of literacy skills. The purpose of this study was to look at the effects of two reading interventions. The participants were 45 second graders. They were from three elementary schools in southern California that had a history of low reading scores. Each student in the study had at least an average intelligence and was at least one year below grade level in oral reading fluency. The 21 girls and 24 boys all had reading disabilities. The tutors were paraprofessionals. One group of paraprofessionals was trained to teach phonological awareness and the other group was trained to teach word analogy. The intervention took place over six weeks for 30 minutes a day, three times a week. The tutors instructed in small groups of five students. During the study, the students did not receive any other reading remediation. At the end of the study, students in both reading interventions made significant growth in beginning reading skills. Both groups made growth in phonological awareness and word recognition. Students in the phonological awareness group made higher gains in phonological awareness because it was their focus. Children in both reading interventions were able to transfer their new skills to reading text. In addition, both groups made significant growth in oral reading fluency (rate and accuracy). The paraprofessionals were trained to be the tutors and they successfully implemented the programs. Further study could be done to determine the effects on combining the two instructional programs.

Effective strategies for children with reading disabilities are instruction in phonological awareness (rhyming, sound blending, sound isolation, and sound segmentation) and word analogy (rhyming, onset, rime, and whole word identification). This type of intervention transfers to reading, which is the main goal. Instruction in small groups with a trained tutor is beneficial to student learning.

Lovett, M. W., & Steinbach, K. A. (1997). The effectiveness of remedial programs for reading disabled children of different ages: Does the benefit decrease for older children? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 189-210.

This study looked at the effectiveness of remediation on students with reading disabilities in grades two through six to determine if there was an age where phonological deficits could not be improved. In addition, the researchers wanted to know if the programs were more effective at one grade level over another. The participants were 122 disabled readers in grades two through six (47 children in grades two and three, 36 children in grade four, and 39 children in grades five and six). All the students had average intelligence. The student teacher ratio was 2:1 or 3:1 and the children were taught in special laboratory classrooms at a pediatric hospital in Toronto, Canada. Each lesson was 60 minutes long and they met four times a week for 35 sessions. The students were divided into three groups; two groups were taught word identification and the third group was taught study skills (control group). One program taught phonological analysis, blending skills, and letter-sound mapping. The other word identification group taught four metacognitive decoding strategies (Word Identification Strategy). The four decoding strategies were word identification by analogy, seeking familiar parts of unfamiliar words, different vowel pronunciations, and affixes. Both groups also made growth in the specific skills they were taught and they were able to transfer the skill knowledge to other material. Following remediation, the students were able to identify unfamiliar words and spelling patterns, they had improved decoding and word attack skills, and they were able to read more nonwords and multisyllabic words. The Word Identification Strategy students were able to transfer to real English words. The phonological analysis group improved more in sound segmentation and sound blending. The results showed that students with severe reading disabilities could make growth in phonological awareness following remediation at their instructional level. Even students in grade six were not too old to benefit from the remediation.

Elementary students with reading disabilities can benefit from mediation at their instructional level. Effective strategies for students to learn to read real-words are instruction in word structure and affixes. Effective strategies for students to improve in phonological awareness are instruction in blending and letter-cluster-sound relations. Reading disabled students benefit from small group remediation and a systematic intensive approach to phonological awareness.

.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Lindamood, P., Rose, E., Conway, T., & Garvan, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (4), 579-593.

This study is the same as Torgesen (1997), but with a different emphasis including different authors. This two and a half year study focused on three interventions for the prevention of reading disabilities. The most common cause of reading disability is a deficit in processing the phonological features of language. For this study all the kindergarten students (1436) in thirteen elementary schools were assessed in letter naming. Students that scored in the bottom 30% were given additional tests in phonological awareness, rapid naming, and vocabulary. The researches weeded it down to the lowest 180; at the end of the study, there were 138 participants. The students were put in four groups: phonological awareness, embedded phonics, regular classroom support, and no intervention. The sessions were 20 minutes long for four days a week during the school year. The instruction was one-on-one beginning the second semester of kindergarten. Certified teachers led two sessions and two were led by paraprofessionals. The teachers prepared lessons for the paraprofessionals to review and extend the previous day’s lesson. The sessions took place in separate rooms within the school and the instruction was paced according to the child’s mastery of the skills taught. The phonological awareness group used Lindamood’s, Auditory Discrimination in Depth Program, which instructed in phonemic awareness and developing phonemic decoding skills. These students also read text. The teacher spent 80% of the time on word level instruction and 20% text level activities. The embedded phonics group received instruction in recognizing whole words, letter-sound correspondence in context of words, and writing the words in sentences. When they had a small vocabulary of words, they read from a basal series. The teachers spent 43% of the time on word level instruction and 57% of the time on text level activities. Students in the regular classroom support group received individual tutoring in skills taught in the regular classroom on reading programs. The results showed that the phonological awareness group had the strongest reading skills of the three groups; the students scored close to the 50th percentile at the end of the 2nd grade. All groups showed similar improvement in comprehension (low end of the average range). This study suggested that one-on-one instruction in reading was not enough for students with reading disabilities unless it included intensive instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemic decoding skills.

The phonological awareness group provides the most effective strategies for children with reading disabilities. Instruct in phonemic awareness and phonemic decoding skills. Once these basics are close to mastery, begin instruction in multisyllabic words, fluency building, using context clues, and getting the meaning of the text. As soon as possible, begin real-word reading.

Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Sarkari, S., Billingsley-Marshall, R., Denton, C. A., & Papanicolaou, A. C. (2007). Intensive instruction affects brain magnetic activity associated with oral word reading in children with persistent reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40 (1), 37-48.

The purpose of this study was to examine the brain activity of students with persistent reading disabilities after reading remediation. The cognitive reasons for developmental reading disabilities include weak phonological processing, rapid naming, or processing of rapidly changing visuals. The main reason for deficits in reading disabled children is the lack of awareness that the letters and letter strings represent sounds and being able to manipulate the phonological representations. To be able to master these skills it is important for the students to attain the ultimate goal of reading, which is to automatically recognize words and comprehend text. Some students with reading disabilities have higher order cognitive and verbal abilities; they may have superior intelligence. These students have a functional deficit in the part of the brain that is responsible for reading. The participants for this study were fifteen children, seven to nine years old, which were identified as at risk for reading disabilities at the end of kindergarten or beginning of first grade. The students were also chosen because they did not master literacy skills with prior reading instruction. They were from six non-Title I schools in an urban area of Texas. The small group interventions were two hours per day for the first eight weeks and then one hour per day the following eight weeks. The first eight weeks the intervention focused on phonological awareness and decoding skills (Phono-Graphix program). The later eight weeks focused on fluency and automaticity (Read Naturally program). At the end of intensive remediation, the children showed significant growth in decoding, fluency, and comprehension. This imaging study found that there were significant changes in the brain profile associated with word reading after the remediation. It also found that intensive instruction with word recognition helped students with reading disabilities even if they had previously received adequate classroom instruction.

Effective strategies for children with reading disabilities are instruction in phonological awareness, decoding skills, fluency, and automaticity. Even if the students have received this instruction in the classroom, but are deficient in these areas, it is beneficial to remediate. Small group interventions on the student’s instructional level are beneficial for learning.

Abbott, S. P., & Berninger, V. W. (1999). It’s never too late to remediate: Teaching word recognition to students with reading disabilities in grades 4-7. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 223-249.

The primary grades focus on “learning to read” and the upper grades focus on “reading to learn.” Older students with reading disabilities find themselves in a “reading to learn” grade without the needed skills. The purpose of this study was to see if tutoring would raise reading levels in older students with literacy disabilities. The researchers also compared instruction in beginning skills (orthographic knowledge, phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, and decoding) along with advanced skills, (syllable and morpheme patterns) as opposed to instruction in beginning skills only. Twenty students, in 4th through 7th grades, participated. All thirteen males and seven females were identified as low achieving in reading. Through a family genetics study, it was generalized that their families had histories of learning disabilities. The students received one-on-one tutoring one hour weekly for four months. The children were divided into two groups. One group received fifteen minutes weekly of structural analysis instruction (syllable types and morpheme patterns) during the tutoring session. The other group received fifteen minutes of instruction in study skills during the tutoring session. Both groups received instruction in the beginning skills of word recognition, phonological awareness, orthographic awareness, alphabetic principle, decoding, and oral reading. The tutors in the structured analysis group taught word origin and layers of the language. They taught strategies in reading, spelling and decoding long words. The students were encouraged to apply their new knowledge to their reading. Students were assessed three times (pretest, midtest, and posttest) during the sixteen weeks and significant growth was seen at midtest and posttest. With the exception of nonsense words, the students in both groups improved in reading, spelling, and related skills. The structure analysis group made slightly higher growth. Further research needs to be done to see the results of tutoring for a longer period of time. The study did suggest that students could benefit from structural analysis instruction even if they have not mastered the alphabetic principle.

If an upper elementary reading disabled student has not mastered beginning literacy skills, he should be instructed at his developmental level. The effective strategies include instruction in word recognition, phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, alphabetic principle, and decoding. The older students do not have to have these skills mastered before the effective strategies of instruction in syllable and morpheme patterns can begin. It is not effective to instruct nonsense words; rather real words and patterns should be taught.

Schuele, C. M. & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention: Beyond the basics. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 3-20.

The purpose of this article is to review the best practices in phonological awareness intervention. The main audience for this article is speech-language pathologists, but teachers are also addressed. Children with speech problems are at a greater risk for reading disabilities than children without speech problems. Students with low phonological awareness have problems learning to read. The study looks at effective interventions that will result in student success. This research shows that even with good classroom instruction, 20% of the kindergarteners did not have an adequate phonological awareness foundation. The greatest change is seen when intervention is given in kindergarten, before children get too far behind. The findings of this study show that students improve following interventions, but not all children are helped by the interventions. For students that do not acquire a phonological awareness foundation, the reasons behind the deficit need to be explored. There may be cognitive reasons, hearing problems, or communications problems. Possibly, it is timing and the phonemic awareness instruction needs to be taught later. Many of these students, who have phonological awareness problems, also have reading disabilities. Before intervention, the level of phonological awareness knowledge in upper elementary students needs to be determined because the students need this phonological awareness foundation to improve their reading. The intervention for older students should include word structure and word meaning. The sequence of effective intervention begins with rhyme and then goes on to initial and final sounds, blending sounds into words, and segmenting words into sounds. The article also points to the reality that learning to read and attaining literacy skills is complex. This gradual, ongoing process is unique for each person.

Although this review of research was mainly for speech-language pathologists, educational professionals can also make application from the information. Phonemic awareness instruction is an effective strategy for children with reading disabilities. Students need phonological awareness to be able to decode and read. If children do not acquire the basics in preschool or kindergarten, then they need intervention. It is best to begin phonemic awareness interventions as soon as the problem is recognized. An effective strategy for upper elementary reading disabled students is instruction in phonemic awareness, word analysis, word structure, and word decoding. An effective sequence to teach phonemic awareness is rhyme, initial sound, final sounds, blending, and segmenting.

Pullen, P. C., Tuckwiller, E. D., Konold, T. R., Maynard, K. L., & Coyne, M. D. (2010). A tiered intervention model for early vocabulary instruction: The effects of tiered instruction for young students at risk for reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 25 (3), 110-123.

This study looked at vocabulary instruction for at-risk reading disabled students to determine the effects of tiered intervention. Older children can read independently to increase their vocabulary, but younger children, second grade and lower, rely on oral language experience to increase their vocabulary. A young student’s ability to decode is partially dependent on his oral vocabulary. Even if the student can “sound out” a word, when it is not in his vocabulary he will not understand the printed word. A reader needs to know 90 to 95 percent of the words in a text to comprehend it. The participants in the study were first graders from three elementary schools in a medium-sized school district in Virginia. At each school, approximately one third of the students were on free-or-reduced lunch. Of the 224 first graders, 44% were considered at-risk for reading disability. All the first grade students were divided into three groups. Group one had 49 at-risk students who received treatment and group two had 49 at-risk students who did not receive treatment. The final group had 126 students who were not at-risk and did not receive treatment. The intervention was based on the RTI instructional model of tiered interventions. All the students received Tier 1 classroom instruction by a certified teacher. A storybook with rich vocabulary was read aloud on days one and three and the whole class participated in vocabulary activities. Each lesson was approximately 30 minutes. The at-risk treatment group received additional Tier 2 intervention. On days, two and four, a research assistant taught these students in small groups of four to five students. The purpose for this was to give additional support to students who were at-risk for reading failure. For this group the instructor reviewed the selected vocabulary words from the story and provided time to use the words in a meaningful way. The interventions for all the groups lasted two weeks. The results showed that the students in the Tier 2 intervention made significant gains in word knowledge over the at-risk group that had only Tier 1 instruction. This study found that students at-risk for reading disabilities did not get enough in-depth vocabulary instruction from whole class teaching. Possible the whole class instruction was not thorough enough for the students to learn the targeted words. Disappointingly, four weeks after the intervention ended, the at-risk treatment group tested at the same word knowledge levels as the at-risk no treatment group. Both of these groups had losses in word knowledge, but the not at-risk group maintained their vocabulary knowledge over time. The study suggested that the intervention was not long enough to maintain vocabulary knowledge. Further research needs to be done on these interventions for longer than two weeks.

Students with reading disabilities or at-risk for reading disabilities need reinforcement of the classroom vocabulary instruction. Other effective strategies are to provide many opportunities for the student to experience the targeted words in the context of the story and outside the context of the story. Activities need to be planned that engage the students and allow them to interact with the vocabulary words. It is beneficial to instruct students in small groups and for longer than two weeks.

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Leaning Disabilities, 34 (1), 33-58.

The focus of this research was to determine the impact of instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemic decoding skills on students with severe reading disabilities. Specifically, the study looked at the reading growth of the students and if the remediation could bring students up to grade level. Second, the researchers looked at the major differences in the effectiveness of the two instructional methods used in remediation. Third, the study looked to see if one approach more effective for children due to cognitive, demographics, or linguistic difference. Fifty children, ages eight to ten years old, participated. They all had difficulty with word recognition and their reading was below grade level. They were also below grade level in their knowledge of phonological awareness. These 50 children were divided into two groups. Each group received two 50-minute sessions per day for eight weeks with one-on-one instruction. One group received the Auditory Discrimination in Depth (ADD) program and the other group received the Embedded Phonics (EP) program, which the researchers developed for this study. Both of the remediation programs emphasized explicit instruction in word recognition, but they were different in the approach. The ADD program taught phoneme awareness. By contrast, the EP program instructed phonemic awareness through writing activities, spelling activities, and phonic decoding strategies. They also spent a large amount of time reading and writing. The results showed that both groups of reading disabled students made gains in reading and these gains remained over the two-year follow up. There was no significant difference between the groups on the reading outcomes after two years. During the intervention, the ADD group made strong growth in accuracy and fluency of reading text, but this was not maintained during the follow up. The study suggests that the reason there was not significant differences between the groups, was because of the skill and experiences of the teachers. They were experienced in teaching reading disabled students. The children showed growth in reading accuracy and comprehension, but their rate did not significantly improve. About half of the students improved up to their grade level with this remediation.

Two very different phonemic awareness programs had the same results after eight weeks of remediation and following up two years later. For instruction, the phonemic awareness approach must be research based and begin at the student’s instructional level. Effective strategies are instruction in phonemic awareness, decoding, and sight word recognition. The goal is for the student to maintain the growth in reading. Another major area to help students is to have experienced, educated teachers.

Moore, C. & Lo, L. (2008). Reading comprehension strategy: Rainbow Dots. The Journal of the international Association of Special Education, 9 (1), 124-127.

This case study examines a comprehension strategy, Rainbow Dots. This instructional approach helps students become aware of learned strategies and teaches them when to use them by placing a colored dot on the text during reading. The main goal of Rainbow Dots is to help students get a clear understanding of the text. The four steps are visualization, summarization, inferences, and making connections. When the students used these steps, the case study found that comprehension was improved and these strategies were transferred to other content areas. The first comprehension strategy is visualization. While reading the text, the students place a yellow dot sticker where they can visualize the story in their minds. Second, is the summarization strategy and the student places a green dot where he pauses during his reading to summarize. The third strategy is inference. Red dots are put next to inferences. Blue dots are placed next to connections; these are text-to-text, text-to-self, or text-to-world connections. This action research evaluates third grade students with and without a learning disability. The results of the study show that student’s comprehension improves using the Rainbow Dot strategy. This can be modified and additional dots can be added, such as questioning (purple dots), rereading (orange dots), and using context clues (black dots).

Not all students with reading disabilities have learning disabilities, but some do. This Rainbow Dots strategy can be helpful to children with reading and learning disabilities. Visualizing, summarizing, inference, and connections are effective strategies. Color-coding the different parts is a good way to visualize the comprehension process.

Rankin-Erickson, J. L., & Pressley, M. (2000). A survey of instructional practices of special education teachers nominated as effective teachers of literacy. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15 (4), 206-225.

Special education teachers were studied to find their best instructional methods. These teachers were chosen because they were the most effective literacy instructors for students with reading disabilities among primary special educations teachers in their district. Thirty-one teachers from nineteen different states, representing various regions of the United States participated. The purpose of the study was to find the most effective instructional methods that these teachers used to teach literacy to children with mild, moderate, or severe reading problems. The participants had two questionnaires to complete and the first twenty respondents had an open-ended questionnaire to complete. The researchers found that the instructional practices of these special education teachers were similar to classroom primary teachers who were nominated as outstanding literacy teachers. The special education teachers were committed to having a supportive and motivating literacy environment. They modeled reading and writing to their students. Instruction was differentiated according to the needs of their students. Good literature and supporting materials were available in these classrooms for students to practice reading skills. The skills taught were concepts about print, letter recognition, the alphabetic principle, phonics, decoding skills, auditory discrimination, and visual discrimination.

The skills taught by these special education teachers are similar to the ones the classroom teacher instructs. One difference is the motivating supporting environment of these teachers. By teaching in small groups, they can more effectively differentiate instruction. They also can move at the pace of the small group thus giving more practice to students who need it. This study shows that the strategies did not make the difference; it is the teacher. The effective strategies for students with reading disabilities are instruction in concepts about print, letter recognition, alphabetic principle, phonics, decoding skills, auditory discrimination, and visual discrimination. It is also effective to have a supportive motivating atmosphere and to give students ample time to practice.

Goodwin, A. P., Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 183-208.

In this meta-analysis seventeen, different studies were examined to determine the effect of morphological instruction on children with literacy disabilities. Specifically, the researchers looked at the impact morphological instruction had on the literacy of the students including reading comprehension, decoding, fluency, morphological awareness, phonological awareness, spelling, and vocabulary. In addition, the length and focus of the intervention was studied to see the difference on student learning. From the seventeen studies, 70 groups were formed. Participants were in Kindergarten through 12th grade and half of the participants had reading disabilities. The other half was composed of children with learning disabilities, with speech and language disabilities, who were struggling readers, who were poor spellers, and who were English Language Learners. Twelve of the studies were in the United States. The other five were in Denmark, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Canada. Two of the studies were in languages other than English. The intervention groups received morphological instruction, but the control groups received another type of instruction with no morphological components. The morphological interventions included affix and root instruction, building words from morphemes compound word instruction, teaching morphological patterns, using context, word family instruction, word origins, word sorts, and word mapping. The results of this study showed that morphological instruction improved morphological awareness, phonological awareness, reading, spelling, and vocabulary. This indicates that morphological instruction should be used with literacy-disabled children in the classroom and in remediation along with literacy instruction. These interventions focused on meaning within the text and not isolated skills,

Morphological instruction is an effect strategy for students with reading disabilities. Instead of working on skills alone, this instructs the meaning of words, including affixes and root words. Morphological instruction also helps the students’ phonological awareness. All this works together for better reading and comprehension. It is important for students to be taught morphemes because it is not a major emphasis of current curriculum. Not only would this help reading disabled children, but also ELL children. The goal of all reading is to gain meaning from the text.

References

Abbott, S. P., & Berninger, V. W. (1999). It’s never too late to remediate:

Teaching word recognition to students with reading disabilities in grades 4-7. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 223-249.

Goodwin, A. P., Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological

interventions: effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 183-208.

Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L., Lacerenza, L., Frijters, J. C., & Steinbach, K. A.

(2000). Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: Combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (2), 263-283.

Lovett, M. W., & Steinbach, K. A. (1997). The effectiveness of remedial

programs for reading disabled children of different ages: Does the benefit decrease for older children? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 189-210.

Mathes, P. G. (2009). Reading Disabilities. Retrieved from



Menzies, H. M., Mahdavi, J. N., & Lewis, J. L. (2008). Early intervention in

reading. Remedial and Special Education, 29 (2), 67-77.

Moore, C. & Lo, L. (2008). Reading comprehension strategy: Rainbow

Dots. The Journal of the international Association of Special Education, 9 (1), 124-127.

Rankin-Erickson, J. L., & Pressley, M. (2000). A survey of instructional

practices of special education teachers nominated as effective teachers of literacy. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15 (4), 206-225.

O’Shaughnessy, T. E., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). A comparison of two

reading interventions for children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (3), 257-277.

Pullen, P. C., Tuckwiller, E. D., Konold, T. R., Maynard, K. L., & Coyne, M. D.

(2010). A tiered intervention model for early vocabulary instruction: The effects of tiered instruction for young students at risk for reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 25 (3), 110-123.

Schuele, C. M. & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness

intervention: Beyond the basics. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 3-20.

Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Sarkari, S., Billingsley-Marshall, R., Denton, C.

A., & Papanicolaou, A. C. (2007). Intensive instruction affects brain magnetic activity associated with oral word reading in children with persistent reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40 (1), 37-48.

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K.

S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Leaning Disabilities, 34 (1), 33-58.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1997). Prevention and

remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1 (3), 217-234.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Lindamood, P., Rose, E.,

Conway, T., & Garvan, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (4), 579-593.

Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from

extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36 (4), 541-561.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download