Chapter Two



Running head: ASSESSING AND REMEDIATING READERS

Assessing and Remediating Struggling Readers

Jennifer Litterer

EDAD 530

A paper presented in partial completion of course requirements for EDAD 530 – Educational Research

Fall, 2009

Abstract

Attempts to improve reading comprehension scores, especially those of struggling readers, require a break from the past and the incorporation of new learning strategies and educational techniques not frequently found in the classroom environment. This type of dramatic shift is often referred to as second order change. Administrators and teachers must work together to assess and analyze data that pinpoint areas of weakness, and develop instructional plans to meet the needs of these children. This paper explores opportunities that may assist professionals in these efforts. This researcher concluded that remediation in the areas of phonemic awareness and word study, fluency, and comprehension represent promising strategies which demonstrate the potential to advance the skills of non-proficient readers.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Introduction 4

Chapter 2

Review of Literature 7

Chapter 3

Summary, Conclusion and Implications 16

References 18

Assessing and Remediating Struggling Readers

Information obtained from the Cato @ Liberty website entitled Private Schools Save Children Rejected by the System (2009), highlighted the proceedings from a recent South Carolina state committee hearing related to education tax credit legislation by referencing the testimony of Eagle Military Academy Commandant Colonel Nathaniel Green who stated that, “Failing schools are not failing schools, they’re failing students.” No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation was passed in 2002 as a challenge for schools to produce students who are proficient in Reading, Math, and Science.

When analyzing the data in the area of Reading, Martin, Martin, and Carvalho (2008) assert that “40 percent of fourth-grade students in the United States read below their grade level” (p. 113). This deficit is illustrated in the learning-disabled classroom. Manset-Williamson and Nelson (2005) found that “in 2002, the U.S. Department of Education reported that, of the approximately 2,887,217 school-aged children receiving public services for learning disabilities, the majority were identified as having a learning disability because of developmental delays in reading” (p. 59).

In order to correct these insufficiencies, Manset-Williamson and Nelson (2005) suggest that “…students must possess phonemic awareness and decoding skills to recognize words. They must also exhibit fluency (that is, speed and accuracy in reading) to place recognized words together in context to understand their intended meaning. Students must remain fluent from sentence to sentence to master the full comprehension necessary to draw meaning from complete passages and become successful readers” (p. 61).

To meet this challenge, Fullen (2002) states, “Leaders help others assess and find collective meaning and commitment to new ways” (p.17). Through systematic assessment, analysis, and instruction in phonemic awareness and decoding skills, fluency, and comprehension, administrators and teachers can support struggling readers in reaching their goals of improved reading comprehension.

Problem Statement

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether specific viable strategies and classroom related actions can be identified which are essential for improving the skills of struggling readers. The question guiding this research is, “What can educational leaders do to foster achievement in reading comprehension for struggling readers?”

Definitions

Before a review of literature can be accomplished, some terms must be defined. Phonemic awareness is identified as “the ability to identify the phonemes (smallest identifiable units of sound) of spoken language, and how they can be separated (pulled apart or segmented), blended (put back together), and manipulated (added, deleted, and substituted)” (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2004, p. 8). Samuels and Farstrup (2006) identify fluency as “the understanding, or comprehension, that comes as a result of reading with appropriate expressiveness or decoding speed and accuracy” (p.5). Finally, comprehension is described by Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2004) as “the active process of constructing meaning from text” (p. 98).

Limitations

This paper is limited to a review of literature linking improvements in reading comprehension and instructional strategies for struggling readers. Any generalization to aspects other than the link between improved reading comprehension and instructional strategies for struggling readers is beyond the scope of this paper.

Chapter Two

School administrators and teachers, encouraged by No Child Left Behind legislation, face the daunting task to achieve yearly progress in Reading Comprehension. While that challenge is difficult it is exacerbated especially by children who show signs of struggling academically. Manset-Williamson and Nelson (2005) suggest that “…students must possess phonemic awareness and decoding skills to recognize words. They must also exhibit fluency (that is, speed and accuracy in reading) to place recognized words together in context to understand their intended meaning. Students must remain fluent from sentence to sentence to master the full comprehension necessary to draw meaning from complete passages and become successful readers” (p. 61). Educators must ensure that the diverse needs of all children are being met and that requires instructors dedicated to student success. “Focusing on the needs of individual students requires knowing students well” (Compton-Lilly, 2009, p. 90).

Assessment

Vaughn & Linan-Thompson (2004)) emphasize, “Progress monitoring is essential to reading instruction, enabling teachers to keep track of student learning and identify those who need additional help” (p. 128). Valencia & Buly (2004) concur, “If we are really going to help students, we need to understand the underlying reasons for their test failure. Simply knowing which children have failed state tests is a bit like knowing that you have a fever when you are feeling ill but having no idea of the cause or cure. A test score, like a fever, is a symptom that demands more specific analysis of the problem” (p. 134). Moore & Whitfield (2009) stress frequent monitoring of progress, at least once every 1-2 weeks, to view incremental steps of success. “By analyzing these incremental measures, adjustments can be easily and quickly made to the instruction” (p. 623).

To ensure that teaching practices align with the needs of students, many schools utilize the Response to Intervention (RTI) model. According to Moore and Whitfield (2009) the Response to Intervention (RTI) initiative is an innovative approach designed to provide support “…for those students who need intensive and specific intervention to determine the extent needed for progress” (p. 622). Further support for RTI is provided by Gersten and Dimino (2006) who indicate that “RTI is implemented typically by screening students three times a year in the academic and behavioral domains. Their performance is compared with established criteria that identify students who are progressing at the expected rate. Established rates can be determined by national benchmarks, local norms, or even classroom norms. Students performing somewhat below the desired rate often are monitored carefully to see if intensive intervention may be necessary. Students well below the criteria are considered at risk for reading problems and provided with immediate attention” (p. 101).

In compliance with the delivery requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Mesmer and Mesmer (2008) remind us that “RTI requires that instructional interventions be scientifically valid, public, implemented with integrity, and systematically evaluated” (p. 284). Martin, Martin, and Carvalho (2008) provide further clarification indicating that “Early intervention, with successful modes of instruction, can target areas of deficiency and help students with learning disabilities become proficient readers” (p. 116).

Phonemic Awareness and Decoding Skills

Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2004) stress the importance of explicit instruction in phonemic awareness as it “… benefits most beginning readers, including those with reading difficulties and English language learners . . . since phonemic awareness can be taught in a relatively brief amount of time each day (15 minutes) and throughout the school day, time should not be a constraint in providing appropriate training to beginning readers” (p. 9-10).

Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2004) also suggest that “The two most important aspects of phonemic awareness are segmenting and blending. Activities for involving students in segmenting sounds and then blending them together can use both real words and nonsense words” (p. 9-10). Further support is found in the work of McGee and Ukrainetz (2009) who suggest that teachers must provide enough support, through modeling and isolated activities, for a child to decode a word that s/he could not accomplish independently.

Application to students.

Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2004) delineate phonological awareness skills and activities:

1. Discriminating – Students listen to determine if two words begin or end with the same sound.

2. Counting – Students clap the number of words in a sentence, syllables in a word, sounds in a word.

3. Rhyming – Students create word families with rhyming words.

4. Alliteration – Students create tongue twisters.

5. Blending – Students say the sounds in a word and then “say them fast” while the teacher combines blocks or letters to demonstrate blending.

6. Segmenting – Students say the word and then say each syllable or sound.

7. Manipulating – Students listen to words and say them without the first syllable or sound, add syllables or sounds, or replace sounds with new sounds (p. 11).

McGee and Ukrainetz (2009) also emphasize three levels of support: “…teachers isolate and emphasize the beginning phoneme in isolation and say the word with the phoneme exaggerated (being sure not to distort the sound) . . . isolate and emphasize the first sound by bouncing or elongating the sound in isolation (without distorting the sound) and within the word . . . teachers merely stress the first sound while saying a word” (p. 600-601).

Researchers Rasinski, Rupley, and Nichols (2008) suggest that once a child is able to isolate individual sounds within a word, chunks of words are introduced and related to word families: “There are several hundred word families that readers should know, and students who can recognize these word families in one-syllable and multisyllabic words have the ability to process such words accurately and efficiently” (p. 257). Because of its brevity and ease of creation, Rasinski, Rupley, and Nichols (2008) further suggest using poetry to facilitate the learning process of these word families within the context of reading.

Fluency

Expanding research (Pikulski & Chard, 2005) has also revealed additional areas of focus for struggling readers. “While the construct of fluency might have been neglected in the past, it is receiving much-deserved attention presently. A very strong research and theoretical base indicates that while fluency in and of itself is not sufficient to ensure high levels of reading achievement, fluency is absolutely necessary for that achievement because it depends upon and typically reflects comprehension. If a reader has not developed fluency, the process of decoding words drains attention, and insufficient attention is available for constructing the meaning of texts” (p. 517).

Application to students.

Moreover, Pikulski and Chard (2005) delineate a nine-step program to increase a child’s fluency rate:

1. Building the graphophonic foundations for fluency, including phonological awareness, letter familiarity, and phonics.

2. Building and extending vocabulary and oral language skills.

3. Providing expert instruction and practice in the recognition of high-frequency vocabulary.

4. Teaching common word parts and spelling patterns.

5. Teaching, modeling, and providing practice in the application of a decoding strategy.

6. Using appropriate texts to coach strategic behaviors and to build reading speed.

7. Using repeated reading procedures as an intervention approach for struggling readers.

8. Extending growing fluency through wide independent reading.

9. Monitoring fluency development through appropriate assessment procedures (p. 513).

Wilfong (2008) created The Poetry Academy to increase students’ fluency rates. In the program, five community members came forward to volunteer their time and attended a two-hour training session during which they became familiarized with the basics of the program: repeated reading, listening-while-reading, modeling, and assisted reading. Each volunteer was assigned six students identified as disfluent. These volunteers would meet with each student once a week for 5-10 minutes. During this session, the volunteer would introduce to the student a new poem – chosen by Wilfong, based on the knowledge of the student’s current reading level.

The volunteer would begin by reading the poem aloud to the student (modeling) and would then invite the student to read the poem with him or her simultaneously (listening-while-reading). Next, the volunteer would invite the student to read the poem aloud independently (repeated reading) and would provide assistance and praise. At the end of the session, the volunteer and student would discuss what the poem meant to the student, dissect any unknown words, and sometimes chat about events in the student’s life.

The student would take the poem home and read it aloud to as many people as possible, gathering signatures from listeners to verify the reading. The following week’s session would begin with the rereading of the familiar poem and then beginning the cycle again with a new poem.

The effects of The Poetry Academy are evident in Wilfong’s research. “Students in the Poetry Academy made gains greater than those in the control group on the curriculum based measurement administered before and after the implementation of the program. Statistically significant gains of the treatment group were made in the area of words read correctly per minute and word recognition” (Wilfong, 2008, p. 8).

Anderson and Balajthy (2009) recommended the use of electronic texts and e-books to further the reading fluency of students. Specifically, they listed the following sites:

The International Children’s Digital Library –

Between the Lions: Public Television – lions

Classics for Young People – ucalgary.ca/~dkbrown/storclas.html

Project Gutenberg –

Talking Book Library – Matrix.htm

Comprehension

There may not exist complete agreement among reading experts and the learned society, however, Scharlach (2008) suggests that “The most important thing about reading is comprehension. It is the reason that we read” (p.20). Unfortunately, the means of teaching comprehension may not be readily understood by educators. “While teachers talk about comprehension and reference it frequently, as one examines the intricacies of reading instruction, one finds that the skill of comprehension is not explicitly taught” (Fogarty, 2007, p. 11).

The path to reaching full comprehension of text is extremely difficult. Willis (2008) suggests that, “After students do learn to understand the individual words they read in texts, new brain areas need stimulation and practice to recall the words long enough to understand complete sentences. The information from the beginning of a sentence or preceding sentences in a paragraph must be kept accessible while the next segment of text is read. Students also need practice storing and retrieving the content of sentences so that they can comprehend pages, chapters, and finally entire texts” (p. 126).

Application to students.

To address the needs of readers who struggle to comprehend, Scharlach (2008) designed a framework to improve classroom reading instruction. “This innovative instructional framework improves comprehension through modeling and scaffolding of eight crucial comprehension strategies during teacher read-alouds and by actively engaging students in strategic reading during independent reading” (Scharlach, 2008, p. 20).

The eight comprehension strategies recognized by Scharlach (2008) as invaluable are: predicting/inferring, visualizing, making connections, questioning, determining main idea, summarizing, checking predictions, and making judgments.

“In scaffolding instruction, a teacher provides scaffolds or supports to facilitate students’ ability to build on prior knowledge and internalize new information. An important aspect of scaffolding instruction is that the scaffolds are temporary. As the learner’s abilities increase, the scaffolding is progressively withdrawn until the learner is able to complete the task independently” (Scharlach, 2008, p. 21-22).

The sequence used in Scharlach’s (2008) Students and Teachers Actively Reading Text (START) program begins with teacher modeling of a strategy via a think-aloud through a story read aloud to students. “Following the initial modeling of each strategy, teachers scaffold students to use each strategy during every read-aloud session. The purpose of scaffolding each strategy in every read-aloud session was to increase students’ metacognitive ability to transfer these strategies to their own independent reading. . . By the ninth session, teachers were scaffolding the use of all eight comprehension strategies during each read-aloud session” (Scharlach, 2008, p. 24).

Scharlach’s (2008) research compared the effects produced by the START program. In the control classroom the teacher and students engaged in their usual read-aloud and independent reading activities without any changes. In the strategy-only (ST) classrooms, teachers modeled and scaffolded the use of metacognitive comprehension strategies during read-alouds prior to student independent reading of self-selected texts. In addition to this instruction, students in the START classrooms were taught to complete an ART (Actively Reading Text) comprehension self-monitoring recording sheet during independent reading (p.22). Scharlach summarizes, “Students in the START classrooms made an average nine-month gain in reading comprehension compared with a three-month gain in ST classrooms and a one-month loss in the control classroom” (p.26). Through this direct instruction, application to independent reading, and a means of holding children accountable for what they’re reading, student gains are promising.

Utilizing effective strategies in phonics, fluency, and comprehension, can produce desired results in students’ reading scores. Vaughn & Linan-Thompson (2004) summarize, “The primary grades are crucial in a child’s education, and teachers are in a position to ensure that their students become proficient life-long readers” (p. 133).

Chapter 3

Remediating struggling readers requires effective assessment and research-based practices in a school’s efforts to show improvement in their standardized test scores. The purpose of this paper was to offer suggestions that may facilitate a school’s goal of improving standardized test scores, especially in reading comprehension.

Summary

The research reviewed in this paper suggests that there are specific areas that school leaders and elementary instructors must attend to in their quest for improved reading scores. Willis (2008) concurs that “Recognition of sounds, letters, and letter-sound correspondences are the primary language patterns fundamental to developing word recognition skills” (p. 25). An additional aspect of reading is valued by Samuels & Farstrup (2006). “Fluency is indeed a vital aspect of literacy. It deserves our serous attention” (p. 2). In addition to phonemic awareness, decoding skills, and fluent reading, Willis (2008) also stresses, “Successful comprehension is augmented when students have practice with strategies for monitoring their understanding, increasing their intrinsic interest in the text, and creating goals and purpose for their reading” (p. 128).

Conclusions

To best meet the needs of struggling readers, an assessment is needed to pinpoint areas of concern. Gersten and Dimino (2006) state that “The combination of progress-monitoring data and a record of the specific interventions, along with diagnostic information, gives the Student Study Team a practical, clear, data-based picture of how well the student is responding to instruction” (p. 102). Reading instructors must be aware of the complexity of the reading process and effective means of helping those who struggle. Antoniou & Souvignier (2007) illustrate this point by stating “ . . . students with LD can benefit from an intensive reading intervention that enriches explicit teaching with the use of strategies. The implications are the development of self-regulated learning and competence (in the long term)” (p. 52). Willis (2008) concludes, “Reading comes easily to some children, but most struggle with some part of the complex process that begins with phonemes and continues to comprehension of complex text. When students are asked to face stressful reading challenges, they don’t feel good about the reading equivalent of a hot day and a daunting staircase” (p. 1).

Implications

Although the results of this literature review of assessing and remediating struggling readers are promising, further investigation is recommended.

References

Anderson, R. & Balajthy, E. (2009). Stories about struggling readers and technology. The Reading Teacher, 62(6), 540-542.

Antoniou, F. & Souvignier, E. (2007). Strategy instruction in reading comprehension: An intervention study for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(1), 41-57.

Compton-Lilly, C. (2009). What can new literacy studies offer to the teaching of struggling readers? The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 88-90.

Fogarty, R. (2007). Literacy matters: Strategies every teacher can use. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fullen, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.

Gersten, R. & Dimino, J. (2006). RTI (Response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99-108.

Green, N. (Speaker), (2009). Private Schools Save Children Rejected by the System (South Carolina State Education Tax Credit legislation hearing). Retrieved November 1, 2009, from Cato @ Liberty website .

Manset-Williamson, G. & Nelson, J. (2005). Balanced, strategic reading instruction for upper elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(11), 59-72.

Martin, D., Martin, M. & Carvalho, K. (2008). Reading and learning-disabled children: Understanding the problem. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(3), 113-117.

McGee, L. & Ukrainetz, T. (2009). Using scaffolding to teach phonemic awareness in preschool and kindergarten. The Reading Teacher, 62(7), 599-603.

Mesmer, E. & Mesmer, H. (2008). Response to intervention (RTI): What teachers of reading need to know. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 280-290.

Moore, J. & Whitfield, V. (2009). Building schoolwide capacity for preventing reading failure. The Reading Teacher, 62(7), 622-624.

Pikulski, J. & Chard, D. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510-519.

Rasinski, T., Rupley, W. & Nichols, W. (2008). Two essential ingredients: Phonics and fluency getting to know each other. The Reading Teacher, 62(3), 257-260.

Samuels, S. & Farstrup, A. (2006). What research has to say about fluency instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, Inc.

Scharlach, T. (2008). START comprehending: Students and teachers actively reading text. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 20-31.

Valencia, S. & Buly, M. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readers really need. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 520-531.

Vaughn, S. & Linan-Thompson, S. (2004). Reasearch-based methods of reading instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wilfong, L. (2008). Building fluency, word-recognition ability, and confidence in struggling readers: The poetry academy. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 4-13.

Willis, J. (2008). Teaching the brain to read. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download