Toll Free
877.485.1973 | T: 541.485.1973 | F: 541.683.7543
 | P.O. Box 11248 | Eugene, OR 97440

Facebook footer  Tiwtter footer  LinkedIn footer  YouTube footer  Vimeo footer  Pinterest footer

Teaching reading in secondary schools: Some theoretical and practical issues.

Dr Kerry Hempenstall, Senior Industry Fellow, School of Education, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

 

All my blogs can be viewed on-line or downloaded as a Word file or PDF at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/olxpifutwcgvg8j/AABU8YNr4ZxiXPXzvHrrirR8a?dl=0

 

Complete PDF of the Teaching Reading in Secondary Schools is also here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/olxpifutwcgvg8j/AAAIKplGUIX1XqTgEnXBC4L1a/PDFs?dl=0&preview=Teaching+reading+in+secondary+schools.pdf

Teaching reading in secondary schools: Some theoret

ical and

practical issues.

Teaching reading in secondary schools: Some theoret

ical and

practical issues.

 


What is known about the reading difficulties experienced by a proportion of students entering secondary school (20-30% according to the National Reading Panel, 2000)?

What does it take to make a difference to their literacy at this relatively late stage in their schooling?

Though there is less known about effective reading intervention for older students, the research does provide us with some pointers. For a fuller description of this research, see Older students’ literacy problems (updated 2017)

 

How far behind might these student be?

The best way to find out is by screening all intake Year 7 students – either in their feeder schools late in their Year 6 or early in Year 7. It is a little more work to catch them late in Year 6, but it allows more time for intervention planning. Ideally, choose a test that includes either a decoding or a word reading subtest. There are many such tests available, and obviously choosing an assessment that allows for group testing is more time-efficient.

 

Can research provide answers? Is there even much research on secondary students' reading?

“Although research specific to adolescent literacy is not as extensive as research on beginning reading (Boulay, Goodson, Frye, Blocklin, & Price, 2015; Herrera, Truckenmiller, & Foorman, 2016; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), there is a strong and growing consensus that if what we currently know about literacy instruction for adolescents were more broadly applied in practice, there is “little doubt that levels of adolescent literacy would improve” (p. 1, Torgesen et al., 2007). A recent quantitative synthesis of reading programs for adolescents found 33 studies published between 1970 and 2007 involving 39,000 students (Slavin, Cheung, Groff, & Lake, 2008).” (p. 38-39)  

Fien, H., Anderson, D., Nelson, N.J., Kennedy, P., Baker, S.K., & Stoolmiller, M. (2018). Examining the impact and school-level predictors of impact variability of an 8th grade reading intervention on at-risk students’ reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(1), 37–50.

 

Some relevant research on this question of how far behind

“The struggling readers in this study were multiple grade levels (3–7 years) behind their typically developing peers in reading ability. Results of both group and individual analyses indicate these older struggling readers can be remediated and for some, gains of two, three, four, or more years can be accomplished with only 1 year of instruction.” (p.588)

Calhoon, M. B., & Prescher, Y. (2013). Individual and group sensitivity to remedial reading program design: Examining reading gains across three middle school reading projects. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 565-592.

 

 “Students from the 10th and 90th percentiles differ by grade equivalents equal to their grade (i.e., 6 grade difference at the end of 6th grade)”. (Biemiller, personal communication, August 1, 2002)

Professor Andrew Biemiller, Institute of Child Study, University of Toronto.

 

 “ … the least advanced Year 9 students still read at about the same level as the average Year 3 student.” (p.4)

Australian Council for Educational Research. (2017). Lifting achievement levels and improving the return on Australia’s investment in schooling: Submission to the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools (chair: Mr David Gonski). Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/policy_analysis_misc/27

 

What comes after screening?

Having completed a screening, it then remains to decide what resources in terms of teachers, aides etc you can commit, and how many periods you can allocate. You then need to make a cut-off point, usually selecting the most needy students for an intervention. You might expect 20-30% of your intake to be in need of help with literacy.

This approach, of course, ignores the cohort of struggling students already enrolled in your school. This creates the dilemma of how to expend resources – on your current students or future students. This is a difficult value decision. The older the student the more difficult the progress, but they are your students right now – whatever year they are in. However, if you focus on your intake students, you can hope to alter their trajectory through the secondary careers. If this occurs, there is a benefit to administration and teachers through the increased academic competence of this cohort over the ensuing years and the lessened demands on the school’s resources of school failure, disciple issues, and early school leaving.

 

So, where to start?

The most obvious problem that struggling readers are likely to display in class is in their comprehension of subject texts. However, that does not necessarily imply that comprehension should be the main focus of intervention.

First, these problems did not arise suddenly at entry to secondary school. They could have been identified and attended to at or around primary school entry. However, this hasn’t occurred, and it is often not until around Year 4 that the earlier problems are brought into stark relief. Texts become more complex, both in word structure and in vocabulary in this period, and the students who had previously struggled (but it was hoped, would have had an educational growth spurt by now) are now clearly well below the minimum expected reading levels needed to cope with a secondary curriculum.

Second, the comprehension problem is usually contingent upon an underlying decoding and fluency delay. If only comprehension is addressed, progress will be minimal – because getting the words off the page fluently is a pre-requisite to comprehension.

 

We need to decide whether our scant resources should initially emphasise decoding or comprehension

 

Some relevant research on this question:

Weakness in decoding accuracy and fluency often remains as a major part of the problem. Unfortunately, it is too often overlooked. The problem most observed by teachers is reading comprehension.

“Phonological decoding made a significant unique contribution to reading comprehension for the eighth/ninth-grade group, to spelling for the fourth/fifth- and eighth/ninth-grade groups, and to the decoding rate and accuracy measures for all three groups, with only three exceptions”.

Nagy, W., Berninger, V.W., & Abbott, R.D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134-147.

 

“The findings of the present study have educational implications for the remediation of reading difficulties. The main intervention required for children struggling with decoding is instruction in decoding skills. Meta-analyses of reading intervention studies have found that systematic phonics instruction has the greatest effect on decoding, sight word reading, and reading comprehension compared with other forms of instruction such as whole language and whole word approaches (Ehri et al., 2001; Hattie, 2008). Most poor readers can successfully be taught phonological decoding skills and make gains in reading through participation in evidence-based intervention programmes (Lovett & Steinbach, 1997; Moats & Foorman, 1997; Torgesen et al., 1977). Evidenced-based instructional components include explicit, systematic instruction in phonological decoding, alphabetic coding skills and word-level strategies, with opportunities to practise skills in isolation and while reading connected text (Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung, & Davis, 2009; Vellutino et al., 2004). Focusing intervention on word recognition skills does not discount the importance of developing language skills. They helped with syntactic similarity miscues in this study. Language skills are also important for developing vocabulary size and general knowledge which are known to support the ability to decode unknown words and provide the reader with access to word meanings, conceptual and grammatical structures (Connor et al., 2004; Scarborough, 1991; Snowling et al., 2003).” (p.90)

Blick, M., Nicholson, T., Chapman, J., & Berman, J. (2017). Does linguistic comprehension support the decoding skills of struggling readers? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 22(2), 75-94.

 

“Fluent decoding appears to be an important predictor of reading comprehension across elementary, middle, and high school” (p.463).

Kershaw, S., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(2), 433–464.

 

"Together, theories which inform research and practice may include decoding skills as important precursors to vital reading outcomes well into the secondary school years.” (p.150)

Stanley, C.T., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. (2018). A longitudinal investigation of direct and indirect links between reading skills in kindergarten and reading comprehension in tenth grade. Reading and Writing, 31, 133–153.

 

“In 90% of cases, the source of reading comprehension problems is poor word recognition skills (Oakhill & Garnham, 1988).”

Stuart, M. (1995). Prediction and qualitative assessment of five and six-year-old children's reading: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 287-296.

 

“Research suggests that teaching children to read words quickly and accurately can also increase their reading comprehension (Tan & Nicholson, 1997). The theory behind fast and accurate word reading is that good readers are very good at reading words. They have over-learned this skill through much reading practice. As a result, like skilled musicians and athletes, they have developed automaticity, as a result of many hours of word reading practice. What this means is that they have over-learned word reading skills to the point where they require little or no mental effort. As a result, they are able to put all their mental energies into reading for meaning.”

G. B. Thompson & T. Nicholson (Eds.) (1998). Learning to read: Beyond phonics and whole language. New York: Teachers College Press.

 

 “The vast majority of school-age struggling readers experience word-level reading difficulties (Fletcher et al., 2002; Torgesen, 2002). This “bottleneck” at the word level is thought to be particularly disruptive because it not only impacts word identification but also other aspects of reading, including fluency and comprehension (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). According to Torgesen (2002), one of the most important discoveries about reading difficulties over the past 20 years is the relationship found between phonological processing and word-level reading. Most students with reading problems, both those who are diagnosed with dyslexia and those who are characterized as “garden variety” poor readers, have phonological processing difficulties that underlie their word reading problems (Stanovich, 1988)” (p.179).

Nelson, J.M., Lindstrom, J.H., Lindstrom, W., & Denis, D. (2012): The structure of phonological processing and its relationship to basic reading. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 20(3), 179-196.

 

“Without accurate decoding skills, these youngsters’ performance will deteriorate rapidly in the middle elementary grades, when greatly increased demands are made on comprehension and on the ability to recognise a large number of unfamiliar words (Chall, 1983; Mason, 1992)”.

Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R.J. (1994). The road not taken. An integrative theoretical model of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(2), 91-103.

 

"National longitudinal studies show that approximately 75% of those with reading problems in third grade still experience reading difficulties in the ninth grade (Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz, & Fletcher 1996; Shaywitz, Holahan, & Shaywitz, 1992). Students who experience reading difficulties in the early grades often suffer what has been called the "Matthew Effects" (Stanovich, 1986), a gap between good and poor readers that widens through the grades. Mikulecky (1990), for example, found that a group of secondary students two or more years behind their peers in reading ability were differentially affected by their tendency to avoid reading. These students read very little during or outside of school. Over the two-year period of the study, their reading comprehension performance actually declined."

Mikulecky, L. J. (1990). Stopping summer learning loss among at-risk youth. Journal of Reading, 33(7), 516-521.

 

“The present finding suggests that it is premature to assume that higher-level linguistic processes assume greater importance in very experienced readers than they do in less mature readers (Gough et al., 1996; Jackson, 2005; Jackson & Doellinger, 2002). … In addition to demonstrating that word recognition skill is a crucial component of reading comprehension ability in highly experienced readers, the results have shown that skill in applying abstract letter knowledge underpins rapid and accurate access to the orthographic lexicon. … In sum, the present findings have demonstrated that the role of bottom-up processes in determining reading comprehension skill remains of vital importance to highly experienced readers.” (p.322)

Holmes, V.M. (2009). Bottom‐up processing and reading comprehension in experienced adult readers. Journal of Research in Reading 32(3), 309 – 326.

 

“There is therefore a significant gap in the evidence base from RCT’s [randomised controlled trials] concerning the efficacy of language comprehension intervention. Clarke, Snowling, Truelove, and Hulme (2010) demonstrated using an RCT the effectiveness of an oral language intervention (comprising strategy use, vocabulary, figurative language and spoken narrative) in improving the reading comprehension skills of primary school students. To date such an approach has not been evaluated using an RCT in secondary schools.” (p.125)

Paul, S-A.S., & Clarke, P.J. (2016). A systematic review of reading interventions for secondary school students. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 116–127.

 

“For the entire sample, word reading was a statistically significant predictor of reading comprehension. Further, there was a statistically significant difference between adequate and struggling readers. For struggling readers, word reading had a stronger relation to reading comprehension than it did for adequate readers. This may be an indication that, similar to the findings of Sabatini et al. (2014), there is a threshold of word reading skill that has to be met before its relation to reading comprehension subsides. It is possible that the struggling comprehenders did not have the requisite word reading skills necessary to easily extract meaning from text. Indeed, their average word reading scores placed them at the 30th percentile and were a standard deviation below the adequate comprehenders. The influence of word reading in our adequate comprehenders, on the other hand, was negligible, which is consistent with the findings of Cromley et al. (2010) and Cunningham et al. (1990).” (p. 371)

Oslund, E. L., Clemens, N.H., Simmons, D. C., & Simmons, L.E. (2018). The direct and indirect effects of word reading and vocabulary on adolescents' reading comprehension: Comparing struggling and adequate comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 31(2), 355-379.

That doesn't mean that language skills such as vocabulary and world knowledge are unimportant:

 

“With respect to the direct effects of vocabulary and word reading on higher-order text-processing variables, we found that vocabulary played a statistically significant role as a predictor of reading comprehension in both reader groups and in the sample overall. Moreover, we observed statistically significant differences in the influence of vocabulary on both inference-making and reading comprehension between the two groups. Specifically, vocabulary had a stronger influence on inference-making for adequate readers than for struggling readers. In addition, vocabulary was a stronger predictor of reading comprehension in adequate than in struggling readers. These differences were all statistically significant.” (p.370-371)

Oslund, E. L., Clemens, N.H., Simmons, D. C., & Simmons, L.E. (2018). The direct and indirect effects of word reading and vocabulary on adolescents' reading comprehension: Comparing struggling and adequate comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 31(2), 355-379.

 

“In order to help clarify some of the most critical antecedents of reading comprehension in secondary school readers, the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model has been offered (Cromley & Azevedo, 2007). Briefly, the DIME model posits that relations between background knowledge, strategies, inference, word reading, and reading vocabulary culminate in reading comprehension. The DIME model is subsumed within the SVR; word reading captures decoding, while background knowledge and vocabulary capture the language comprehension component. These factors impact reading comprehension directly, but also indirectly through text-processing skills (i.e., inference and strategies). Originally, Cromley and Azevedo (2007) reported the DIME model explained 66% of the variance in reading comprehension in a cross-sectional analysis of 9th grade students. Vocabulary and background knowledge apparently made the greatest contributions to reading comprehension. Subsequent research validated the applicability of the DIME model in a longitudinal analysis (grades 7–12) with a large and representative sample of students (Ahmed et al., 2016). Together, such research has furthered the understanding of the factors which critically impact reading comprehension for secondary school readers.” (p. 136)

Stanley, C.T., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. (2018). A longitudinal investigation of direct and indirect links between reading skills in kindergarten and reading comprehension in tenth grade. Reading and Writing, 31, 133–153.

 

“Pathways of relations of language, cognitive, and literacy skills (i.e., working memory, vocabulary, grammatical knowledge, inference, comprehension monitoring, word reading, and listening comprehension) to reading comprehension were examined by comparing four variations of direct and indirect effects model of reading. Results from 350 English-speaking second graders revealed that language and cognitive component skills had direct and indirect relations to listening comprehension, explaining 86% of variance. Word reading and listening comprehension completely mediated the relations of language and cognitive component skills to reading comprehension and explained virtually all the variance in reading comprehension. Total effects of component skills varied from small to substantial. The findings support the direct and indirect effects model of reading model and indicate that word reading and listening comprehension are upper-level skills that are built on multiple language and cognitive component skills, which have direct and indirect relations among themselves. The results underscore the importance of understanding nature of relations.” (p.310)

Young-Suk, G.K. (2017). Why the Simple View of Reading is not simplistic: Unpacking component skills of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 310-333.

 

“Failure to activate relevant, existing background knowledge may be a cause of poor reading comprehension. This failure may cause particular problems with inferences that depend heavily on prior knowledge. Conversely, teaching how to use background knowledge in the context of gap-filling inferences could improve reading comprehension in general. This idea was supported in an experimental study comprising 16 sixth-grade classes (N = 236) randomly assigned to experimental or control conditions. In the experimental condition, students' contribution to “gap-filling” inferences with expository texts were made explicit by means of graphic models and inference-demanding questions. After eight 30-min sessions, a large training effect was found on students' inference making skills with a substantial and sustained transfer effect to a standard measure of reading comprehension. The effects were not mediated by students' motivation, decoding ability, vocabulary, or nonverbal IQ.” (p.435)

Elbro, C., & Buch-Iversen, I. (2013) Activation of background knowledge for inference making: Effects on reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(6), 435-452.  

 

"Evidenced-based instructional components include explicit, systematic instruction in phonological decoding, alphabetic coding skills and word-level strategies, with opportunities to practise skills in isolation and while reading connected text (Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung, & Davis, 2009; Vellutino et al., 2004). Focusing intervention on word recognition skills does not discount the importance of developing language skills. They helped with syntactic similarity miscues in this study. Language skills are also important for developing vocabulary size and general knowledge which are known to support the ability to decode unknown words and provide the reader with access to word meanings, conceptual and grammatical structures (Connor et al., 2004; Scarborough, 1991; Snowling et al., 2003).” (p.90)

Blick, M., Nicholson, T., Chapman, J., & Berman, J. (2017) Does linguistic comprehension support the decoding skills of struggling readers? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 22(2), 75-94.

 

What does it take to intervene effectively with older students? Intensity is a key element. That is, half-hearted efforts won’t work.

 

Some relevant research

“Evidence from high-quality studies (Kamil et al., 2008) also indicates there is strong support for the assertion that explicit instruction is a necessary foundation for reading interventions with struggling adolescent readers (e.g., Duffy et al., 1987; Fuchs et al., 1997; Herrera et al., 2016; Klingner, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1998; Schumaker & Deshler, 1992). Explicit and systematic instruction involves a series of sequenced instructional steps that include: (a) teachers explaining and modeling strategy use, (b) teachers guiding students in using the strategy or strategies (i.e., guided practice), and (c) students demonstrating their ability to use the strategies independently under the supervision of the teacher (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Kamil et al., 2008). The power of explicit instruction cuts across multiple content areas as a method for providing effective reading instruction for adolescent readers (and younger readers), as it can be used to teach word-level reading, reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006; Kamil et al., 2008; Scammacca et al., 2007; Torgesen, et al., 2007).” (p. 39)  

Fien, H., Anderson, D., Nelson, N.J., Kennedy, P., Baker, S.K., & Stoolmiller, M. (2018). Examining the impact and school-level predictors of impact variability of an 8th grade reading intervention on at-risk students’ reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(1), 37–50.

 

“Although it is unlikely that these students will make accelerated progress without intensive interventions, there is evidence that secondary students may experience improved reading outcomes when provided explicit reading intervention with adequate time and intensity for reading instruction (Archer, Gleason, & Vachon, 2003; Torgesen et al., 2001)” (p.932).

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Barth, A.E., Cirino, P.T., Fletcher, J.M., Romain, M.A., Denton, C.A., Roberts, G., & Francis, D.J. (2010). The relative effects of group size on reading progress of older students with reading difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(8), 931-956.

 

“Impressive and unexpected were the large gains made in comprehension by students in the Additive modality, insofar as they receive relatively few hours of explicit comprehension instruction (12–13 h.) in comparison to the other modalities (24–39 h). The theoretical underpinnings of the Additive modality are that reading is hierarchical and that automaticity of lower level skills (decoding, spelling) allows cognitive efforts to then be allocated to attaining higher level skills (fluency, comprehension; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Reynolds, 2000, Samuels & Kamil, 1984). Clearly, the changes brought about by other aspects of instruction (front loading of phonics instruction, followed by the addition of spelling instruction, followed by the addition of fluency instruction) laid the groundwork for comprehension gains, without having to supply a great deal of explicit comprehension instruction. These older struggling readers were able to master decoding, spelling, and fluency, before comprehension was even introduced into instruction, enabling them to more fully understand strategy instruction and achieve comprehension gains with very little explicit comprehension strategy instruction. These results strongly suggest that it may not be how many hours of instruction for each component that is important, but instead when those hours are incorporated into organization of instruction, that matters most” (p.587).

Calhoon, M. B., & Prescher, Y. (2013). Individual and group sensitivity to remedial reading program design: Examining reading gains across three middle school reading projects. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 565-592.

 

“Questions have sometimes been raised about the extent to which reading skills of struggling adolescents can be remediated and whether the money spent on such interventions is justified in light of the degree of benefit attained (Vaughn et al., 2010, 2011, 2012). Adolescents who have already gone through years of reading instruction and still lag behind their same age peers are a very heterogeneous group in their reading abilities. Through the use of both group and individual differences analysis we were able to gain a more complete and finely-tuned picture of how these struggling readers respond to treatment. The struggling readers in this study were multiple grade levels (3–7 years) behind their typically developing peers in reading ability. Results of both group and individual analyses indicate these older struggling readers can be remediated and for some, gains of two, three, four, or more years can be accomplished with only 1 year of instruction. While two to three years of gain for students who are four to six years behind by no means closes the achievement gap, these findings are encouraging in providing information on which modality of instruction closes the achievement gap best. ... Most compelling from the current analyses are results directly investigating the differences between three modalities (Alternating, Integrated, Additive) of instruction. Outcomes showed clearly that modality of instruction can matter considerably for these older struggling readers. The differences in gains clearly demonstrate that the Additive modality, with its sequential addition of each component (isolated phonological decoding instruction, followed by addition of spelling instruction, followed by addition of fluency instruction, and finally the addition of comprehension instruction [see Table 1]) is potentially the best modality for remediating reading skills (decoding, spelling, fluency, comprehension) in older struggling readers, of the three approaches that were compared in this research. These students show that they are highly sensitivity to the scheduling of the components and the amounts of instructional time per component; this is an important finding for the development and refinement of reading programs for struggling adolescent readers. While more research still needs to be conducted in this area, this study lends credence to the different requirements this unique population of students may need in order to close the achievement gap in acquiring adequate reading skills” (p.588-9).

Calhoon, M. B., & Prescher, Y. (2013). Individual and group sensitivity to remedial reading program design: Examining reading gains across three middle school reading projects. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 565-592.

 

“Findings also indicate that a significant acceleration of reading outcomes for seventh- and eighth-graders from high-poverty schools is unlikely to result from a 50 min daily class. Instead, the findings indicate, achieving this outcome will require more comprehensive models including more extensive intervention (e.g., more time, even smaller groups), interventions that are longer in duration (multiple years), and interventions that vary in emphasis based on specific students’ needs (e.g., increased focus on comprehension or word study)” (p.931).

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Barth, A.E., Cirino, P.T., Fletcher, J.M., Romain, M.A., Denton, C.A., Roberts, G., & Francis, D.J. (2010). The relative effects of group size on reading progress of older students with reading difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(8), 931-956.

 

“Increasingly intense interventions. Perhaps the most important distinction among tiers is the intensity of instruction associated with each tier. Instructional intensity, while a term that is commonly understood by educators, merits some discussion in the RTI context. Often educators view increased intensity as something that can be accomplished “primarily by increasing instructional time or reducing size of the instructional group, or doing both” (Torgesen, 2005, p. 3). Mellard (2009) suggests that schools evaluate 10 distinct variables that may be adjusted to increase instructional intensity. These variables include three dosage-related elements (minutes of instruction, frequency, and duration), as well as instructional group size, immediacy of corrective feedback, the mastery requirements of the content, the number of response opportunities, the number of transitions among contents or classes, the specificity and focus of curricular goals, and instructor specialty and skills.

Dosage: Instructional Minutes, Frequency, and Duration

Dosage of intervention is a very fundamental construct of instruction that directly relates to opportunities for learning. Students need sufficient learning opportunities to acquire and practice curricular knowledge, skills, and abilities. To increase instructional intensity by varying dosage, teachers may change three key time-related variables: (1) the instructional minutes given to each student (i.e., minutes per lesson); (2) the frequency of the instruction (i.e., tutoring sessions per week); and/or (3) duration of the instruction (i.e., number of weeks). In an RTI framework, we expect to see increases in some or all of these time elements as an indication of increasingintensity from a lower tier to a higher, more intense tier” (p. 219).

Mellard, D., McKnight, M., & Jordan, J. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4), 217–225.

 

"This growing body of literature affirms one key takeaway: there is no silver bullet to remediate years of difficulty in reading. With this reality in mind, practitioners should work to avoid isolated, piecemeal intervention strategies. Successful intervention programs will require high-quality, long term interventions in which effects cumulate across years (Fletcher &Wagner, 2014). Similarly, researchers should redouble efforts to maximize the effects of interventions, to identify causal mechanisms, and to study interventions of greater intensity and duration than are typically studied.” (p. 33, 35)

Miciak, K., Roberts, G., Taylor, W.P., Solis, M., Ahmed, Y., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J.M. (2018). The effects of one versus two years of intensive reading intervention implemented with late elementary struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(1), 24–36.

 

Read Complete Article here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/olxpifutwcgvg8j/AAAIKplGUIX1XqTgEnXBC4L1a/PDFs?dl=0&preview=Teaching+reading+in+secondary+schools.pdf

More Articles ...

  1. What does systematic instruction mean?
  2. Is there an educational role for phonological processes other than phonemic awareness?
  3. Illusory Phonics
  4. Three students with differing characteristics commence school. How do they fare?
  5. How might protocols and program fidelity of implementation improve instruction?
  6. Phonics instruction: Grapheme to phoneme or phoneme to grapheme?
  7. Direct Instruction: Explicit, systematic, detailed, and complex
  8. Hundreds of quotes from the literacy research (Updated July 2018)
  9. Read About It: Scientific Evidence for Effective Teaching of Reading
  10. Vocabulary/Oral Language/Comprehension: Some research findings (updated July 2018)
  11. Corrective Reading Decoding: An evaluation
  12. Phonemic Awareness: Yea, nay?
  13. Part 1: Whole Language! What was that all about?
  14. Part 2: What whole language writers have had to say about literacy.
  15. KEEPING AN EYE ON READING: Is difficulty with reading a visual problem?
  16. Older students’ literacy problems (updated 2017)
  17. Evidence-based practice in the classroom.
  18. Literacy and Behaviour (updated 2018)
  19. Literacy and mental health (updated 2018)
  20. Reviews supporting Direct Instruction program effectiveness Updated 2018
  21. The three-cueing system in reading: Will it ever go away?
  22. Learning Styles: Is it learner modality? Or Content modality that's important (updated 2018)
  23. Can people with an intellectual disability learn to read?
  24. What are these Matthew Effects?
  25. Reading fluency: Its significance and promotion
  26. Failure to learn: Causes and consequences
  27. A history of disputes about reading instruction
  28. Using the 100 Lessons program to effect change in phonological processing.
  29. Miscue mischief
  30. Literacy assessment based upon the National Reading Panel’s Big Five components
  31. Pages and pages on stages (reading stages, that is).
  32. Seriously good online educational resources (Updated May 2018)
  33. Feel like a spell? Effective spelling instruction (Updated 2018)
  34. Why does Direct Instruction evoke such rancour?
  35. Evidence-based practice: What is it? (updated Aug 2017)

Module-Bottom-Button-A rev

Module-Bottom-Button-B rev

Module-Bottom-Button-C rev2

Online Fundraising
Use Giving Assistant to save money and support National Institute for Direct Instruction

Shop til you drop at NIFDI and sign up for Giving Assistant to benefit National Institute for Direct Instruction.