Addressing Reading Failure at the Secondary Level

Addressing Reading Failure at the Secondary Level: Problems and Issues

Dr Kerry Hempenstall

Some data:

• 1999-2000 Budget forecasted that 20% of Victorian Year 1 students would apply for Reading Recovery.
• By Year 5, only 31% of boys and 49% of girls will have reached the appropriate LAP standard.
• By Year 7, 30% of students cannot read or write properly (ACER, 2000).
• By adolescence, less than 25% of Victorian students who struggled in Year 2 had recovered (Prior, 2001)
• By Year 9, 30% of students lack basic literacy skills (ACER, 2000).
• By Year 10, the lowest 10% have made no reading gains since Year 4 (Melb Univ study - Hill, 1995).
• 39% of students do not complete school (Prof Peter Hill, The Age, 5/8 2000)
• 60 per cent of socially disadvantaged high school students had inadequate literacy skills (Smith Family, 1994).
• 66% of Australian employers consider that high-school leavers are not sufficiently literate to enter the workforce. Croucher, J.S. (2001, July 21). Number crunch. The Age, p.13.
• US surveys of adolescents and young adults with criminal records indicate that at least half have reading difficulties, and in some states the size of prisons a decade in the future is predicted by fourth grade reading failure rates (Lyon, 2001).
• Initial failure predicts future failure (In this study) the probability that a child who was initially a poor reader in first grade would be classified as a poor reader in the fourth grade was a depressingly high +0.88.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read & write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

Why identify early?

Longitudinal studies show that 74% of children who are poor readers in the third grade remain poor readers in the ninth grade.

Addressing Reading Failure at the Secondary Level

A Melbourne University study (Hill, 1995) has found that most struggling students show no discernible improvement in reading between Year Four and Year Ten. Few of these students have access to effective intervention, and their prognosis is grim.

Hill, P. (1995). School effectiveness and improvement: Present realities and future possibilities. Dean's Lecture: Paper presented at Melbourne University, May 24.

Failure to develop basic reading skills by age nine predicts a lifetime of illiteracy. Unless these children receive the appropriate instruction, over 70 percent of the children entering first grade who are at risk for reading failure will continue to have reading problems into adulthood. On the other hand, the early identification of children at-risk for reading failure coupled with the provision of comprehensive early reading interventions can reduce the percentage of children reading below the basic level in the fourth grade (e.g., 38 percent) to six percent or less.

Lyon, G.R. (2001). Measuring success: Using assessments and accountability to raise student achievement. Subcommittee on Education Reform Committee on Education and the Workforce U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. [On Line]. Available: http://www.nrrf.org/lyon_statement3-01.htm

These findings extend into adolescence data previously reported on the persistence of reading disability that is, that children who were initially poor readers in the early school years remain poor readers relative to other children in the sample. This finding suggests that shortly after school entry, the reading achievement of children changes very little relative to their peers. These special services, however, consisted of eclectic approaches to teaching reading that were provided in an inconsistent fashion and for relatively brief periods.

Shaywitz, S.E., Fletcher, J.M., Holahan, J.M., Shneider, A.E., Marchione, K.E., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Pugh, K.R., & Shaywitz, B.A. (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: The Connecticut longitudinal study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104, 1351-1339.

Many of these older children have experienced the debilitating sequence of interacting skill deficits described by Stanovich (1986) as the Matthew effect. For example, the early lack of phonemic awareness leads to a failure to master the alphabetic principle. This further entails slow, error-prone decoding, the overuse of contextual cues, and poor comprehension. This resultant laborious, unsatisfying reading style leads students to avoid text, with a consequential reduction in vocabulary growth, and a broadening of the skill deficit. The lack of practice means fewer words can be read by sight, thereby restricting automaticity. The continued expenditure of cognitive attention on decoding leaves few resources available for comprehension, and so the student’s difficulties are compounded. The longer this set of circumstances prevails, the further delayed the student becomes, the more pervasive becomes the problem, and the more difficult the rescue operation.

Many children with difficulty in learning to read develop a negative self concept within their first two years of schooling.

Chapman, J.W., Tunmer, W.E., & Prochnow, J.E. (2000). Early reading-related skills and performance, reading self-concept, and the development of academic self-concept: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 4, 703–708.

“If you identify very-high-risk poor readers (bottom 20 percent of reading ability) in kindergarten and first grade and give them effective, evidence-based instruction, at least 75 percent of this 20 percent will read (Lyon, 2000)”.

Landauer, R. (2000). Facing up to infirmities in special ed. The Oregonian, December 2.

• The gap widens over time At best, our current efforts simply perpetuate the differences that children arrive at school with; at worst, we exaggerate these differences across the time they spend with us.

Allington, R.L. (1991). Beginning to read: A critique by literacy professionals and a response by Marilyn Jager Adams. The Reading Teacher, 44, p.373.

On children who use compensatory strategies such as whole word recognition or contextual strategies. ".... Without accurate decoding skills, these youngsters' performance will deteriorate rapidly in the middle elementary grades, when greatly increasing 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, 91-103.

• Remedies are long, slow, often unsuccessful, and student resistance can preclude success A study by Schiffman provides support for monitoring programs for reading disabilities in the first and second grades. In a large scale study of reading disabilities (n = 10,000), 82% of those diagnosed in Grades 1 or 2, 46% in Grade 3, 42% in Grade 4, and 10-15% in Grades 5-7 were brought up to Grade level.

Berninger, V.W, Thalberg, S.P., DeBruyn, I., & Smith, R. (1987). Preventing reading disabilities by assessing and remediating phonemic skills. School Psychology Review, 16, 554-565.

Reading achievement occurs twice as fast in first grade as it does in third grade.

Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Olsen, C.R. (1997). Early schooling and inequality: Socioeconomic disparities in children's learning. London: Falmer Press.

It takes four times as much assistance to improve a child’s reading skills if help is delayed until Year Four than if it is begun in the Prep year. Hall, S. H., & Moats, L. C. (1999). Straight talk about reading: How parents can make a difference during the early years. Chicago: Contemporary Books.

• Reading-intelligence causal link? Children with reading difficulties at age 8 had lower verbal than performance IQ’s; however, there was no difference at age 4. Bishop, D. & Butterworth, G. (1980). Verbal-performance discrepancies: Relationship to both risk and specific reading retardation. Cortex, 16, 375-389.

Much evidence has now accumulated to indicate that reading itself is a moderately powerful determinant of vocabulary growth, verbal intelligence, and general comprehension ability. p.239 Stanovich, K.E. (1993). Does reading make you smarter? Literacy and the development of verbal intelligence. Advances in Child Development and Behaviour, 24, 133-180.

• Females are currently under-identified. A growing body of research suggests that females experiencing learning difficulties are not identified as frequently as males. Njiokiktjien, C. (1993). Neurological arguments for a joint developmental dysphasia-dyslexia syndrome. In A. M. Galaburda (Ed.), Dyslexia and development: Neurobiological aspects of extra-ordinary brains. London: Harvard University Press.

Literacy problems and older children: What focus for instruction in middle and upper primary school or secondary school?

Nationally, more than 30% of Australian children entering high school – mainly in government and Catholic schools – cannot read or write properly. (Australian Council for Educational Research). 30% of students do not complete school. (Professor Peter Hill). Our Desperate Schools. The Age, 5/8/2000.

Should we be focussing on decoding or comprehension? It is true that most reading problems can be traced back to problems of “getting the word off the page” rapidly and effortlessly; however, there are students whose general language development (in addition to their decoding) is also delayed.

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. 90% of these children with reading difficulties have their major problem with the development of decoding skills (Lerner, 1989). Report of the Charter G: Ad Hoc Special Committee on Persistent Reading Difficulties. http://www.readbygrade3.com/peer.htm

It has long been assumed that once a student is past the primary grades, phonological processing is no longer critical to word identification and to reading. Our data support the view that across the life span, from childhood to adolescence, decoding words reflects primarily, phonological, rather than orthographic coding. Such findings are consonant with what is becoming overwhelming evidence that phonological mechanisms mediate word identification in all readers, whether beginners or experienced readers. Shaywitz, S.E., Fletcher, J.M., Holahan, J.M., Shneider, A.E., Marchione, K.E., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Pugh, K.R., & Shaywitz, B.A. (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: The Connecticut longitudinal study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104, 1351-1339.

Studies involving adults with reading difficulties have revealed marked deficits in decoding (Bear, Truax, & Barone, 1989; Bruck, 1990, 1992, 1993; Byrne & Letz, 1983; Perin, 1983; Pratt & Brady, 1988; Read & Ruyter, 1985; cited in Greenberg, Ehri, & Perin, 1997).

The adults' performance on phonologically-based tasks was worse than that reading-level matched young children, resembling those of children below 3rd grade. These findings are also consistent with those of Bruck (1992), Byrne & Letz (1983),Fawcett & Nicholson (1995), Penington, Van Orden, Smith, Green, and Haith (1990), and Pratt and Brady (1988). … they may not have received adequate instruction in decoding and spelling to remediate the phonological deficits. p.272 Greenberg, D., Ehri, L. C., & Perin, D. (1997). Are word reading processes the same or different in adult literacy students and third-fifth graders matched for reading level? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 262-275.

When we gave this (Auditory Analysis Test) and other tests of phonemic awareness to a group of 15 year-olds in our Connecticut Longitudinal Study, the results were the same: even in high school students, phonological awareness was the best predictor of reading ability. Shaywitz, S (No date). Dyslexia. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.sciam.com/1196issue/1196shaywitz.html

“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.

Literacy problems and older children: What focus for instruction in middle and upper primary school or secondary school? Nationally, more than 30% of Australian children entering high school – mainly in government and Catholic schools – cannot read or write properly. (Australian Council for Educational Research). 30% of students do not complete school. (Professor Peter Hill). Our Desperate Schools. The Age, 5/8/2000.

Should we be focussing on decoding or comprehension? It is true that most reading problems can be traced back to problems of “getting the word off the page” rapidly and effortlessly; however, there are students whose general language development (in addition to their decoding) is also delayed.

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.

90% of these children with reading difficulties have their major problem with the development of decoding skills (Lerner, 1989). Report of the Charter G: Ad Hoc Special Committee on Persistent Reading Difficulties. http://www.readbygrade3.com/peer.htm It has long been assumed that once a student is past the primary grades, phonological processing is no longer critical to word identification and to reading. Our data support the view that across the life span, from childhood to adolescence, decoding words reflects primarily, phonological, rather than orthographic coding. Such findings are consonant with what is becoming overwhelming evidence that phonological mechanisms mediate word identification in all readers, whether beginners or experienced readers.

Shaywitz, S.E., Fletcher, J.M., Holahan, J.M., Shneider, A.E., Marchione, K.E., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Pugh, K.R., & Shaywitz, B.A. (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: The Connecticut longitudinal study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104, 1351-1339.

Studies involving adults with reading difficulties have revealed marked deficits in decoding (Bear, Truax, & Barone, 1989; Bruck, 1990, 1992, 1993; Byrne & Letz, 1983; Perin, 1983; Pratt & Brady, 1988; Read & Ruyter, 1985; cited in Greenberg, Ehri, & Perin, 1997).

The adults' performance on phonologically-based tasks was worse than that reading-level matched young children, resembling those of children below 3rd grade. These findings are also consistent with those of Bruck (1992), Byrne & Letz (1983), Fawcett & Nicholson (1995), Penington, Van Orden, Smith, Green, and Haith (1990), and Pratt and Brady (1988). … they may not have received adequate instruction in decoding and spelling to remediate the phonological deficits. p.272

Greenberg, D., Ehri, L. C., & Perin, D. (1997). Are word reading processes the same or different in adult literacy students and third-fifth graders matched for reading level? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 262-275.

When we gave this (Auditory Analysis Test) and other tests of phonemic awareness to a group of 15 year-olds in our Connecticut Longitudinal Study, the results were the same: even in high school students, phonological awareness was the best predictor of reading ability.

Shaywitz, S (No date). Dyslexia. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.sciam.com/1196issue/1196shaywitz.html

“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 4 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 New York: Teachers College Press. New York: Teachers College Press.

Surely, we can address all the problems at once?

The message in intervening effectively for older students is that it will take considerable time (perhaps a year or two), the chosen intervention must be very effective and efficient to increase the students’ acceleration. It must be intensive – daily for about an hour. It must increase the students’ free reading so as to generalise their new skills to all their reading. It must include daily fluency activities - as fluency is the last feature of reading to improve.

Usually these students have other deficits too – in numeracy, writing, thinking, content knowledge, problem solving. Unfortunately attempts to address all these difficulties together lead to a dilute curriculum in which no discernible progress occurs in any area. It is more effective to focus on the pivotal area of reading.

We found that extended practice was particularly important toward increasing the magnitude of treatment outcomes.

Swanson, H.L. (2001) Research on interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher-order processing. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 331-348.

These findings extend into adolescence data previously reported on the persistence of reading disability that is, that children who were initially poor readers in the early school years remain poor readers relative to other children in the sample. The special services, however, consisted of eclectic approaches to teaching reading that were provided in an inconsistent fashion and for relatively brief periods.

Shaywitz, S.E., Fletcher, J.M., Holahan, J.M., Shneider, A.E., Marchione, K.E., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Pugh, K.R., & Shaywitz, B.A. (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: The Connecticut longitudinal study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104, 1351-1339.

The Corrective Reading program development and trialling was based on 5 lessons/week, 3-5.

Hanner, S., & Engelmann, S. (1984, May). Learner verification for the Corrective Reading Program. AADI Newsletter Discussion with local teachers suggests that the student error count increases when lesson frequency drops from 5 to 4 lessons per week, and very significantly when lesson frequency drops from 4 to 3 times per week. (Hempenstall, 2001)

Effective programs make highly effective use of instructional time and provide multiple reading opportunities.

Schacter J. (1999). Reading programs that work: A review of programs for Pre-Kindergarten to 4th Grade.[On-Line]. Available at: http://www.mff.org/edtech/publication.taf?_function=detail&Content_uid1=279

Best results are generally achieved by providing instruction every day, rather than lengthy periods with days between sessions.

Horowitz, J. (2000). Teaching older nonreaders how to read The Reading Teacher, 54, 24-26. The National Literacy Strategy (1998) involves a daily "literacy hour” to attempt to address the problem of reading failure.

Department for Education and Employment. (1998). The National Literacy Strategy: Framework for Teaching. London: Crown.

If reading assistance fails to exert a significant impact on the reading performance of low-achieving older readers one reason is that the instruction provided is not sufficiently intense.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org .

We found that extended practice was particularly important toward increasing the magnitude of treatment outcomes.

Swanson, H.L. (2001) Research on interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher-order processing. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 331-348.

Their instructional needs appear to include more intensive practice … further breakdown of the phonological tasks given in training, and longer duration.

Wong, B.Y.L. (2001). Commentary: Pointers for literacy instruction from educational technology and research on writing instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 359-369.

What do new brain imaging techniques tell us? Employing proton echo-planar spectroscopic imaging" (PEPSI), researchers showed that dyslexic and control children differ in brain lactate metabolism when performing language tasks, but do not differ in non-language auditory tasks. The dyslexic students expend between 4 and 5 times the energy as controls for the same phonological tasks in the left anterior, or frontal, lobe of the brain.

Richards et al. (1999). Dyslexic children have abnormal brain lactate response to reading-related language tasks. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 20, 1393-1398.

The boys were taught to analyze sound in spoken words, to attach sounds to letters automatically and to use phonological strategies for translating written words into spoken words. Following treatment, brain lactate elevation was not significantly different from controls. They made significant gains in analyzing sounds needed to decode words and in sounding out unknown words. After the workshop all but one of the boys could read grade appropriate passages.

Richards, et al. (2000). The effects of a phonologically-driven treatment for dyslexia on lactate levels as measured by Proton MRSI. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 21, 916-922. [On-Line]. Available: http://faculty.washington.edu/toddr/dyslexic2.htm

Cutting-edge federal studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) show ''clear brain differences'' between dyslexic and good readers by age 6, Lyon says. As kids are taught with state of-the-art techniques and their reading improves, MRI scans show that ''their brains begin to look more like the others','' Head of the NICHD, G. Reid Lyon says. Dyslexia is a handicap throughout school years Marilyn Elias, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/19991207/1723076s.htm “Readers, asked to imagine "cat" without the "kah" sound, readily summon "at." And the MRI photographs show their brains lighting up like pinball machines. When the brain gets it, the light bulbs really do go on. Conversely, the brains of people who can't sound out words often look different on MRI pictures. There is less blood flow to the language centres of the brain and, in some cases, not much activity evident at all. But simply put, without the ability to sound out words, the brain is stumped.”

Lally, K. & Price, D.M. (1997). The brain reads sound by sound: 1997 SDX Awards. The Sun. On-Line at: http://www.sunspot.net/readingby9/initial.shtml

Note the left hemisphere before and after structured intensive teaching – 60 hours instruction.

Lyon, G.R., & Fletcher, J.M. (2001, Summer). Early warning systems. Education Matters, 22-29. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.edmatters.org/20012/

Older students:

Why are so many struggling students not noticed until about Year Four and beyond? At about Year Four, there is a marked increase in the number of children referred for reading assistance (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990). This may represents the dawning of teachers’ recognition that the maturational delay hypothesis can no longer be used to explain the lack of reading progress. More salient perhaps is the generally unacknowledged explosion of new words in textbooks at about that time (Carnine, 1982) and of the increased complexity of the words in those texts (Henry, 1991). Many students who have relied upon whole-word memory recognition as their mode for storage and retrieval find the strategy collapses in Year Four. Whereas a word recognition capacity of 400 words is adequate for coping with text up to this time (and many children’s visual memory can manage such a load), the demand increases dramatically to about 4000 words around that year, and up to 7000 words by Year Six (Carnine, 1982), what Share (1995) describes as an “orthographic avalanche” (p.17).

For the student who relies primarily on word shape, the task is similar to that required in visually memorizing 7000 telephone numbers. In those languages that do rely on images rather than an alphabet for their construction, the number of words that are typically employed in print is far less than in English. For example, Chinese adults are said to have a working familiarity with only about 4000-5000 (Adams, 1990). Students who cannot access the phonological route to identify the escalating array of new words obviously struggle, and progress grinds to a halt. In truth, they had difficulties before this time, but perhaps managed to disguise them in classrooms where careful continuous assessment of word attack skills was unavailable.

Unfortunately, this under-identification appears to be even more likely for girls, as their rate of referral for assistance (about 1 in every 4 referrals) does not match the prevalence (about equal with males) of reading problems among females in our society (Alexander, Gray, & Lyon, 1993). A low Woodcock: Word Attack score suggests this scenario in students at (or beyond) Year Four. For younger students it is predictive of their reading future. Inability to decode pseudo-words is indicative of the need for an intensive, carefully designed program that provides at least a reasonable opportunity for the accelerated progress needed if a student is to make headway against his peers. If a student is two years behind his peers he must develop in reading at a rate twice as fast as they do, if he is to catch them by the end of primary school (as they will improve by at least two years over that period). While this conception of reading progress is rather crude it does give the flavour of just how immense a task it is. It also helps explain the chilling finding from a Melbourne University study (Hill, 1995), that for most students in this position there is no discernible improvement in reading between Year Four and Year Ten. Most students do not have access to intervention, and their prognosis is grim. For those students who do receive help it is incumbent upon us to provide the best and most efficient intervention available at the time. This implies that the most salient content must be delivered to students in the most effective manner possible.

The Corrective Reading Program

The CRP is a remedial reading program designed for students in Year 3 and above. It comprises two strands. Decoding and Comprehension, and within these strands are a number of levels. The Decoding strand was the focus of this study, having 4 levels (A, B1, B2, C) corresponding to the students’ decoding capacity assessed with a placement test. Its content and instructional methods are consistent with the findings of the National Reading Panel.

The Corrective Reading Program has been evaluated on many occasions (both the 1978 and 1988 editions), though its effects on phonological processes have not yet been a focus. Most analyses have emphasised word recognition and reading comprehension as outcome variables, and results for a wide range of poor readers have been strong. Studies have noted positive outcomes for learning disabled students (Holdsworth, 1984; Lloyd, Epstein, & Cullinan, 1981; Maggs & Murdoch, 1979), intellectually disabled students (Polloway & Epstein, 1986; Polloway, Epstein, Polloway, Patton, & Bell, 1986), maladjusted boys (Thorne, 1978), with secondary students (Campbell, 1983; Gregory, Hackney, & Gregory, 1982a; Gregory, Hackney, & Gregory, 1982b; Sommers, 1995), with adults (Herr, 1989), with gifted students (Noon & Maggs, 1980).

Facts About The Problem Reader (adapted from Corrective Reading Series Guide)

The Corrective Reading program series is designed to change the behaviour of the problem reader, The specific decoding tendencies of the problem reader suggest what a program must do to be effective in changing this student's behaviour.

• The problem reader makes frequent word identification errors.
• The student makes a higher percentage of mistakes when reading connected sentences than when reading words in word lists.
• Often the student reads words correctly in word lists and misidentifies the same words when they are embedded in connected sentences.
• The specific mistakes the reader makes include word omissions, word additional confusion of high frequency words (such as what and that, of and for, and and the).
• The student also reads synonyms (saying pretty for beautiful).
• The student often guesses at words, basing the guess on the word-beginning or ending. And the student is consistently inconsistent, making a mistake on one word in a sentence and then making a different mistake when re-reading the sentence.
• The student doesn't seem to understand the relationship between the arrangement of letters in a word and the pronunciation of the word.
• Often the student is confused about the "word meaning" (a fact suggested by "synonym reading," "opposite reading," and word guessing). The strategy seems to be based on rules the student has been taught.
• The problem reader follows such advice as: Look at the beginning of the word and take a guess; Think of what the word might mean, and Look at the general shape of the word. The result is a complicated strategy that is often backwards: The student seems to think that to read a word one must first understand the word, then select the spoken word that corresponds to that understanding.
• Although the problem reader may use a strategy that is meaning based, the reader is often pre-empted from comprehending passages. The reason is that the student doesn't read a passage with the degree of accuracy needed to understand what the passage actually says. (Omitting the word not from one sentence changes the meaning dramatically.)
• Furthermore, the student's reading rate is often inadequate, making it difficult for the student to remember the various details of the passage, even if they were decoded accurately. Often the problem reader doesn't have an effective reading

In the Corrective Reading program, the student receives daily practice in oral reading, with immediate feedback. (Only through oral reading can we discover what the student is actually reading.) The student reads word lists with information about how to pronounce various letter combinations (such as th and or). The student also reads sentences and passages composed of words that have been taught. The sentences and passages are designed so they are relatively easy if the student approaches words as entities that are to be analyzed according to the arrangement of letters, but difficult if the student guesses oh the basis of the context or syntax of the sentence. (The sentences are designed so that guesses often lead to mis-identification of the word.)

The mastery tests and checkouts in the series assure that the student observes progress in reading rate and reading accuracy.

The series presents comprehension items in a way that demonstrates the relationship between what is decoded and how it is to be understood. Initially, the comprehension activities are deliberately separated from the decoding activities so that the student's misconceptions about reading are not exaggerated. The comprehension activities, however, show the student that what is read is to be understood.

Finally, the series addresses the problem reader's poor self-image. The series is designed so the student can succeed on real reading tasks. Furthermore, a point system that is based on realistic performance goals assures that the reader who tries will succeed and will receive reinforcement for improved performance.

The poor reader is not a highly motivated student. For this student, reading has been punishing. The student often professes indifference: "I don't care if I can read or not." But the student's behaviour gives strong suggestions that the student cares a great deal. The student's ineffective reading strategies and negative attitudes about reading become more ingrained as the reader gets older. To overcome them requires a very careful program, one that systematically replaces the strategies with new ones and that provides lots and lots of practice.

The problems

An effective corrective reading program must address the specific needs of the problem reader.

1. The learner must learn to look at the order of letters in a word and learn that this order suggests the general pronunciation of the word. Furthermore, the student must learn that the game is simple: First figure out how the letters suggest one should say the word. Then see if the word you say is one that you recognize, one that has meaning. (Note that this strategy is basically the opposite of the one the typical problem reader uses.)

2. The problem reader must receive practice in reading connected sentences that are composed of words that have been taught in isolation. Merely because the student reads words in lists does not imply transfer to written sentences.

3. The student must receive strong reinforcement for working on reading because the task is very difficult and frustrating for the student. The student has received a great deal of evidence that reading is a puzzle that can't seem to be solved.

4. Finally, the student must receive practice in reading a variety of passages. If the student practises reading only narrative passages, the student will not "automatically" transfer the reading skills to textbooks, articles, or other forms of expository writing. Therefore, different styles must be introduced.

The Corrective Reading decoding programs have successful with problem readers because they provide the careful integration, the practice, and the management details that the problem reader needs to succeed. Indeed they were field tested on thousands of students and reworked before they were published.

Selection

The placement test is administered prior to the program and consists of several passages of prose, the rate of accuracy of reading determining the program level for any given student. The test is designed to assess ability at the word level. The story text is not amenable to contextual strategies, and the assessment criteria of rate and accuracy make it difficult for other than skilled decoders to pass unscathed. In the author’s experience it is capable of making the discrimination necessary to place students in any of the 4 levels (A, B1, B2, C), or to detect those whose skills are above or below the entry criteria. Used informally as a posttest measure it frequently has demonstrated that the student would now be correctly placed at the next higher level. This implies that the assessment device is closely related to the specified program objectives. It may be downloaded from http://www.sra4kids.com/teacher/reading/cr/decode/test_1.html

The placement test also ensures that student groups are relatively homogeneous in their decoding ability, and that they are neither over-challenged by the level of difficulty of the program, nor already competent at that level. The test is administered individually and takes about five to ten minutes. Detailed instructions are provided for administration and scoring.

In school settings the reading group teacher usually performs the screening. Typically the screening sample is derived from class teacher reports of students in the middle or upper primary school whose reading progress had been of concern. This teacher-identified group is then assessed with the placement test.

The possible outcomes of such assessments are:

1. the child’s current decoding skill levels are below those of the lowest level of the program (Level A), and would be best addressed with a beginning reading program.

2. the child is appropriate for placement in one of the four program levels, or

3. the child has already mastered the decoding skills taught at each level, and any reading deficits are probably not in the area of decoding.

Depending on the range of Year levels included in the assessment cohort, it is possible that, meeting all the students’ needs would require the provision of several of the levels, most frequently Levels A and B1. Schools then decide which group or groups they are able to supply with a program. In some cases schools decide to provide one program as a pilot, and plan subsequent programs after evaluating the first. This is a reasonable decision, but means that some of the identified students will not receive (immediate) assistance.

This decision usually causes some discomfort, and it is tempting to alter remedial direction and simply supply a little (usually ineffectual) aid to all of the identified students rather than select only a subset for the intensive program. As all of the students who fall within the Program’s range are equally in need of support, the basis for selecting one group must be on grounds other than differential need. Some schools decide to provide the Level B1 program initially, because the majority of such students are in Years Five and Six. Schools which make this choice place a high value on ensuring students to not leave primary school without their receiving some measure of remedial reading assistance.

Other schools choose to offer Level A, as the majority of the eligible students arrive from Year Three and Four. These schools consider such students able to make better progress (being younger), and also will be enrolled at the school long enough to participate in further levels subsequently, if that is deemed necessary. Obviously each of these options is a compromise as it involves excluding some students in need.

In some cases this exclusion is permanent as the senior group leaves the school at the end of that year. In other schools the identified-but-not-treated group will receive assistance in the next round of programs offered by the school. All schools have been enthusiastic about extending their program involvement supported by objective and subjective evaluation of their pilot. On only one occasion has the program been discontinued (albeit for one year), when school resources were inadequate to continue to provide the staff required.

The wait list group provided the source of the non equivalent control group students for my study. It is important for the internal validity of the study to note that the basis for selection in either the experimental or comparison group was not on the basis of greater need, but rather school values. All of the students identified were in similar need, and at each program level displayed a similar degree of reading deficit..

Program Design

There are two major features evident in the CRP. They are the emphasis on decoding skills (phonics) and the Direct Instruction approach to teaching the phonics content. It includes work on both isolated words and connected sentences, but its major emphasis is at the level of word structure. It is made clear to students that the decoding of novel words involves careful word analysis rather than partial cue or contextual guessing. Students are continually prompted to take account of all letters in a word, and become sensitised to common (and often problematic) letter groupings, for example, those beginning with combinations st, bl, sl, fl, pl, sw, cl, tr, dr; or ending with nt, nd, st, ts, mp, ps, cks, ls, ms, th, er, ing, ers, y. The sentences provided are constructed in a manner which allows few clues for contextual guessing, but provides ample opportunities to practise what has been learned in the teacher-presented word-attack segment of the lesson.

Lessons are designed to be provided in groups of up to 15 students. In this study most groups comprised about 10 students. The rationale for this reduction involved the lack experience of the teachers with the program, and the observation that in most groups of poor readers there are usually several students difficult to motivate, and maintain on task. This first hurdle is difficult for teachers used to a less directive model of teaching. Lessons are scripted, and most teachers report requiring at least 20 lessons before reasonable comfort with the approach is achieved. Teacher support is valuable in the early stages to assist in this skill development, and to preclude teacher initiated program changes which may jeopardise program success. The level of support needed varies from teacher to teacher; however, it was not possible in this study to provide the extensive model described by the program designers.

The program designers claim that the program combines the benefits of 1:1 tutoring with the effectiveness of group instruction. This is achieved by the use of choral responses prompted by various signals ( a new skill for most teachers). Not only must teachers follow a script, but they must be able to reliably signal students when to respond, and then pay attention to each student’s response in order to monitor skill development and teaching effectiveness. The results of this monitoring process help determine lesson pacing by controlling the amount of repetition necessary for mastery. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to continuously monitor every student’s progress - thus smaller group sizes are helpful for novice program presenters. As teachers’ reliance on the script diminishes, and as their signalling improves, so their adroitness at student monitoring improves and they are better able to manage larger groups.

The issues of behaviour management looms larger in secondary than primary schools, but may still present difficulties in middle and upper primary schools. Participation in the reading program involved parent, but not student consent; that is, students were not volunteers. Most schools considered the needs of the students too important to allow students the right of veto. To help motivate students whose history has made reading a non-preferred activity, the program includes a points system for each lesson segment. Most schools perceived the advantage of this system and incorporated it successfully into their plan. The potential for program disruption by a few disillusioned students was an additional reason for beginning with smaller group sizes.

Lessons typically range from 45 minutes to one hour, dependent on teacher lesson pacing. Typically pacing improves with experience, but initially some teachers were unable to complete a whole lesson in the time allotted. Program design specifies an optimum schedule of five lessons each week. This level of intensity has been found important for students with reading problems, as they tend to have difficulty retaining new skills and knowledge. For this reason, there is strong emphasis on massed practice for mastery, and spaced practice for retention. If lesson frequency falls too low, retention may be jeopardised leading to a general progress deceleration. However not all schools are able to timetable five lessons per week, and even those which do so found competing events sometimes forced class cancellation.

The Level A program focuses attention on word structure through reviewing letter sound correspondence, and regular rhyming, blending and segmenting activities. It relates these phonemic awareness activities to the written word by initially emphasising regularly spelled words decomposable by using these skills. When this phonic approach is accepted by students as a viable (even valuable) strategy, common irregular words are introduced. In the authors’ view this sequence is important to prevent the jettisoning of the generative decoding strategies because of their apparent inconsistent results if irregulars are initially encountered at the high rate common in authentic literature.

The following skills are taught in Decoding A:

Letter/sound identification; sounding-out (segmenting) orally presented words, and then saying them fast (blending); decoding words of varying degrees of irregularity; reading whole words the fast way; reading short groups of words; sentence reading; spelling. Related skills such as matching letters, and common letter groupings (such as ing, word completion (for example, rhyming), and symbol scanning are included on the student worksheets.

The basic objective in Decoding A is to teach students that there are regularly spelled words, words that are pronounced by blending the sounds of the letters in them. Once students understand that the identification of a word is related to its spelling, irregularly spelled words, such as said and what, are introduced. These words are spelled one way but pronounced in a different, irregular way. The sentence-reading exercises give students practice in reading words that are presented within a context. Usually students who qualify for this program do not understand what decoding is. This problem is magnified when they try to read sentences. Usually, their sentence-reading strategy involves guessing based on the syntax or the position of words within the sentence. For instance, they guess that the first word is the. The objective of the sentence-reading activities is to retrain students in how to read words in sentences.

The typical Decoding B1 lesson is divided into four major parts: Word-attack skills. Group story-reading. Individual reading checkouts. Workbook activities.

Word-attack skills take up about 10 minutes of the period. Students practice pronouncing words, identifying the sounds of letters or letter combinations, and reading isolated words composed of sounds and sound combinations that have been learned by the students. Students earn points for performance in the word-attack portion of the lesson.

Group story-reading follows immediately after word-attack skills. This part of the lesson takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Students take turns reading aloud from their student book (storybook). Students who are not reading follow along. The stories are divided into parts. If the group reads a part within the error limit, the teacher presents specified comprehension questions for the part.

Individual reading checkouts follow the group story-reading and take about 10 minutes. Assigned pairs of students read two passages. The first is from the lesson just read by the group; the second is from preceding lesson. Each member of the pair first reads the passage from the current story, then the passage from the preceding lesson. A student can earn points for both passages. Points for the first passage are earned if the student must read the passage within a specified rate criterion and also a specified error criterion. (For instance, the student must read 85 words in one minute, with no more than two errors).

Workbook activities are presented as the last part of the lesson. Some of these activities are teacher-directed and are very important to the students’ skill development. During lessons 1 through 5, students read only isolated sentences (a total of about 75-100 words). The stories begin on lesson 6 and continue on each lesson. Their length increases from about 200 words to 700 by lesson 60.

Students receive practice in comprehension skills with the following activities:

• Orally answering questions about each part of the story after reading the part within an error limit.
• Writing answers to a variety of comprehension items that require call of story events, sequencing, and characters

The daily oral reading checkouts provide each student with a lot of practice in reading connected sentences. Because the student work in pairs, the entire checkout doesn’t take very long, about 10 minutes for both checkouts help students gradually develop acceptable reading rates (from 55 words per minute at the beginning of the program to 90 words per minute at the end).

The workbook activities are carefully integrated with the word-attack activities and with the stories that the students read. From lesson to lesson, there is a careful development of skills in the workbook. It is considered very important for the students to do the workbook activities as part of each lesson. Each worksheet is one page. The different activities provide students with practice in writing sounds copying, answering comprehension questions, spelling and transforming words. Many of the activities deal with word details because these are the details the problem reader tends to ignore.

The following activities are included in Level B word-attack skills.

• Pronouncing words with consonant blends (slam, cast, flip), orally constructing words with endings (adding ed to show to pronounce showed), and identifying the component sounds of orally presented words.
• Identifying the long and short sounds of the vowels o, e, a, and I.
• Identifying the sounds of consonants.
• Identifying the sounds of letter combinations (th, ee, sh, or, ol, ch, wh, ing, er, oo, ea, oa, ai, ou, ar, oul, ir, igh, al) and reading words with those combinations.
• Reading lists of regularly spelled words, such as mat and trip, and irregularly spelled words, such as what and said. • Reading words that contain difficult consonant blends (drop, splash, slip).
• Reading words with endings (dropping, rested)
• Reading silent-e words (save, times, hoped).
• Reading compound words (herself, anybody).
• Practicing patterns drills that demonstrate consistent phonic relationships (big, bag, beg, bug).

The stories in Decoding B1 increase in length, difficulty, and interest. All stories are composed of words that have been taught in the series or words that the students can already read. After new words and word types are introduced in the word-attack activities, the words are incorporated in stories. Furthermore, the introduction of words in stories is cumulative, which means that once words have been introduced, they recur in the stories.

The syntax and structure of the stories are designed for the problem decoder and are designed to correct the mistakes the reader typically makes. Early stories are “low interest” stories because the poor reader must concentrate on a new game - looking at words and identifying them without guessing. With higher interest stories, the reader becomes preoccupied with the content of the story and reverts to habitual, inappropriate decoding strategies, which means that errors increase greatly. Later in the program, after students have practised the game of accurate decoding, the stories become more interesting. Appropriate strategies are now strong enough to be continued under the pressure of more complex language and syntax.

The Corrective Reading Program is often chosen as the intervention program for the RMIT Psychology Clinic because of my experience with it, and its record of success in improving the reading outcomes for children at risk. This has been noted in the empirical studies available in the research literature, and also in the regular evaluations I perform in schools and in the Clinic. At the Clinic we also train parents to provide the program to individual students.

Level A - early 1st Year to early 2nd (Start Rate 45 wpm - End Rate 60 wpm) Level B1 - early 2nd Year to end of 2nd (Start Rate 60 wpm - End Rate 90 wpm) Level B2 - early 3rd Year to end of 3rd (Start Rate 90 wpm - End Rate 120 wpm) Level C1 - early 4th Year to end of 4th (Start Rate 100 wpm - End Rate 120 wpm) Level C2 - early 5th Year to end of 5th. (Start Rate 120 wpm - End Rate 130 wpm): Approximately one grade level in 65 lessons.

Level A - early 1st Year to early 2nd (Start Rate 45 wpm - End Rate 60 wpm) Level B1 - early 2nd Year to end of 2nd (Start Rate 60 wpm - End Rate 90 wpm) Level B2 - early 3rd Year to end of 3rd (Start Rate 90 wpm - End Rate 120 wpm) Level C1 - early 4th Year to end of 4th (Start Rate 100 wpm - End Rate 120 wpm) Level C2 - early 5th Year to end of 5th. (Start Rate 120 wpm - End Rate 130 wpm)

Now, over to more recent publications:                                                                                                                                           

Persistent Reading Deficiencies in Early Education (2025)

“In this study I investigated early elementary teachers’ varying perceptions of their unique strengths and challenges relating to early student foundational development of reading skills (Abacioglu et al., 2019). The problem was the declining teacher identification and effective instruction of early struggling readers among students in grades 1–2. This approach appears relevant because early students with persistent reading deficiencies require unique, systematic instructional strategies to develop reading proficiency (Lovett et al., 2 2021). In addition, teacher identification strategies and screenings must capture students who “fly under the radar,” particularly in the early grades to prevent “wait to fail” instructional approaches and to further support early elementary students with persistent reading problems (Kieffer & Vukovic, 2013, p. 1188). As a result, early students who fail to achieve reading skills proficiency tend to develop negative mindsets regarding reading and often remain weak readers for much of their educational careers without attaining reading goals (Ozernov-Palchik et al., 2017).

Through collection of semi-structured interviews and primary teacher observational data from Mayberry Elementary School (pseudonym), I investigated first and second grade teachers’ perceptions of classroom practices used to identify students with persistent reading deficiencies and teachers’ perceptions of their unique strengths and challenges regarding early student reading proficiency (Abacioglu et al., 2019). The rest of Chapter 1 provides context to the problem of practice, including the problem and purpose statements, significance of the study, research questions, definition of key terms, and a brief summary. Background Achievement in foundational reading skills is critical for every student. Despite the fact that 33% of young students achieve reading skills proficiency through normal classroom practices, 67% of students with varying reading disabilities remain unable to reach desired reading proficiency, largely because of reduced teacher-student engagement quality, school fulfillment, and student persistence (Bratsch-Hines et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2019).

Educators have worked diligently to identify students with persistent reading problems, because students who fail to achieve basic reading proficiency often exhibit increased behavioral effects, decreased teacher-student engagement quality, reduced student persistence, and postsecondary 3 goal attainment (Kieffer & Vukovic, 2013; Peng et al., 2019). Despite efforts to reach set reading proficiencies, 31% of U.S. elementary school students continually exhibit varying persistent reading deficiencies, while 25% of U.S. fourth-grade struggling readers also fail to meet desired math proficiency (Erbeli et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2020). The issue of how to properly address persistent reading problems in U.S. public-school systems remains significantly acute even after 20 years of increasing attention by researchers (Lovett et al., 2021).

Because teachers’ perceptions of students with behavioral difficulties correlate with teacher-student interaction and engagement quality, additional research is needed to further investigate teachers’ perceptions, classroom behaviors, and the quality of teacher engagement with struggling readers that could increase effectiveness, foundational reading proficiency, and the identification of early-grade struggling readers, (Hernandez et al., 2018). Therefore, when early elementary teachers identify students exhibiting persistent reading problems, interventionists and reading specialists can collectively work to reduce student reading gaps and help these students develop along desired reading continuums (Allen & Loven, 2022). If this issue remains unresolved, struggling readers’ educational achievement will continually erode, because students lack essential, foundational reading comprehension abilities (Capin et al., 2021).

Statement of the Problem

The problem I investigated in this study was the decreasing teacher identification and instruction of struggling readers among students in grades 1–2. This was relevant because persistent reading problems in early elementary school are multifaceted and complex (Vernon Feagans et al., 2018). Although the majority of students develop reading skills through classroom instruction, many remain unable to achieve reading objectives (Bratsch-Hines et al., 2018). For 4 example, 31% of elementary students exhibit persistent reading deficiencies (Thomas et al., 2020). Nearly 25% of fourth-grade struggling readers fail math proficiencies (Erbeli et al., 2020). As a result, struggling readers experience continual academic failures, placing them at risk of remaining well behind their peers (Miles et al., 2019). The pandemic further exacerbated persistent reading barriers among early elementary students, causing 124,000 school closures in 27 U.S. states, exposing 55 million students to isolation, increasing emotional and psychological trauma, depression, posttraumatic stress, and attention deficits (Minkos & Gelbar, 2020).

In fact, COVID-related school closures decreased kindergarten student reading gains by 66%, approximately 31% greater than when students attend in-person classes (Bao et al., 2020). This was relevant because struggling readers often exhibit negative, in-class socioemotional effects, depressive symptoms, and decreased classroom engagement, eroding academic fulfillment, because they lack reading skills (Peng et al., 2019). Past instructional practice research in this area has failed to produce relevant findings (Capin et al., 2021). Poor attitudes about reading and academic failures further perpetuate students’ persistent reading deficits throughout school (Ozernov-Palchik et al., 2017). As a result, unresolved persistent reading problems impact students’ future behavioral, educational, financial, and social well-being (Lovett et al., 2021). Only 10%–15% of U.S. public- school students are identified with varying reading deficiencies (Al Dahhan et al., 2021). Teachers are critical in identifying struggling readers, because they first observe signs of reading deficiencies (Virinkoski et al., 2018). Many educators report, however, that their teacher training programs lack relevant training regarding identification of students with varying learning deficits (Jones et al., 2019). Additionally, recent 5 observation studies have discovered that teachers’ whole group instruction methods have become increasingly inadequate in addressing the unique needs of struggling readers (Folsom et al., 2019).

Students with persistent reading difficulties benefit from methodical, purposeful, and progressive reading instruction that provides continuous teacher-student feedback, involvement, and engagement (Allen & Loven, 2022). In addition, teacher development programs that equip educators with positive contact experience supports during classroom instruction might support the development of meaningful and equitable educational systems that elevate young students’ foundational reading achievement (Glock et al., 2018). If persistent reading problems remain unaddressed, the quality of U.S. public-school education will continually decline and subject struggling readers to poorer socioemotional health, higher school dropout probabilities, reduced career mobility, and lower lifetime wage earnings.

Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to investigate first- and second-grade teachers’ perceptions of effective practices they have used to identify struggling readers and increase early students’ foundational reading proficiency. This study includes my investigation of early elementary teacher perceptions of their unique strengths and challenges related to early student foundational reading skills’ development (Abacioglu et al., 2019). Results reiterate the need for caring teachers to positively impact young students’ classroom attention, focus, achievement, persistence, and engagement.

Participants in this study revealed that when primary grade teachers collaborate shared knowledge across grade levels, young struggling readers receive interventions indicative of increased early reading success. Collective interview results also solidify the dire need for districts and administrators to initiate an immediate and intentional early student foundational reading skills development focus through primary grade small group intervention strategies for struggling readers to experience desired increases in both early students’ reading assessments and proficiencies alike. Even though reading proficiency is needed for every student, persistent reading problems in early elementary school have remained problematic for more than 100 years. Struggling readers who complete the elementary grades often face significant literacy challenges throughout 100 their school-age years and for much of their lives, resulting in reduced lifetime wage earnings, health quality, and career mobility (Folsom et al., 2019). Early student reading deficiencies, however, should not subject young students to continual lifetime failures and depressive mindsets (Fuchs et al., 2019).

As teachers acquire more resources and training needed to promote struggling reader identification and develop a better understanding of how teachers’ behaviors and actions affect young student populations, future incorporation of corrective, small group reading supports can change the way that early, effective reading intervention is done to ultimately meet the needs of students who exhibit persistent reading problems once and for all”.

Reed, William Steven, "Persistent Reading Deficiencies in Early Education" (2025). Digital Commons @ ACU, Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 850.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Mitigating reading failure in adolescents: Outcomes of a Direct Instruction reading program in one secondary school (2020)

“International and national data continue to identify poor literacy standards among secondary school students. The researchers, in collaboration with a metropolitan secondary school in Perth, Western Australia, elected to use the Direct Instruction Reading Mastery program to improve students’ reading skills. Data on reading performance was collected from 59 Year 7-9 students identified by their teachers as having poor reading skills. Students were assessed using the Woodcock Reading Mastery III and were retested twice during the remainder of the year. Teaching staff were observed delivering the program and were interviewed in the final term of the year to ascertain their experiences while using the program. Results showed a statistically significant improvement in students’ reading performance. There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between higher reading improvement and higher attendance. The program was effective for students regardless of equity group. Semi-structured interviews with the teacher and teaching assistants delivering the program indicated they were overwhelmingly positive about the program but identified difficulty delivering it with fidelity. This was also noted during classroom observation. The results from this research support the efficacy of using Direct Instruction programs, such as Reading Mastery, to improve the reading outcomes for adolescent students who are struggling to read. However, they also highlight the complexity of influencing reading success for students in secondary schools, with factors such as attendance and fidelity of delivery influencing the success of the program.”

Main, S., Backhouse, M., Jackson, R. et al. Mitigating reading failure in adolescents: Outcomes of a Direct Instruction reading program in one secondary school. AJLL 43, 152–166 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03652051

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Inadequate foundational decoding skills constrain global literacy goals for pupils in low-and middle-income countries (2025)

“Learning to read is the most important outcome of primary education. However, despite substantial improvements in primary school enrolment, most students in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) fail to learn to read by age 10. We report reading assessment data from over half a million pupils from 48 LMICs tested primarily in a language of instruction and show that these pupils are failing to acquire the most basic skills that contribute to reading comprehension. Pupils in LMICs across the first three instructional years are not acquiring the ability to decode printed words fluently and, in most cases, are failing to master the names and sounds associated with letters. Moreover, performance gaps against benchmarks widen with each instructional year. Literacy goals in LMICs will be reached only by ensuring focus on decoding skills in early-grade readers. Effective literacy instruction will require rigorous systematic phonics programmes and assessments suitable for LMIC contexts.

Learning to read is the most important outcome of a child’s primary school education. If a child does not learn to read in primary school, then they will not be able to use reading to access the curriculum in secondary and tertiary education. High levels of literacy promote human capital accumulation, thus promoting income, employment, health benefits, and social participation for individuals, and poverty reduction and economic development for societies1. However, research indicates that approximately 57% of children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are unable to read with a basic level of comprehension by age 10 (refs. 1^,2). This staggering figure comes despite record investments in global education over the past 20 years. LMICs spend between 3.5% and 4.3% of gross domestic product on education, and education is a major target for international development assistance3. These investments have supported substantial rises in primary school enrolments to over 90% globally but have not brought meaningful increases in learning and literacy4.

Research on low literacy achievement in LMICs has principally focused on systemic factors, such as teacher career progression structures, monitoring and accountability measures, school management capacity and classroom infrastructure1^,5^,6. Our approach instead considers the problem in relation to the science of reading. There is a large body of psychological research on how children learn to read and how they can best be taught7. This research has made major inroads into literacy policy and practice in high-income countries but has had limited impact in LMICs so far. One major insight from this research is that learning to read in an alphabetic writing system requires mastery of a range of lower-level reading subskills7. Most crucially, pupils must acquire the understanding that letters represent sounds, and they must learn to retrieve letter-to-sound mappings fluently to decode printed words. This decoding process allows pupils to use their spoken vocabulary to access the meanings of unfamiliar printed words7, and it provides the basis for developing readers to get the reading practice vital for building proficiency through the later primary and secondary school years8. There is a strong consensus that the development of decoding skills requires high-quality, systematic phonics in the initial years of reading instruction7.

In high-income countries, early-reading curricula often have a strong focus on the development of decoding skills through systematic phonics7, and these skills are often assessed and reported as part of the instructional programme using standard instruments such as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)9 or through national phonics screening10. In fact, a majority of US states now have legislation in place requiring early screening for reading disabilities, with most making reference to the assessment of decoding skills (including 17 states that specifically mention use of DIBELS instruments11). In contrast, the Global Proficiency Framework12 is the main framework agreed by all major international development agencies for stating reading progress targets in LMICs and it is focused largely on comprehension. Although this framework makes some reference to decoding, the word ‘phonics’ does not appear in its 146 pages, and it appears to suggest that new letter–sound correspondences may continue to be introduced any time from grade 1 to grade 9. Moreover, much of the data formally recorded in LMICs relates to schooling inputs and enrolments rather than learning outcomes13, and there is a dearth of information reported on pupils’ literacy, including whether they are acquiring basic decoding skills2.

The absence of regular assessments of decoding for pupils in LMICs poses a challenge to understanding the poor reading outcomes in these countries. However, it is possible to evaluate the decoding skills of pupils in LMICs using the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA)14, a suite of reading tasks and assessment protocols modelled on DIBELS but designed for use in LMICs. The EGRA was created by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and partner agencies to permit accurate assessment of student reading achievement. It has been used to measure the effectiveness of reading interventions, to guide instructional programmes and in academic research (see ref. 15 for a review). The EGRA differs from assessments specifically designed for cross-country comparisons in high-income countries, such as the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study and the Programme for International Student Assessment (which measure reading comprehension differences across countries at age 10 and 15, respectively), in that it is not overseen by a centralized assessment agency. However, the EGRA’s strong theoretical basis, design standards and consistent procedures14 allow for the construction of instruments that meet high psychometric standards for assessing pupils’ foundational reading skills in a way that is comparable (if not psychometrically equivalent) across different countries and for different languages15.

Our work brings together hundreds of EGRA surveys conducted in LMICs over a period of 15 years that have assessed over half a million pupils primarily in a language of instruction. This comprehensive aggregation of EGRA surveys provides a systematic organization of EGRA data in terms of reading subskills across the first three instructional years for a variety of languages and countries. Our aim is to assess whether children are acquiring the foundational decoding skills to become successful readers. We focus on four EGRA decoding tasks for which there are comparable DIBELS measures: letter name identification, letter sound identification, non-word reading and oral reading fluency (in passages). Scores indicate the number of letters, letter sounds, non-words (also known as pseudowords such as ‘vib’ or ‘slint’) and words read accurately in 1 minute. Our analyses sought to quantify decoding performance across the first three instructional years against benchmarks for the corresponding DIBELS tasks, seeking to assess whether pupils from LMICs are on a trajectory to becoming proficient readers. Our final analysis investigated the relationship between performance on the four decoding tasks and reading comprehension.

Results

Our results showed strikingly poor performance on all measures of decoding and, critically, that performance tends to fall further below the benchmarks required for proficient reading with each instructional year. In the following, we describe performance on the four EGRA decoding tasks before turning to statistical analyses investigating (1) pupil progress across instructional years, (2) deviation from benchmarks with each instructional year, and (3) the relationship between decoding performance and reading comprehension.

Figure 1 summarizes the findings of 230 EGRA surveys comprising 694 subsurveys undertaken in 48 countries, 96 languages and 22,656 schools, involving 526,862 pupils learning to read in alphabetic writing systems. The numbers of schools and pupils included in the sample should be considered estimates because in 12 of the 230 EGRA surveys (5%) the reported sample sizes are not disaggregated across different language or instructional year cohorts. Of the EGRA surveys, 75% were given in a local or national language, and 25% were given in 1 of the 4 main former colonial languages (English, French, Spanish or Portuguese). The languages and countries included in the analysis, together with the relevant EGRA survey numbers for each language and country, are provided in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Each of the 2,373 data points in Fig. 1 represents an average score across pupils included in an EGRA subsurvey for a particular reading subskill assessment. These data are compared against benchmarks for the corresponding English language DIBELS tasks assessing these reading subskills in the USA (ref. 9, pages 123–124 for benchmarks). The ‘substantial-risk’ (black) criterion reflects the DIBELS benchmark goal for each task averaged across the instructional year. Pupils scoring below this benchmark are deemed to require additional strategic support beyond the core curriculum to reach proficiency goals. The ‘severe-risk’ (red) criterion reflects the DIBELS at-risk cut score for each task averaged across the instructional year. Pupils scoring below this criterion are deemed to be at particularly high risk of reading failure and to require intensive intervention. Benchmarks are available only where appropriate: the DIBELS test for letter name identification is not given in the third instructional year (as almost all pupils would be expected to know their letter names at that point) and the DIBELS test for oral reading fluency is not given in the first instructional year (as few pupils would be expected to read fluently at that point).”

Crawford, M., Raheel, N., Korochkina, M., & Rastle, K. (2025). Inadequate foundational decoding skills constrain global literacy goals for pupils in low-and middle-income countries. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(1), 74-83.

Legislating Literacy: The Need for Reading Reform in the United States (2025)

INTRODUCTION

“Andrew was diagnosed with dyslexia in the second grade. Before his official diagnosis, he struggled with reading, writing, and spelling to a much greater degree than his classmates. Andrew grew frustrated and discouraged with his lack of progress, and his love for school quickly dissipated. Even though his teachers clearly saw him floundering, Andrew’s public school did not screen him for any learning disabilities. Only after his mother had him evaluated by a speech-language pathologist, he was officially diagnosed. Due to the limited resources in his public school for students with learning disabilities, Andrew’s mother placed him in a private school that specialized in educating dyslexic students. His new school provided him with instruction tailored to his unique needs, which helped place him back on track with his peers. Now in the sixth grade, Andrew has made great strides in his reading and writing abilities, and his love for school has returned. Although Andrew was lucky to have received the intervention he needed, not every student is as fortunate. Many students with dyslexia and other learning disabilities remain in public schools that have limited resources, which inhibits their ability to succeed.

Like Andrew, many students’ learning disabilities are overlooked when intervention and proper instruction is crucial. Countless schools continue to teach children with disproven methods and inadequately prepared teachers, which affects not only dyslexic students, but all students learning to read. The failure of our education system to teach children to read is reflected in poor standardized test scores across the country. Ensuring the success of children is crucial, and students should be taught using proven methods. Even though some children learn to read on their own, other students require more intensive instruction. As such, all states should pass legislation mandating literacy instruction based on the science of reading, implementing strong teacher preparation policies to ensure the qualifications of educators, and requiring dyslexia screenings for all students in in the sixth grade, Andrew has made great strides in his reading and writing abilities, and his love for school has returned. Although Andrew was lucky to have received the intervention he needed, not every student is as fortunate. Many students with dyslexia and other learning disabilities remain in public schools that have limited resources, which inhibits their ability to succeed. Like Andrew, many students’ learning disabilities are overlooked when intervention and proper instruction is crucial.

Countless schools continue to teach children with disproven methods and inadequately prepared teachers, which affects not only dyslexic students, but all students learning to read. The failure of our education system to teach children to read is reflected in poor standardized test scores across the country. Ensuring the success of children is crucial, and students should be taught using proven methods. Even though some children learn to read on their own, other students require more intensive instruction. As such, all states should pass legislation mandating literacy instruction based on the science of reading, implementing strong teacher preparation policies to ensure the qualifications of educators, and requiring dyslexia screenings for all students in in the sixth grade, Andrew has made great strides in his reading and writing abilities, and his love for school has returned. Although Andrew was lucky to have received the intervention he needed, not every student is as fortunate. Many students with dyslexia and other learning disabilities remain in public schools that have limited resources, which inhibits their ability to succeed.

Like Andrew, many students’ learning disabilities are overlooked when intervention and proper instruction is crucial. Countless schools continue to teach children with disproven methods and inadequately prepared teachers, which affects not only dyslexic students, but all students learning to read. The failure of our education system to teach children to read is reflected in poor standardized test scores across the country. Ensuring the success of children is crucial, and students should be taught using proven methods. Even though some children learn to read on their own, other students require more intensive instruction. As such, all states should pass legislation mandating literacy instruction based on the science of reading, implementing strong teacher preparation policies to ensure the qualifications of educators, and requiring dyslexia screenings for all students in kindergarten to the third grade.

Although it may be too early to assess whether recent legislation in these areas has influenced students, science-based reading instruction, strong teacher preparation programs, and the benefits of dyslexia screenings have all been researched and proven effective if implemented correctly. If all states pass legislation supporting these areas, the country’s dismal reading scores may improve, and students will become stronger readers. Part I of this Comment will provide an overview of the nationwide literacy gap, the historical reading wars, and the various approaches to literacy instruction. The Comment will then focus specifically on dyslexic students, problems faced by educators, and literacy legislation generally. Part II of this Comment will examine and compare the reading scores of various states to determine the efficacy of recently passed legislation. Finally, Part III will provide recommendations and predictions for the 2024 reading scores based on which laws appear to be effective.

A. BACKGROUND

The Literacy Gap Nationwide statistics have shown a decline in reading performance that began even before the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2019, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) found that only 35% of fourth graders were considered proficient readers. This percentage decreased from 37% in 2017 and continued to decline to 33% in 2022.20 Although the pandemic may be responsible for some of the decline since 2019, the rate of proficient readers has consistently been lower than expected. Although there is no single reason for the below-proficient reading scores, they can partly be attributed to the differences in literacy instruction across the country. For example, in 2022, 34% of fourth graders in Rhode Island were proficient readers compared to 43% of fourth graders in Massachusetts. This disparity may stem from the different teaching methods each state implements. States enact their own laws, and each school district determines the best methods to enforce those laws. This state-by-state approach hinders uniformity in reading instruction across the country and likely contributes to the gaps in nationwide reading scores.

B. Implications of Illiteracy

Extensive research has shown a direct connection between reading failure and delinquency. Students who struggle to read are much more likely to end up in the criminal justice system or impoverished. Further, a study from 2011 found that students who are not proficient readers by the end of the third grade are four times more likely to drop out of school than those who do read proficiently. Given the importance of literacy in society, closing the achievement gap between poor and proficient readers should be a main concern of the states. If children are taught to read early with effective, proven methods, then reading failure can be prevented in all but a small percentage of children with severe learning disabilities. Even though the pandemic may have disrupted an already weak system, the literacy gap can still be closed.

C. The Reading Wars

In the 1980s and early 1990s, reading instruction became highly politicized. In what became known as the “Reading Wars,” the best practices for teaching children to read were widely debated. Some people supported whole language, which emphasizes textual meaning, and others preferred phonics instruction, which emphasizes word-decoding skills. Despite numerous studies, articles, and books on the various instructional techniques, the Reading Wars remained in effect for many years. Thus, the debate between phonics and whole language made it extremely difficult for teachers to instruct children using consistent, proven methods.

1. Whole Language

The first approach debated in the Reading Wars was a holistic theory called whole language, which emphasizes learning words in the context of whole texts rather than breaking them down into smaller parts (like individual letters or phonemes). Supporters of whole language argue that it introduces beginning readers to the “joy of reading” through stories and characters, “rather than numbing them into inattention and unmotivated boredom” through phonics instruction. Although this theory acknowledges the importance of phonics in learning to read, whole language focuses on the needs of each individual student instead of using direct, systematic, and uniform instruction. The whole language approach introduced a cueing system to help students determine the meaning of unknown words. Often referred to as “three-cueing,” this approach instructs students to guess at unknown words or consider pictures to determine which word would make sense in a sentence. The three-cueing system focuses on grapho-phonemic cues (letters/sounds), syntactic cues (grammar), and semantics (comprehension). If one system fails, the view is that the other systems might compensate, which often leads to the correct guessing of words. Although many believe in the efficacy of three-cueing and whole language, neuroscientific studies have determined that children do not learn to read by simply guessing at unknown words. Evidence suggests that the whole language and three cueing approaches fall short in providing children with the structured and clear instruction necessary for them to effectively link spoken language with written words. Accordingly, the whole language approach has faced disapproval by scientists and phonics advocates, and many states have recently banned teachers from using cueing approaches in classrooms.

2. Phonics

The second approach debated in the Reading Wars was phonics-based instruction, which emphasizes teaching students to decode words by sounding out individual letters or letter combinations. There are various ways to teach phonics, including synthetically, analytically, systematically, or holistically (such as through whole language). Of these approaches, researchers have found that systematic instruction, which teaches letter-sound correspondences in an ordered progression, is most effective for beginning and struggling readers. Rather than instructing students to figure out the correlation between sounds and their letter patterns, teachers explicitly tell students the letter-sound connections in a methodical and sequential way. All children instructed in phonics, including those from different socio-economic backgrounds, those with disabilities, or those with reading difficulties, notice improvements in their decoding abilities and reading comprehension skills.

Research indicates that phonics plays a crucial role in a reading program based on empirical evidence, as the ability to decode words is fundamental to deriving meaning from text. Accordingly, instructing students with these techniques should take precedence over other non-phonics-based approaches. The National Reading Panel Report In 1997, Congress attempted to settle the Reading Wars by assembling the National Reading Panel (NRP) to assess the efficacy of the different literacy instruction programs. The panel examined hundreds of studies and released a report in 2000 identifying the five areas of reading instruction proven to produce skilled reading.

These areas, which became known as the “five pillars of reading instruction,” were phonemic awareness (the identification of different sounds that make up speech), phonics (the decoding of new words by matching sounds to letters), fluency (the ability to read accurately and quickly), vocabulary (the recognition and understanding of words), and comprehension (the construction of meaning from text). The report emphasized that these five pillars of literacy are essential to every effective reading instruction program. In addition to establishing the five pillars, the panel made other findings about reading instruction. The group noted that understanding the relationship between sounds, letters, and spelling patterns directly correlates to reading achievement. The panel also found that reading aloud with guidance and feedback improves reading and fluency.

The report emphasized that reading comprehension in younger students significantly depends on their oral language abilities, comprehension of syntax, grammar, vocabulary, and idioms, as well as their general and topic-specific background knowledge. These findings from the NRP impacted the general knowledge of literacy instruction and the best practices by which children learn to read. However, despite the panel’s findings, many of the ineffective methods identified in the report, including the three-cueing model, remained in school curricula. Schools continued to use materials supporting the cueing model, as teachers trusted the books that endorsed cueing, which had been relied upon for decades. Accordingly, the NRP’s attempt to settle the Reading Wars fell short, as the disproven methods were still being implemented.

The Reading Wars Have No Winner

Despite the NRP’s efforts to declare a winner to the Reading Wars, neither side can win. Reading comprehension and strong phonics skills are both necessary for learning to read. Notwithstanding the benefits of phonics-based instruction in pronouncing words, the approach is less effective in promoting reading comprehension. If teachers instruct children using only phonics, students at higher grade levels will be able to decode complex text but will be unable to understand it. Thus, elements from both sides of the debate are necessary for teaching children to read. To make matters more difficult, however, phonics and whole language simply cannot coexist within a classroom. Founded on fundamentally different principles, phonics and whole language each claim priority in the focus of educators and readers. Even though it is commonly understood that reading involves both phonics and comprehension, the initial approach to teaching reading often emphasizes one method over the other. Determining which approach will be primary and the other secondary depends on the particular grade and age of the student. Therefore, because elements of phonics and whole language are both required to teach children to read, as well as the fact that they cannot exist both equally and simultaneously, the Reading Wars have no clear winner. However, given the strong disapproval that whole language and cueing approaches have received, as well as the fact that phonics-based instruction is proven beneficial for all students, educators should focus on implementing phonics into their curricula.

D: Other Approaches to Reading

Although whole language and phonics-based instruction were at the center of the Reading Wars, other approaches to reading are used in many classrooms, several of which derive from whole language and phonics principles. Among the most prominent of these theories are balanced literacy and structured literacy.

1. Balanced Literacy

Balanced literacy, which derived from the whole language approach, was created as another attempt to resolve the reading wars. This theory combines both phonics and cueing and relies on the premise that children are “natural readers.” There is less emphasis on sounding out words and more on exposure to books and the enjoyment of reading. Balanced literacy underscores the importance of teachers’ autonomy and expertise, suggesting that instruction should be tailored to meet the unique needs and strengths of each student. Although the NRP’s report found the three-cueing model of whole language to be inefficient in teaching children to read, the concept is widely used in balanced literacy instruction. A survey in 2019 showed that 75% of elementary teachers taught reading in K–2 classrooms using the three-cueing model. Most educators are trained using this model, and it is reinforced by the prevalent curricula and assessments used in schools, which prioritize learning to read through meaning first. Despite the prevalence of balanced literacy and three-cueing in classrooms, studies have shown that cueing takes attention away from the letter sounds and makes the development of phonics skills more difficult. As such, balanced literacy alone is an ineffective method for teaching literacy, and many states have banned the use of cueing methods in classrooms. Instead, educators and policymakers have been recently advocating for the use of structured literacy instruction when teaching students to read.

2. Structured Literacy

Structured literacy is an umbrella term encompassing various evidence-based programs and approaches. These programs focus on the “science of reading” and draw from neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and brain research. Structured literacy advocates for the systematic teaching of the elements critical to proficient reading and writing. Evidence-based instruction may include scripted lessons, customized reading instruction tailored to meet the needs of students, and rigorous criteria for meeting program standards. Studies have shown that structured literacy is beneficial to all students and essential to struggling readers and those with language-based learning disabilities, such as dyslexia. Although some students will still need supplemental reading instruction, most students who receive instruction based on the science of reading are able to read more efficiently than students taught with whole language, balanced literacy, and three-cueing. Therefore, proponents of structured literacy have recommended that programs based on the science of reading be prioritized and implemented into all reading curricula.

E. Students with Dyslexia

Notwithstanding the debate between the many reading approaches, dyslexia was not a central issue in the Reading Wars. During that time, the differing opinions of how students learn to read made it extremely difficult for dyslexic children to receive appropriate intervention and education. It would have been challenging for lawmakers to pass legislation on dyslexia treatment and identification without taking a side in the conflict. As such, until fairly recently, the needs of dyslexic students were not taken into consideration. However, now that research shows all students learn to read through structured literacy and instruction based on the science of reading, there has been a shift towards implementing these methods into reading education. Similar studies have shown that reading achievement will improve overall if all students are taught to read using approaches that work for students with dyslexia.

What Is Dyslexia?

Dyslexia is a neurological learning disability that causes difficulty reading, writing, and spelling. People diagnosed with dyslexia face difficulties distinguishing the individual speech sounds within a word and understanding the correlation between the letters and sounds. It is challenging for dyslexic individuals to read quickly, organize written and spoken language, and comprehend longer reading passages. Although the severity of the condition can vary among individuals, brain imaging has revealed differences in the way dyslexic brains develop and function. As such, dyslexia can make it hard to achieve academic success, and many children with dyslexia receive special education, accommodations, or extra support services.

There is no single test for dyslexia, but screening students for symptoms can help identify those at risk. Screenings are not formal diagnoses; they merely assess the risk of dyslexia and determine the need for further diagnostic assessments. If students are identified as having foundational skill gaps, they may immediately receive individualized instruction before a designation of special education eligibility. Despite the importance of early screenings to ensure children with dyslexia receive appropriate intervention, not every school mandates these screenings.

Notwithstanding neuroscientific technology, identifying and diagnosing dyslexia in those deemed at risk can be challenging. Methods of diagnosis are not always clear, and states tend to implement a range of different assessment tools that vary in length and content. Furthermore, the complexity of dyslexia requires that diagnoses be given by professionals, such as “reading specialists, school psychologists, speech-language pathologists, [or] special educators.” Schools that lack these qualified individuals may face difficulties properly diagnosing children. Due to the difficulties with diagnosis, dyslexia “is often misdiagnosed or missed entirely.” According to the International Dyslexia Association, only about 5% of dyslexic students receive the condition can vary among individuals, brain imaging has revealed differences in the way dyslexic brains develop and function. As such, dyslexia can make it hard to achieve academic success, and many children with dyslexia receive special education, accommodations, or extra support services.

There is no single test for dyslexia, but screening students for symptoms can help identify those at risk. Screenings are not formal diagnoses; they merely assess the risk of dyslexia and determine the need for further diagnostic assessments. If students are identified as having foundational skill gaps, they may immediately receive individualized instruction before a designation of special education eligibility. Despite the importance of early screenings to ensure children with dyslexia receive appropriate intervention, not every school mandates these screenings. Notwithstanding neuroscientific technology, identifying and diagnosing dyslexia in those deemed at risk can be challenging. Methods of diagnosis are not always clear, and states tend to implement a range of different assessment tools that vary in length and content.

Furthermore, the complexity of dyslexia requires that diagnoses be given by professionals, such as “reading specialists, school psychologists, speech-language pathologists, [or] special educators.” Schools that lack these qualified individuals may face difficulties properly diagnosing children. Due to the difficulties with diagnosis, dyslexia “is often misdiagnosed or missed entirely.” According to the International Dyslexia Association, only about 5% of dyslexic students receive proper identification and support. Additionally, most students with dyslexia are not identified or diagnosed until at least the third grade, and many go unrecognized until adolescence or adulthood. By the time many children are diagnosed, it is often too late to teach them the skills needed to be successful readers. As a result, students with dyslexia fall behind in school and contribute to the gap in literacy scores.

Teaching Students with Dyslexia

Although students with dyslexia face many difficulties, appropriate teaching methods can ensure that dyslexic students are academically successful. Some students with dyslexia need interventions, such as specialized tutoring, assistive technology, extended time on tests, or access to audiobooks. Many also need Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) that provide academic modifications and accommodations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).123

Regardless of the specific treatment provided, research indicates that professionals should not wait for a formal dyslexia diagnosis before initiating reading treatment and intervention. Unlike the whole language and phonics debate that left the education community torn with uncertainty, the evidence of how children with dyslexia learn to read is clear. Students with dyslexia benefit the most from evidence-based treatments emphasizing thorough instruction in the five pillars of reading. Structured literacy is extremely beneficial for students with dyslexia, while balanced literacy and its lack of decoding instruction is not. Nevertheless, despite thorough research in both programs, there is no universally effective approach for teaching students with dyslexia or other reading difficulties.

F. Problems with Teaching

Although it is clear how students with and without dyslexia learn to read, many students still struggle. In addition to budget issues and teacher shortages, a major explanation is the curriculum that teachers themselves are taught to use. Teacher preparation programs are largely ineffective, as only 25% of programs teach new educators all five pillars of reading instruction. Many of these programs fail to train teachers in phonics and phonemic awareness, as these skills are taught more intensely in special education programs. Because special education teachers are in such high demand, many school districts struggle to hire them. This results in unprepared teachers ineffectively instructing students to read. Furthermore, much of the recent research has yet to be incorporated into teacher training programs, commonly adopted curricula, or professional development initiatives. As a result, these efforts to train educators often deviate from scholarly recommendations. Notwithstanding the scientific contributions to understanding how children learn to read, translating emerging evidence into classroom instruction has been challenging. The science may be clear, but “what to teach, when, how, and for whom at [what] level” is much less evident. As such, “[f]lawed teacher training and instructional materials[,]” among other factors, prevent children from receiving sufficient instruction.

G. Literacy Legislation

Over the past few years, states have become increasingly aware of the illiteracy problem and have enacted legislation to combat the issue. The movement began with the dyslexia community, who brought the issue to the limelight. Parents were frustrated that their children were paying for the faulty reading approaches taught in schools. Through legislation, parents forced school districts to update their literacy instruction. Early legislation was focused only on dyslexia; however, as time went on, the conversation evolved to focus on how all children learn to read. Although the dyslexia community raised the red flag, the problem has shifted to the nationwide curriculum.”

Williams, Lia M. (2025) "Legislating Literacy: The Need for Reading Reform in the United States," Roger Williams University Law Review: Vol. 30: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: https://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol30/iss1/8

No-fee school consistently outperforms Progress in International Reading and Literacy benchmarks: Presenting early grade reading data from a case in Makhanda, Eastern Cape’ (2024)

“Importance of early grade reading

There is much research to support the statement that ‘literacy, built upon a firm foundation of basic reading, is used as one of the primary measures of school efficacy’ (Pretorius et al. 2016:4). Weak reading has been linked to lack of scholastic achievement, low self-esteem, discipline issues as well as high levels of school dropout (Connor & Frederick 2014). Learning to read can thus be described as a fundamental skill which enables not only active participation in the curriculum but also forms the basis for lifelong success and opportunity (Hulme & Snowling 2011). Evidence suggests that if learners have not reached expected levels of proficiency in ‘learning to read’ strategies in the early years of schooling, there will be little to no improvement in reading ability without intervention or remediation (Bigozzi et al. 2017; Friedman & Kern 2009; Lonigan, Burgess & Anthony 2000; Pretorius et al. 2016). It is important to note here again that in the South African context, CAPS assumes learners have successfully learnt to read by the end of Grade 3 and thus, does not include any explicit teaching of how to read from Grade 4 onwards, where the focus switches to developing comprehension and semantic skills.

Much of the research on early grade reading has focussed on Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), which is the ability to read text quickly, accurately, and with meaningful expression (Rasinski & Hoffman 2003; Valencia et al. 2010). This is probably because ORF has been recognised as an indicator of reading comprehension (Fuchs et al. 2001), with reading comprehension being the ultimate goal of reading and where the stumbling block seems to lie with South African learners. Studies concerning reading in a second language (L2) are not as extensive as that for learners reading in their first language (L1) (Schaefer & Kotze 2019; Spaull 2015; Pretorius & Spaull 2016). In this article, we measured learner performance in their L2 (English) using measures of ORF and reading comprehension.”

Long K.A. & Bowles T.N., 2024, ‘No-fee school consistently outperforms Progress in International Reading and Literacy benchmarks: Presenting early grade reading data from a case in Makhanda, Eastern Cape’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 14(1), a1376. https://doi.org/ 10.4102/sajce.v14i1.1376

So, how much has reading failure changed in these new times – compared to my older times?

Dr Kerry Hempenstall,

How the session is structured:

• Examination of the themes highlighted a crucial in reading development and the necessary implementation characteristics
• Discussion of the difficulties of self-designed approaches
• Provision of information about one validated and viable approach to literacy programs in secondary school.

International trends in enhancing literacy attainment In Reading Today journal, experts nominated the current "hottest" topics as: scientific reading research and practice phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, direct instruction, early intervention.

Around the world, there are too many students failing to learn to read. Incidence of reading problems in Australia - Brendan Nelson (Federal Education Minister): Whatever the reading methods that are being used to teach our children in Australian schools, it is failing far too many children (ABC 7.30 Report 03/02/2005 Child literacy in Australia under scrutiny)

There is little evidence to indicate positive effects of recent initiatives to ‘improve’ the literacy achievement outcomes of students in Victorian Government schools at any Year level – particularly for underachieving students (p. 32). Performance Audit of Literacy Standards in Victorian Government Schools, 1996-2002. Report to the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office June 2003 Ken Rowe and Andrew Stephanou, Australian Council for Educational Research

Literacy Standards in Australia noted that 27%of Year 3 and 29% of Year 5 students did not meet the required standards in reading while the corresponding figures for writing were 28 per cent and 33 per cent. Australian Council for Educational Research, Literacy Standards in Australia, Canberra, 1997.

Australian survey data indicate that 30% of Australian teenagers have "not attained mastery in the important area of reading." (p. 17) Marks, G. N., & Ainley, J. (1997). Reading comprehension and numeracy among junior secondary school students in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

30% of Australian students fail to become effective readers. Louden, W., Chan, L.K.S., Elkins, J., Greaves, D., House, H., Milton, M., Nichols, S., Rivalland, J., Rohl, M., & van Kraayenoord, C. (2000). Mapping the territory—Primary students with learning difficulties: Literacy and numeracy (Vols. 1-3). Canberra: Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs. 2

In Australian schools, unacceptably low levels of literacy occur for 20-50% of students in schools serving educationally disadvantaged areas. Hill, P. & Russell, J. (1994). Resource levels for primary schools. Report prepared as part of a review by the Commonwealth Government of recurrent funding for government primary schools. The University of Melbourne, Vic: Centre for Applied Educational Research.

The gap between achievement levels of different groups of students increases during the subsequent years of schooling. By Year 10, the lowest 10% have made no reading gains since Year 4. Hill, P.W. (1995). School effectiveness and improvement: Present realities and future possibilities. Inaugural Professorial Lecture in Dean's Lecture Series Faculty of Education, Parkville, Vic: The University of Melbourne. Rowe, K.J. & Hill, P.W. (1996). Assessing and recording and reporting students' educational progress: The case for 'student profiles'. Assessment in Education, 3, 309-352.

Current incidence of reading problems in Australia depends on the benchmarks that are selected. 2003 Budget noted that 22% of Year 1 students would be funded for Reading Recovery.

Reading Recovery is provided to up to 100 per cent of students in any one school (notably small schools) and the average is 40 to 50% of students, well above the intended 20 per cent (Section 7.43, p.90) of students. In 2000 and 2001, 60 per cent and 57 per cent, respectively, of Victorian government schools allocated further funds to Reading Recovery from their School Global Budget. Victorian Budget amounts:1999 ($27M), 2000 (28M), 2001 (31.4M), 2002 (30.6M), 2003 (28.7M) Office of the Victorian Auditor General. (2003). Improving literacy standards in government schools. Retrieved 10/10/2004 from http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_par/Literacy_Report.pdf

By adolescence, less than 25% of Victorian students who struggled in Year 2 had recovered. Prior, M. (2001). Preparing early for success. The Age, Education Age, p.12-13.

In a study of 3000 Australian students, 30% of 9 year olds still hadn’t mastered letter sounds, arguably the most basic phonic skill. A similar proportion of children entering high school continue to display confusion between names and sounds. Over 72% of children entering high school were unable to read phonetically 3 regular 3 and 4 syllabic words. Contrast this with official figures. In 2001, the Australian public was assured that ‘only’ about 19% of grade 3 (age 9) children failed to meet the national standards. Harrison, B. (2002, April). Do we have a literacy crisis? Reading Reform Foundation, 48. Retrieved April 11, 2003 from http://www.rrf.org.uk/do%20we%20have%20a%20literacy%20crisis.htm

• Australia’s rate of early school leaving has not improved over the last decade
• poor literacy and numeracy skills are among factors accounting for early school leaving Business Council of Australia. (2003). The cost of dropping out: The economic impact of early school leaving. Retrieved 12/2/03 from http://www.bca.com.au/upload/The_Cost_of_Dropping_Out.pdf

60% of the 13 to 16 year old adolescents in a Smith Family study of 500 disadvantaged families had not progressed beyond a grade 4 reading level. Orr, E. (1994). Australia's literacy challenge: The importance of education in breaking the poverty cycle for Australia's disadvantaged families. Camperdown, NSW: The Smith Family, Research and Training Dept.

Indigenous students remain the most educationally disadvantaged group of young Australians. Marks, G., McMillan, J., Ainley, J., (2004, April 20). Policy issues for Australia’s education systems: Evidence from international and Australian research. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(17). Retrieved [Date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n17

Only 40% of indigenous students achieved at least proficiency Level 3 in reading. Lokan, J., Greenwood, L., & Cresswell, J. (2001). 15-up and counting, reading, writing, reasoning : How literate are Australian students? The PISA 2000 survey of students' reading, mathematical and scientific literacy skills. Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.

The National School English Literacy Survey indicated that 27 per cent of Year 3 and 29 per cent of Year 5 students did not meet the agreed standard in reading. The survey also showed that boys were well behind girls in terms of their literacy development and that many indigenous students could not read or write satisfactorily (p. 15). Masters, G.N., & Forster, M. (1997). Literacy standards in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, ACT.

The school progress of older low-progress readers (Years 5 to 8) who are at least two years behind in terms of reading skill, and who do not receive intensive remedial support, typically make progress at about half normal rate Wheldall, K., & Beaman, R. (2000). An evaluation of MULTILIT: ‘Making Up Lost Time In Literacy’. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved 3/6/2003 from http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/literacy&numeracy/publications/multilit/summary.htm

66% of Australian employers consider that high-school leavers are not sufficiently literate to enter the workforce. Croucher, J.S. (2001, July 21). Number crunch (The Age, p.13).

30% of students do not complete school (quote from Professor Peter Hill). Our Desperate Schools. The Age 5/8/2000.

In Australia efforts to improve student performance need to be directed to less-successful students within schools rather than to improving particular schools. Marks, G., McMillan, J., Ainley, J., (2004, April 20). Policy issues for Australia’s education systems: Evidence from international and Australian research. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(17). Retrieved 20/4/2004 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n17 . 4

In Victorian primary schools, differences among classrooms within schools were greater than differences among schools. Differences between classrooms are important, and it is what individual teachers do that is crucial for student learning. Hill, P., & Rowe, K. J. (1996). Multilevel modelling in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(1), 1-34.

Australia’s rate of early school leaving has not improved over the last decade - poor literacy and numeracy skills are factors accounting for early school leaving. Business Council of Australia. (2003). The cost of dropping out: The economic impact of early school leaving. Retrieved 12/2/03 from http://www.bca.com.au/upload/The_Cost_of_Dropping_Out.pdf

Teachers themselves are not always good at rating student achievement, as their ratings tend to be strongly affected by student behaviour and motivation, crediting the most attentive and interested with higher achievement. Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001 ). Cause or effect? A longitudinal study of immigrant Latino parents' aspirations and expectations and their children's school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 547-582.

Of particular concern, however, were the 10% of low progress readers who were not identified as such by their classroom teachers, and the 18% of teachers who identified, as low progress readers, students who were not in fact, very different from the lowest of the readers regarded as average (p.4). Madelaine, A. & Wheldall, K. (2003). Can teachers discriminate low-progress readers from average readers in regular classes? Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(3), 4-7.

M:F ratio of referrals by teachers is about 4:1 Shaywitz, S. E. & Shaywitz, B. A. (1988). Attention-deficit disorder: Current perspectives. In J. F. Kavanagh & T. J. Truss (Eds.). Learning disabilities: Proceedings of the national conference. Parkson, MD: York Press.

Males and females are represented equally in the population with reading disability Alexander, D., Gray, D.B., & Lyon, G.R. (1993). Conclusions and future directions. In G.R. Lyon, D.B. Gray, J.F. Kavanagh, & N.A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Better understanding of learning disabilities: New views from research and their implications for education and public policies (p.1-13). Baltimore: Brooks.

Shaywitz et al found a research-identified incidence of reading disability of 8.7% of boys and 6.9% of girls. However, a teacher-identified incidence of the same population identified 13.6% of boys and only 3.2% of girls. The authors suggested that greater reports of behavioral difficulties among boys in the classroom may have lead to this bias. Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Fletcher, J.M., & Escobar, M.D. (1990). Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls. Journal of the American Medical Association, 264, 998-1002.

Of 272 Victorian teachers (P-2), 77 % relied on whole language, and 6% followed a structured program. 51% had no specific teaching of phonics in their program, 22 per cent indicated that they included teaching of phonics as and when necessary (implicit phonics), while 27 per cent of teachers indicated that they included systematic teaching of phonics as a part of their teaching program. de Lemos, M. (2002). Closing the gap between research and practice: Foundations for the acquisition of literacy. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.

In my sample of 340 teachers, both pre service and in service, only 54% knew what a syllable was and only 24% could correctly count the number of phonemes in a word. As for knowledge of schwas, diphthongs, voiced versus unvoiced sounds, forget it! Fielding-Barnsley, R. & Purdie, N. (2005). Teachers' attitude to and knowledge of metalinguistics in the process of learning to read. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 65-76. 5 "A person who is not at least a modestly skilled reader by the end of third grade is quite unlikely to graduate from high school." - Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council (1998).

See survey Louden et al. (in press). Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities Federal government initiated survey • Australia-wide • 680 new graduates • 307 schools’ senior staff surveyed

Beginning primary teachers who felt unprepared to teach reading

Beginning secondary teachers who felt unprepared to teach reading

Beginning teachers rated by senior staff as unprepared to teach reading

Beginning primary teachers who felt unprepared to teach phonics

Beginning secondary teachers who felt unprepared to teach phonics

Beginning teachers rated by senior staff as unprepared to teach phonics 36% 51% 49% 57% 75% 65%

Percentage of responses indicative of teacher confidence Primary Secondary Senior staff confidence in beginning teachers’ competence ESL Indigenous Low SES Disabilities Learning difficulties 33% 38% 45% 43% 54% 26% 41% 43% 45% 53% 15% 12% 22% 11% 17% • The often heard view that remedial instruction for students beyond Year 2 is ineffective may have been true, but this is a criticism of the ineffectiveness of past programs, not a necessary truth. We can rehabilitate older low-progress readers, as we have shown, with effective programs based on contemporary, empirically validated best practice, if we have the will and the resources to do so. Wheldall, K., & Beaman, R. (2000). An evaluation of MULTILIT: ‘Making Up Lost Time In Literacy’. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved 3/6/2003 from http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/literacy&numeracy/publications/multilit/summary.htm

What are the consequences of literacy problems?

Statistically, more children suffer long-term life-harm from problems in learning to read than from parental abuse, accidents, and all other childhood diseases and disorders combined. Dr. Grover Whitehurst, Director Institute of Education Sciences, Assistant Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education (9-10-03 Children of the Code interview) http://www.childrenofthecode.org/cotcintro.htm

Australian Bureau of Statistics has reported a 16 per cent unemployment rate for people with poor literacy skills compared to a 4 per cent rate for those with very high literacy levels. Craig Ashdown and AAP, 'Literacy 'crisis' denied', Education Review, vol. 2, no. 6, July 1998, p. 1.

By the secondary grades, struggling readers have little confidence in their ability to succeed in reading and little sense of themselves as readers (Collins, 1996). Guthrie, Alao, and Rinehart (1997) noted an "eroding sense of confidence" in these students. They are acutely aware of their reading problems (Wigfield & Eccles, 1994) and 6 likely to suffer serious psychological consequences, including anxiety, low motivation for learning, and lack of self-efficacy. Peterson, C.L., Caverly, D.C., Nicholson, S.A.,.O’Neal, S., & Cusenbary, S. (2003). Building reading proficiency at the secondary level: A guide to resources. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved 2/2/2004 from Behaviour problems among children with learning disorders are about 3 times than the norm by 8 years of age Mash, E.J., & Wolfe, D.A. (2002). Abnormal child psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. Young boys with reading problems were three times more likely to report high levels of depressed mood than their peers. The reading problems influenced boys' risk of depressed mood. Maugban, B. (2003). Reading problems and depressed mood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 210 229.

Isn’t it largely a motivation problem?

At pre-school age, there were no clear differences in motivation, but distinctly different patterns of motivation developed as a function of reading success. The slow reading groups increasingly displayed lower task orientation, and higher ego-defensiveness and social dependency over time than successful groups. Lepola, J., Salonen, P., & Vauras, M. (2000). The development of motivational orientations as a function of divergent reading careers from pre-school to the second grade. Learning and Instruction, 10, 153–177.

We have not found evidence that boosting self-esteem (by therapeutic interventions or school programs) causes benefits. Our findings do not support continued widespread efforts to boost self-esteem in the hope that it will by itself foster improved outcomes. In view of the heterogeneity of high self-esteem, indiscriminate praise might just as easily promote narcissism, with its less desirable consequences. Baumeister, R. F. Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1-44. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/4_1.html

A recent synthesis examining the effects of intervention research on the self-concept of students with LD indicates at the elementary level that academic interventions are the most effective means of improving self concept (Elbaum & Vaughn, 1999).

Aren’t these failing students learning disabled?

"Learning disabilities have become a sociological sponge to wipe up the spills of general education…. It's where children who weren't taught well go." G. Reid Lyon, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development LA Times 12/12/1999 http://www.latimes.com/news/state/reports/specialeduc/lat_special991212.htm

The true incidence of verbal learning disability lies between 3-6% of the population, not 20-30%. Marshall R.M. & Hynd, G.W. (1993). Neurological basis of learning disabilities. In William W. Bender(Ed.) Learning disabilities: Best practices for professionals. USA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

A "significant number of children labelled learning disabled or dyslexic could have become successful readers had they received systematic and explicit instruction and intervention far earlier in their educational careers." California State Taskforce, 1999. http://www.latimes.com/news/state/reports/specialeduc/lat_special991212.htm

Why the interest in early identification?

Initial failure predicts future failure

• 90% of poor readers in first grade are poor readers in fourth grade (Juel, 1988)
• 74% of children who are poor readers in the third grade remain poor readers in the ninth grade (Francis et al., 1996)
• Many children with difficulty in learning to read develop a negative self concept within their first two years of schooling (Chapman, Tunmer, & Prochnow, 2000)

The gap widens over time

At best, our current efforts simply perpetuate the differences that children arrive at school with; at worst, we exaggerate these differences across the time they spend with us (Allington, 1991).

Remedies are long, slow, often unsuccessful, and student resistance can preclude success In a large scale study of reading disabilities (n = 10,000),

• 82% of those diagnosed in Grades 1 or 2,
• 46% in Grade 3,
• 42% in Grade 4, and
• 10-15% in Grades 5-7 were brought up to grade level (Berninger et al., 1987)

Between ages 4 and 6, the brain is pruning synapses - connections between brain cells. After then it is more difficult to establish specialised functions, and undo established pathways.

Reading-intelligence causal link?

Reading itself is a moderately powerful determinant of vocabulary growth, verbal intelligence, and general comprehension ability (Stanovich, 1993)

Females are currently under-identified.

A growing body of research suggests that females experiencing learning difficulties are not identified as frequently as males (Njiokiktjien, 1993)

What about the very early preschool years? Aren’t they important too?

Educational experiences in preschool cannot completely compensate for the educational deprivation that can occur during the first 3 years. Early vocabulary development is particularly critical. Parents with professional jobs spoke about 2,000 words an hour to toddlers. For working-class parents it was 1,200 words an hour, and for those on welfare only 600 words an hour. By age three, children from privileged families have heard 30 million more words than children from poor families. By kindergarten the gap is even greater. The consequences are catastrophic. Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (2003, Spring). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap. American Educator. Retrieved April 11, 2003 from http://www.aft.org/american_educator/spring2003/catastrophe.html

Compared to children from the families in the highest fifth of socioeconomic status, the kindergartner whose family falls in the lowest fifth:

• Owned just 38 books, compared to the 108 owned by the top fifth, and was read to much less often
• Was far less likely to have a computer in the home (20% versus 85%)
• Was much less likely to have been taken to a museum, a public library, a play, or to have participated in dance, art, music, or crafts classes.
• Spent the most hours per week watching television (18 versus 11 hours)
• Was far more likely to have only one parent (48% versus 10%) and to have moved around more.

Lee, V.E. & Burkam, D.T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. USA: The Economic Policy Institute.

Children who do not receive a strong language and emergent literacy foundation during the preschool years frequently have difficulties comprehending and using language and developing strong reading and writing abilities throughout their school tenure. Children from poor families are still much more likely to enter school with limited vocabularies, meagre early literacy and other pre-academic concepts, and a motivation to learn that is already on the wane. The major perpetuating factor is school failure, which, in turn, is typically the result of reading failure in school. The cycle goes on! But it doesn't have to.

It is likely that these mothers cannot read well enough to read to their new babies or to their other children. Unless we do something of substance for those babies, they will most likely be repeating this cycle with their own newborns over the next two decades.

Lyon, G.R, (2001, July 30). Summary comments White House Early Childhood Cognitive Development Summit. Education News Org. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.educationnews.org/white_house_early_childhood_cogn.htm

It is very important for us to reflect honestly and objectively on why the development of a science of early childhood has been so long in developing and why so many of our children continue to flounder once they reach kindergarten and elementary school. To be blunt, one reason is that many people working with our young children DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY DO NOT KNOW. Let me be even more blunt. Much of the thinking in the early childhood education community over the past three decades has been predicated upon faulty assumptions and beliefs about development, appeals to scientific authorities that actually did not explicitly or carefully address the issues we are discussing here, and less than rigorous or informed scientific study. Lyon, G.R, (2001, July 30). Summary comments White House Early Childhood Cognitive Development Summit. Education News Org. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.educationnews.org/white_house_early_childhood_cogn.htm

President Bush's "Good Start, Grow Smart" initiative includes the following elements:

 http://www.nsba.org/sbn/02-apr/042302-1.htm . April 24 2002

• Federal support for high-quality early childhood education programs is critical "if this nation is to make significant gains in the academic performance of our public school students."
• Provide large funding increases for early childhood education.
• States to develop guidelines on building pre-reading and language skills aligned with state K-12 standards. • Implement a national training program for 50,000 Head Start teachers in early literacy teaching techniques.
• $45 million research collaboration between the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Education Department to identify effective pre-reading and language curricula and teaching strategies.

Recent Event in the USA and Great Britain The National Reading Panel reports a combination of teaching phonics, word sounds, and giving feedback on oral reading is the most effective way to teach reading. April, 2000 http://www.nichd.nih.gov/new/releases/nrp.htm

In the largest, most comprehensive evidenced-based review ever conducted of research on how children learn reading, a Congressionally mandated independent panel has determined that effective reading instruction includes teaching children to break apart and manipulate the sounds in words (phonemic awareness), teaching them that these sounds are represented by letters of the alphabet which can then be blended together to form words (phonics), having them practise what they've learned by reading aloud with guidance and feedback (guided oral reading), and applying reading comprehension strategies to guide and improve reading comprehension.

According to research, instruction is the major influence on at-risk student reading progress.

Students in classes with effective teachers for 3 years in a row achieved 50% more learning than those in classes with poor teachers.

Hanushek (1992) finds that, all else equal, a student with a very high quality teacher will achieve a learning gain of 1.5 grade level equivalents, while a student with a low-quality teacher achieves a gain of only 0.5 grade level equivalents. Thus, the quality of a teacher can make the difference of a full year’s learning growth. Our findings for various student subgroups are consistent with previous findings that teacher quality has a larger impact on poor students than on higher income students (Coleman, 1990).

Heritability of IQ at the low end of the wealth spectrum was just 0.10 on a scale of zero to one, while it was 0.72 for families of high socioeconomic status. The emerging view allows that genes can influence the impact of experiences and experiences can influence the "expression," or activity levels, of genes. Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES. The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse. Turkheimer, E., Haley, A. Waldron, M., D'Onofrio, B., Gottesman, I.I. (2003). Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 14, 623-628.

There are 3 main areas to consider in developing curricula: the most salient themes or content; the combination of those themes (design); and, the details of the teaching process itself (presentation).

National Reading Panel

For its review, the National Reading Panel selected research from the approximately 100,000 reading research studies that have been published since 1966, and another 15,000 that had been published before that time. Because of the large volume of studies, the panel selected only experimental and quasi-experimental studies, and among those considered only studies meeting rigorous scientific standards in reaching its conclusions.

The panel found that the research conducted to date strongly supports the concept that explicitly and systematically teaching children to manipulate phonemes significantly improves children's reading and spelling abilities. The evidence for this is so clear cut that this method should be an important component of classroom reading instruction.

The panel also concluded that the research literature provides solid evidence that phonics instruction produces significant benefits for children from kindergarten through 6th grade and for all children having difficulties learning to read. The greatest improvements in reading were seen from systematic phonics instruction. This type of phonics instruction consists of teaching a planned sequence of phonics elements, rather than highlighting elements as they happen to appear in a text. Here again, the evidence was so strong that the panel concluded that systematic phonics instruction is appropriate for routine classroom instruction.

For children with learning disabilities and children who are low achievers, systematic phonics instruction, combined with synthetic phonics instruction produced the greatest gains. Synthetic phonics instruction consists of teaching students to explicitly convert letters into phonemes and then blend the phonemes to form words. Moreover, systematic synthetic phonics instruction was significantly more effective in improving the reading skills of children from low socioeconomic levels. Across all grade levels, systematic synthetic phonics instruction improved the ability of good readers to spell.

President Bush's campaign pledge - make sure every primary school child can read. The White House is doling out millions of dollars to local communities for early-reading phonics programs - whole language programs are ineligible. Federal reading plan funds phonics. 17 March 2002 http://www.educationnews.org/cgi-bin/webbbs/reading/reading_list.pl?rev=638

The No Child Left Behind Act ($6 billion over 5 years) provides grants for state and local school districts in which students are systematically and explicitly taught five key components of early reading.

• Phonemic Awareness: The ability to hear and identify individual sounds in spoken words.
• Phonics: The relationship between the letters of written language and the sounds of spoken language.
• Fluency: The capacity to read text accurately and quickly.
• Vocabulary: The words students must know to communicate effectively.
• Comprehension: The ability to understand and gain meaning from what has been read.

US Department of Education. (2002). The facts: Reading achievement. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov/start/facts/reading.html

Major changes in the United Kingdom too

In the United Kingdom, the National Literacy Strategy (1998) prescribes that pupils must be taught to:

• discriminate between the separate sounds in words;
• learn the letters and letter combinations most commonly used to spell those sounds;
• read words by sounding out and blending their separate parts;
• write words by combining the spelling patterns of their sounds. Lightfoot, L. (1998, Mar 20). Schools told how to teach reading. The Electronic Telegraph (London Telegraph).
• "The vast majority of English schools have now moved to an acceptance that phonics needs to be taught, both for reading and for spelling."
• The less successful schools lacked a consistent approach to phonics, with too many different methods in use in classrooms.
• “There is still much further to go before the quality of the teaching is good enough".
• OFSTED said teachers had not had enough training

Phonics teaching 'not sound enough' BBC News Monday, 29 October, 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_1626000/1626512.stm

The new UK Government strategies:

• Research has proved that structured phonics is the most effective way to teach reading.
• All primary schools to adopt structured teaching of phonics, and to abandon the present whole language system.
• The WL practice of emphasis on familiar and predictable texts leads to an over-reliance on guessing from context.
• Most schools claim to teach phonics as part of a "mixture of methods", but such incidental phonics is insufficient.
• Funds are provided for in-service teacher training because the vast majority of teachers have not been trained how to teach phonics.
• Schools to schedule daily, hour-long English lessons: 2/3 class activities- choral reading, vocabulary, punctuation, grammar and spelling. 1/3 in small groups matched for skill level, the teacher giving direct instruction with one group while the remainder work independently.

How do we know this phonological emphasis is not just the next fad?

Maybe brain-imaging techniques can shed light?

What’s happening in the brain when a good reader confronts text?

Right hemisphere           Left hemisphere

Good readers use three areas in the left side of the brain - their function is to decode letters into sounds, fit them together to make words, and process them fluently.

Student learns

• The letters of the alphabet,
• the sounds that the letters represent,
• the sounds are blended to build words.
• The left brain’s parieto-temporal region can then be used in decoding (sounding out)

• then, progressively, as they see words in print, they start to build a neural model of that word.
• After they've read the word correctly a number of times, their neural model is an exact replica of the printed word.
• It reflects the way the word is pronounced, the way it's spelled, and what it means. In the exact neural model, all these features are bonded together.
• They clarify their internal representation, or neural model in the occipito-temporal region.
• That word is represented in the occipito-temporal region, and its recognition becomes instant & automatic - less than 150 milliseconds (less than a heartbeat).
• You can’t go straight to the occipito-temporal region without building up the parieto-temporal region.
• On average, from 4-14 accurate sounding-outs will create the firm links necessary.
• For some children, it may take many times that number – not all children have a strong phonological talent.
• A genetic component and an environmental component may be involved.
• Those who struggle to read do not use the same brain regions for reading.
• Instead, they create an alternate neural pathway, reading mostly with regions on the right side of the brain - areas not well suited for reading

If this process does not occur - then children will be forced to employ less fast and accurate systems such as prediction from context and guessing from pictures and guessing from the first letter. Up to 40% of children will figure out the alphabetic principle for themselves quite readily - regardless of instruction, about 30% will get there - but slowly, about 20-30% will not make it without intensive, appropriate direct teaching.

What’s happening when a poor reader confronts text?

For the poor reader there is compensatory activity in the visual centres of the right hemisphere - looking at words as if they were pictures. Little activity in phonological areas of the left hemisphere - where capable readers’ activity is dominant

The brains of people who can't sound out words look different - less blood flow to the language centres of the brain. Without the ability to sound out words, the brain is stumped (Lally & Price, 1997).

After 60 hours structured intensive phonics teaching (Lyon & Fletcher, 2001)  Less right hemisphere involvement, more left hemisphere phonologically-based activity as reading improves. This also corresponds to the pattern displayed by good readers.

From formerly struggling readers

A Shaywitz et al. study just published:

Poor readers were provided with 50 minutes of daily, individual tutoring that was explicit, systematic and focused on helping children understand the alphabetic principle. Increased fluency, accuracy and comprehension at post-test and at 1 year later. The occipitotemporal region continued to develop 1 year after the intervention had ended

Each lesson was built around a five-step plan that included 1) a review of sound– symbol associations (e.g., giving the name, sound, and key word for each letter, as in “a says /a/ as in apple”); 2) practice in phoneme analysis and blending by manipulating letter cards or scrabble tiles to make new words (e.g., changing sat to sap to sip to slip); 3) timed reading of previously learned words to develop fluency; 4) oral reading of stories; and 5) dictation of words with phonetically regular spelling-sound patterns (e.g., chap, spin).

In this last step, children were encouraged to stretch out the word (say it slowly) before spelling it, to emphasize the phonologic and orthographic connections. In the final few minutes of the lesson, tutors could add extended activities, such as additional text reading, writing, or games to reinforce skills.

Children practiced reading both decodable books (books that include a high percentage of words with phonetically regular spelling-sound patterns) and trade books that do not emphasize phonetically regular text (e.g., traditional stories that appeal to children of this age, such as the Arthur series by Marc Brown). As reading proficiency increased, the amount of time spent reading phonetically controlled text decreased, and a wider variety of both narrative and expository texts were introduced to increase fluency, comprehension, and a sense of enjoyment.

Shaywitz, B.A., Shaywitz, S.E., Blachman, B.A., Pugh K.R., Fulbright, R.K., Skudlarski, P., Mencl, W.E., Constable, R.T., Holahan, J.M., Marchione, K.E., Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., & Gore, J.C. (2004). Development of left occipitotemporal systems for skilled reading in children after a phonologically- based intervention. Biological Psychiatry, 55, 926-33.

The program employed was: Blachman, B.A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J.M., & Clonan, S.M. (2003). Early reading intervention: A classroom prevention study and a remediation study. In B.R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 253–271). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Why do struggling readers avoid reading?

The poor reader expends between 4 and 5 times the energy as controls for the same phonological tasks in the left anterior, or frontal, lobe of the brain (Richards et al. 1999).

So what’s the prize?

Persistent reading problems can be reduced to 2-5% of at-risk students with early, appropriate and at times, intensive, instruction. (Brown & Felton, 1990; Felton, 1993). 13 The instruction should be structured and explicit - greater explicitness results in greater gains. Less than 3% of the population remained severely impaired after intensive (80 hours) of one-on-one instruction intervention Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., Rashotte, C., Alexander, A., & Conway, T. (1997). Preventative and remedial interventions for children with severe reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 51-61.

20 million (US) children today suffering from reading failure could be reduced by approximately two-thirds. Lyon, G.R. (2001). Measuring success: Using assessments and accountability to raise student achievement. Subcommittee on Education Reform Committee on Education and the Workforce U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. [On Line]. Available: http://www.nrrf.org/lyon_statement3-01.htm

The overall rate of severe impairment dropped to 3% after one semester and 1.5% after two semesters of intervention (40-80 hours) in first year. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.

If you identify very-high-risk poor readers (bottom 20 percent of reading ability) in kindergarten and first grade and give them effective, evidence-based instruction, at least 75 percent of this 20 percent will read (Lyon, 2000). Landauer, R. (2000). Facing up to infirmities in special ed. The Oregonian, December 2.

In studies in Houston, the overall rate of severe impairment for children who received such explicit instruction for one school year was 4.5% of the total population (Alexander et al., 1997). Intensity, duration, and teacher training/monitoring are important program elements. Report of The Charter G: Ad Hoc Special Committee On Persistent Reading Difficulties. [On-Line]. Available at: http://www.readbygrade3.com/peer.htm

The Panel refers to phonemic awareness: What’s it about?

To my mind, the discovery and documentation of the importance of phonemic awareness ... is the single most powerful advance in the science and pedagogy of reading this century. Adams, M.J. (1991). Beginning to read: A critique by literacy professionals and a response by Marylin Jager Adams. The Reading Teacher, 44, 392.

Phonemic awareness: The conscious realization that words can be decomposed into discrete single sounds (phonemes). It enables the beginning reader to appreciate the logic of the alphabetic system.

A “phoneme” is a single sound - a distinctive linguistic unit that contrasts, or causes to be different, words such as house, mouse, louse. It is not simply hearing the differences but also being able to identify them.

Hear the differences between goal and gold, boost and boast, unanimous and anonymous, poetry and poultry? Phonemic awareness enables the appreciation that: Camp and soap end with the same sound Blood and brown begin with the same sound Removing the /t/ from stand leaves the word sand.

During this (prior to school) period, the word may be used but not noticed by the child, and frequently it presents things seemingly like a glass through which the child looks at the surrounding world, not making the word itself the object of awareness, and not suspecting that it has its own existence, its own aspects of construction. Luria, A. A. in Dowling, J. (1979). Reading and reasoning. New York: McMillan.

Why is it important?

Phonemic awareness enables the beginning reader to appreciate the logic of our alphabetic writing system. From cave drawings, to cuneiform (2000 BC) and hieroglyphics to the written alphabet. Phoenician alphabetic writing dates from 1000 B.C. It was "a conscious and free creation by one man" (Jensen, 1970). The originator of the alphabet analysed his own speech sounds and how they were articulated. He then devised visual patterns for the sound differences that he could hear in spoken words. He produced a symbolic system that represents a limited number of distinct speech sounds by single characters - called the alphabetic principle.

It is one of mankind’s greatest achievements. The appreciation of this code is the task of every new reader. As a beginning, the child must be sensitised to the underlying speech sounds that form spoken words. That sensitivity is phonemic or phonological awareness. It is not auditory discrimination. Hearing the differences between similar sounding spoken words involves auditory discrimination - but knowing how those words differ requires some phonemic awareness.

Phonemic awareness: Comes naturally?

No! We are biologically wired for speaking, but writing is a recent invention – and relatively few cultures developed a written language. Nearly one third of first-graders fail to fully realize the phonemic structure of words (Adams, 1990). The proportion is much higher in disadvantaged children (Raz & Bryant, 1990; Robertson, 1993). Teachers who are literate and experienced generally have an insufficient grasp of spoken and written language structure and would be unable to teach it explicitly to either beginning readers or those with reading/spelling disabilities. Moats, L.C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.

“Learning to read is not just one of the goals of schooling. It is essential if students are to succeed in any grade, in any subject. According to the National Reading Panel, only about 5% of children learn to read effortlessly. About 60% find early reading difficult, and of that number, 20-30% really struggle. By fourth grade, the seriousness of the problem for these children becomes obvious” p.34. Lewis, L. & Paik, S. (2001). Add it up: Using research to improve education for low-income and minority students. Washington: Poverty & Race Research Action Council. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.prrac.org/additup.pdf Coarticulation makes mastery difficult: The letter “p” in “pin” (which is aspirated and released) sounds different to the letter “p” in “spin” (which is neither aspirated nor released); likewise, the letter “k” in “keep” versus the “k” in “stack.” The phonemes are influenced by their neighbours. This makes phonemes difficult to appreciate.

As much as 30% of the adult population, including teachers, fail to develop deep phonemic awareness. Lindamood, P.C., Bell, N., & Lindamood, P. (1992). Issues in phonological awareness assessment. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 242-259. There is a pattern of less adequate literacy skills among students whose teachers had phonological deficiencies. Lindamood, P.C. (1993). Issues in researching the link between phonological awareness, learning disabilities and spelling. In G. Reid Lyon (Ed), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities. New views on measurement issues. Maryland: Brooks Publishing.

The ability to isolate a phoneme from either the beginning or end of a word, the easiest of the phonemic awareness abilities also seems to be crucial to reading because nearly all children who could not adequately perform this task also had not achieved a pre-primer instructional level. p. 231. Stahl, S. A. & Murray, B. A. (1994). Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 221-234. 15 When we gave this Auditory Analysis Test and other tests of phonemic awareness to a group of 15-year-olds in our Connecticut Longitudinal Study, the results were the same: even in high school students, phonological awareness was the best predictor of reading ability. Shaywitz, S (No date). Dyslexia. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.sciam.com/1196issue/1196shaywitz.html

Among children identified as at-risk for later reading failure on the basis of poor letter naming in kindergarten, greater success in first grade reading was associated with a greater percent of classroom time devoted to phonemic awareness activities in kindergarten. p.32. Mazzocco, M., Denckla, M., Singer, H., Scanlon, D., Vellutino, F., & Reiss, A. (1997). Neurogenic and neurodevelopmental pathways to learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 42.

With 15 minutes a day of direct instruction in phonological awareness activities, kindergartners can develop skills in phonological analysis at a faster rate than in a developmentally appropriate curriculum without this direct instruction. p.69. 31 Foorman, B., Francis, D., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 63-71. Research confirms that the most successful phonemic awareness training programs provide instruction on segmentation & blending (Blachman, 1987; Wallach & Wallach, 1977; Williams, 1979, 1980). p. 42. Spector, J. (1995). Phonemic awareness training: Application of principles of direct instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11, 37-51.

Although there is evidence that segmentation & blending can be taught successfully as auditory skills (e.g., Elkonin 1973; Lundberg, 1977; Lundberg, Frost & Petersen, 1988), the phonemic awareness programs that have had the most positive effect on reading achievement have been those that incorporate segmentation & blending training with letter-sound instruction (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Blachman, 1987; Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Byrne & Fielding- Barnsley, 1989, 1991; Clay, 1979, 1985; Treiman & Barron, 1983; Wallach & Wallach, 1977; Williams, 1979, 1980). Spector, J. (1995). Phonemic awareness training: Application of principles of direct instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11, 37-51.

Segmentation training helps develop blending skills. Yopp (1988) suggests that segmenting & blending tap similar constructs but agrees with Perfetti, Beck, Bell, & Hughes, (1987) that blending is a simple precursor to reading while segmenting is a more complex metacognitive linguistic skill. p. 221 Uhry, J.K., & Shepherd, M.J. (1993). Segmentation/spelling instruction as part of a first-grade reading program: Effects on several measures of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 219-233.

How might its development begin prior to school? At home:

• Nursery rhymes,
• Sesame St, • Playschool,
• I Spy,
• Pig Latin (junk becomes unkjay),
• Spoonerisms - letters or syllables get swapped, sometimes in slips of the tongue (or tips of the slung)
• Tongue twisters (Bill and Betty baked brown bread for Barbara's baby),
• Palindromes (Do geese see God?)
• Magnetic fridge letters
• Learning music. Big differences in experience

It’s not so easy for adults!

• Is there an /l/ in talk, in palm, in salmon.
• Think of the word pink. Now think of pink without the /k/. Do you hear pin?
• How many sounds can you hear in sex (the word, not the activity)?
• How many sounds can you hear in pitch? • What is the 4th sound in the word faxed?
• What is the 3rd sound in squabble?
• How many sounds can you hear in radio?

Your knowledge of spelling gets in the way! To teach PA you need to regress.

Australian sample of 340 teachers (pre-service and in-service), only 54% knew what a syllable was and only 24% could correctly count the number of phonemes in a word (Fielding-Barnsley, in press). Even many experienced teachers report insufficient training in spoken and written language structure. They struggle to teach it explicitly to either beginning readers or those with reading/spelling disabilities (Moats, 1994). Less adequate literacy skills among students whose teachers had phonological deficiencies (Lindamood, 1994).

Findings of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development provided much of the inspiration for the National Reading Panel.

Lyon, G.R. (1999). The NICHD research program in reading development, reading disorders and reading instruction. Retrieved November 20, 2001 from http://www.ld.org/Research/keys99_nichd.cfm

Since 1965, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), within the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has conducted and continuously supported research efforts to address three fundamental questions that must be answered if reading failure is to be understood and addressed successfully. These three questions are: (1) How do children learn to read? What are the critical environmental, experiential, cognitive, linguistic, genetic, neurobiological, and instructional conditions that foster reading development? (2) Why do some children and adults have difficulties learning to read? What specific cognitive, linguistic, environmental, and instructional factors impede the development of accurate and fluent reading skills, and what are the most significant risk factors that predispose youngsters to reading failure? (3) How can we help most children learn to read? Specifically, for which children are which teaching approaches and strategies most beneficial at which stages of reading development? 17 To answer these three questions, the NICHD has developed a research network consisting of 41 research sites in North America, Europe, and Asia to study reading development, reading disorders and other learning disabilities, and reading instruction. During the past 33 years, NICHD scientists have studied the reading development of 34,501 children and adults. Many studies have been devoted to understanding normal reading development, and 21,860 good readers have participated in these investigations, many for as long as 12 years. Significant efforts have also been deployed to understand why many children do not learn to read. Within this context, 12,641 individuals with reading difficulties have been studied, many for as long as 12 years. In addition, since 1985, the NICHD has initiated studies designed to develop early identification methods that can recognize those children during kindergarten and first-grade who are most at-risk for reading failure. These studies have provided the foundation for several longitudinal prevention and early intervention projects now underway at 11 sites in the U.S. and Canada. Since 1985, 7,669 children (including 1,423 good readers) have participated in these reading prevention, early intervention, and remediation studies, and 3,600 children are currently enrolled in longitudinal intervention trials in Texas, Washington, DC, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, and the state of Washington. These studies involve the participation of 1,012 classroom teachers, working in 266 schools and 985 classrooms.

The purpose of this report (http://www.ld.org/Research/keys99_nichd.cfm ) is to synthesize the major converging findings that have been obtained by NICHD scientists for each of the three questions that have guided the reading research program. This synthesis is derived from an analysis of over 2,500 publications generated by NICHD scientists since 1965.

To appreciate fully the significance of the NICHD findings, it helps to understand the level of scientific rigour used to guide the formation of conclusions from the research. Reid Lyon coordinates the parallel investigation of similar questions across several centers. Under Lyon's leadership, the researchers determine that the questions have been answered only when the findings replicate across researchers and settings. Findings with a high degree of replicability are finally considered incontrovertible findings and then form the basis for additional research questions. Funding is awarded the research centers through a competitive peer review process. A panel of researchers who are not competing for the research funds award the funds after evaluating competing proposals according to specific criteria. Each research study within the NICHD network must follow the most rigorous scientific procedures. The average length of a study has been eight years, with a range of 3 years to 31 years. In the decades-long studies, the growth of children from preschool through adulthood has been evaluated. Currently, several large-scale, 5-year longitudinal treatment intervention studies are underway. This longer-term design allows evaluation of the effects of different instructional variables on later reading performance.

• The ability to read fluently for meaning depends primarily on rapid, automatic decoding and recognition at the level of the single word.
• The basis of the reading deficit (phonological processing) should provide the focus for intervention. • Efforts should be directed at explicitly and systematically teaching the connection between these phonological rules and the written word.
• A phonics emphasis provides advantages for disabled readers over a Whole Language approach.
• There are almost as many girls as boys with reading difficulty.

More of the NICHD findings,

Most children do not "catch-up"

Children who fall behind in first grade reading have a one in eight chance of ever catching up to grade level, given the usual interventions. Of children reading disabled in Year 3, approximately 74% will still be so in Year 9. Reading failure has far-reaching consequences.

Research-supported components of effective reading instruction (USOE; NICHD)

• Create appreciation for the written word
• Develop awareness of printed language and the writing system
• Teach the alphabet
• Develop students' phonological awareness; develop phoneme awareness
• Teach the relation of sounds and letter
• Teach children how to sound out words
• Teach children how to spell words
• Help children develop fluent reflective reading The importance of phoneme awareness to learning to read

The importance of phoneme awareness to learning to read

• It is a foundation for learning an alphabetic writing system
• It is a predictor of reading problems
• It can result in fewer reading difficulties

What distinguishes a proficient reader?

• Ability to identify and manipulate the speech sounds in words at the phoneme level
• Ability to recognise a new printed word with very few exposures (1-4).
• Ability to link sound with symbol accurately
• Ability to process larger "chunks" of print
• Ability to recognise words with fluency (automaticity).
• Ability to focus on meaning because they are no longer "glued to print
• Ability to comprehend words, sentences

Phonology, reading and spelling: Known relationships

• Phoneme awareness predicts early reading and spelling proficiency (K-2).
• Phonological processing is independent of intelligence.
• Phonological skill is both inherited and learned.
• Children may not benefit from phonics instruction until they have rudimentary phoneme awareness. The role of context in word recognition

The role of context in word recognition

• Poor readers over-rely on context because letter-sound knowledge is weak
• Context allows us to decode accurately only one word in ten overall.
• The content words in a passage tend to be less common, not in the sight vocabulary and must be decoded accurately • Context alone can resolve ambiguity and sometimes supplies meaning Characteristics of poor and novice readers

Characteristics of poor and novice readers

• Over-reliance on context and guessing
• Limited phoneme awareness.
• Slow naming speed - lack of fluency in word recognition. for unfamiliar words.
• Must devote attention to decoding process; limited attention available for meaning-making.

Facts about reading from scientific research about 3-cuing:

The most efficient way to make an “accurate first guess” of the identity of a new word is: First, do phonemic analysis and try an approximate pronunciation. Then, close in on the exact right word by selecting a word with the right sounds in it, that also makes sense in the passage (Torgesen, 2003

At the secondary level in Victoria, we have about 20-30% of our students underprepared to cope with the literacy demands of a secondary curriculum. Where should we direct our resources? Isn’t reading really about comprehension? Why the heavy emphasis in the research on decoding words?

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.

Even among experienced readers individual differences in comprehension of text reflect efficiency of phonological processing at the word level. Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L. G., & Dickinson, C. C. (1996). Reading and spelling difficulties in high school students: Causes and consequences. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8,

Once decoding skills are automatized, growth in text comprehension follows. Foorman, B., Francis, D., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 63-71.

Differences in reading comprehension could be explained by differences in phonological coding on non words, but not by differences in semantic word knowledge. p. 220 Elbro, C., Nielsen, I., & Petersen, D. K. (1994). Dyslexia in adults: Evidence for deficits in non-word reading and in the phonological representation of lexical items. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 205-226.

Decoding problems account for the majority of cases of severe reading disability among students of otherwise average intellectual ability (see reviews by Stanovich, 1988; Vellutino & Denckla, 1991). p. 47 Spector, J. (1995). Phonemic awareness training: Application of principles of direct instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11, 37-51

To examine the relationship between word decoding and reading comprehension, Shankweiler et al. (1999) assembled 361 English-speaking children aged 7.5 to 9.5, of whom 168 had reading disabilities. They found the simple ability to read aloud a list of English words accounted for 79% of the variance in reading comprehension (r = .89, p < .0001). Even the ability to do the same thing with non-words (e.g., skirm, bant) correlated very highly with reading comprehension, accounting for 62% of the variance (r = .79, p < .0001). Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Brady, S., Fowler, A., Dreyer, L. G., Marchione, K. E., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 69-94.

In each grade, skill in word recognition was more predictive of reading comprehension than was listening comprehension. Juel, C. (1993). The spelling-sound code in reading. In S. Yussen & M. Smith (Eds.), Reading across the life span (pp. 95-109). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Facility in decontextualised word identification is a basic prerequisite for extracting meaning from written text. ... performance on the word identification measure was the best predictor of performance on the reading comprehension test. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S. (1994). Component of reading ability: issues and problems in operationalizing word identification, phonological coding, and orthographic coding. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues. Philadelphia: Brookes Publishing Co., pp. 279-332.

The groups receiving direct instruction in alphabetic code had significantly greater reading comprehension than the literature-emphasis groups. These results are not surprising, given the need for decoding to be sufficiently automatic that memory and attention can be devoted to grasping the gist of the text. Foorman, B., Francis, D., & Fletcher, J. (1997, March 18). Breaking the alphabetic code, A17. The Globe and Mail.

“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 20 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 scientific evidence is simply overwhelming that letter-sound cues are more important in recognizing words than either semantic or syntactic cues.” (p. 16). Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford.

The Panel also refers to phonics. So what do they mean by phonics?

Phonemic Awareness Ain’t Phonics

Phonics means:

a) the relationship between sounds and their symbols,

b) the methods of instruction used to teach those relationships

c) the mental activity of using the sound-symbol relationship to “read through” a new word

Phoneme awareness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for learning to read an alphabetic writing system. Complicating the issue is the problem that English is not a transparent orthography: English and French are more complex than Italian. English has 1,120 ways of representing 40 sounds, whereas there are only 25 sounds in Italian and they are represented in 33 combinations of letters. The disorder is more common in the United States than in Italy. In any language, dyslexia. (2001, 19 March). The Washington Post. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23845-2001Mar18?language=printer

Isn’t the English language too irregular for phonics to be of much help?

There are either phonics or spelling rules that govern about 75% of our language. However, if one relies only on the 44 phonics sounds without expanding one's knowledge to cover spelling rules, then 40% might be closer to accurate. After basic sound/symbol phonics teaching occurs, more advanced coding needs to be taught. The sound /ik/ will be spelled "ick" as in trick, thick, flick, sick, Rick, brick as long as it is a one syllable word. If it is at the end of the second syllable or more, it is spelled "ic" as in panic, magic, fantastic, Titanic, etc. At least 80% of English spellings are regular or predictable. Hanna, P.R., Hodges, R.E., & Hanna, J.S. (1971). Spelling: Structure and strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rules of limited regularity can be absorbed and utilized if the exceptional cases are presented explicitly and in close proximity to the generalization. Complex and abstract rules like the silent-e rule can be mastered with direct instruction and applied consistently to the decoding task. Labov, L. (2003). When ordinary children fail to read. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 128-131.

The implication for educators is that it is necessary to know which phonic patterns have high rates of usage, and focus on those phonic patterns. “English must be examined . . . as a complex system that is basically phonetic, but also relies on patterns and meaning to provide an optimal system” (Johnston 142). Johnston, F.P. (2001). The utility of phonic generalizations: Let’s take another look at Clymer’s conclusions. The Reading Teacher. 55, 132-142. Even the decoding of irregular words is assisted by phonic mediation because no English word is completely phonologically opaque (Tunmer et al., 1998). Stacey, S., & Wheldall, K. (1999). Essential constituents of effective reading instruction for low progress readers. Special Education Perspectives, 8(1), 44-58. Our writing system is an amalgam of Anglo-Saxon, Latin, and Greek, and to a lesser extent, includes spellings from French, German, Italian, and Spanish. Each of these languages contributed spelling conventions that within the language of origin were predictable but that violate the patterns of another. For example, ch is used to spell 21 /ch/ in Anglo-Saxon words such as chair; is used to spell /k/ in Greek-derived words such as chorus; and spells /sh/ in French-derived words such as charade and Charlotte. Moats, L.C. (1998, Spring/Summer). Teaching decoding. American Educator, 1-9. About 60 percent of the words in English running text are of Latin or Greek origin (Henry, 1997). Moats, L.C. (1998, Spring/Summer). Teaching decoding. American Educator, 1-9.

The most effective instructional programs teach children to read successfully with only 40 to 50 sound-spelling relationships. (Writing can require a few more, about 70 sound-spelling relationships.) The chart below is not taken from any particular program but represents the 48 most regular letter-phoneme relationships. (The given sounds for each of the letters and letter groups are either the most frequent sound or occur at least 75% of the time.) www.early-reading.com/home/research/research_04.html

The 48 most regular sound-letter relationships. a as in fat, g as in goat, v, m, l, e, t, h, u-e as in use, s, u, p, i as in sit, c as in cat, w "woo" as in well, f, b, j, a-e as in cake, n, I-e as in pipe, d, k, y "yee" as in yuk, r, o-e as in pole, z, ch as in chip, ou as in cloud, kn as in know, ea as in beat, oy as in toy, oa as in boat, ee as in need, ph as in phone, oi as in boil, er as in fern, qu as in quick, ai as in maid, ay as in hay, sh as in shop, ar as in car, igh as in high, th as in thank, au as in haul, ew as in shrewd, ir as in first, aw as in lawn.

Phonics Ain’t Phonics

Explicit (synthetic) phonics: Builds up from part to whole; implicit phonics breaks down from whole to part. If whole words are introduced before short vowel sounds, it's not a systematic phonics program.

Implicit (analytic) phonics: "The sound you want occurs in these words: mad, maple, moon" This implies students can compare the sounds in words, that is have already established phonemic awareness.

Synonyms for implicit (analytic) phonics: "systematic contextualized phonics" - "balanced" - "embedded phonics" - "integrated language arts" - “phonics in context” - “eclectic approach” - “onset-rime approach”

Analytic phonics:

• The whole word is seen and children have their attention drawn to certain letters and their sounds
• It is often taught after an initial sight vocabulary has been established, alongside reading-scheme books
• It can take up to three years.

Synthetic phonics:

• All of the letter sounds are taught very rapidly and the emphasis is on how words are built up
• It generally starts before children are introduced either to whole words, or to reading-scheme books
• It can be taught in a few months.

Watson, J.E., & Johnston, R.S. (1998). Accelerating reading attainment: The effectiveness of synthetic phonics. Interchange, 57, 1-12 Edinburgh: The Scottish Office. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/documents7/interchg.pdf

Phonics Instruction Phonics instruction is a way of teaching reading that stresses the acquisition of letter-sound correspondences and their use in reading and spelling. The primary focus of phonics instruction is to help beginning readers understand how letters are linked to sounds (phonemes) to form letter-sound correspondences and spelling patterns and to help them learn how to apply this knowledge in their reading. Phonics instruction may be provided systematically or incidentally. The hallmark of a systematic phonics approach or program is that a sequential set of phonics elements is delineated and these elements are taught along a dimension of explicitness depending on the type of phonics method employed. Conversely, with incidental phonics instruction, the teacher does not follow a planned sequence of phonics elements to guide instruction but highlights particular elements opportunistically when they appear in text.

April 2000. Findings and Determinations of the National Reading Panel

What’s the problem with Implicit Phonics?

It proves less effective than explicit phonics, and especially so for at-risk students. While more able students can induce the phonic strategies needed, about 30-50% really need to have the relationships carefully explained, and provided with multiple opportunities for practice. This example highlights the problems for those who never grasp the alphabetic nature of our written language. Betty Price, Director of Professional Reading Services reports that she was hired to tutor a chemist who was unable to discern the difference between chlorpromamide (which lowers blood sugar) and chlorpromazine (which is an antipsychotic)! They look similar if the initial letters are your primary cue, and you don’t routinely attend to syllables.

In Systematic phonics instruction, the term Systematic is about the delivery rather than the content There will be attention to the detail of the teaching process. • teacher-directed, • based on an analysis of the skills required and their sequence. • massed and spaced practice of those skills (sometimes in isolation), • corrective feedback of errors, and • continuous evaluation of progress. Incidental phonics instruction - Shifts the responsibility for making use of phonic cues from the teacher to the student. It assumes that students will develop a self-sustaining, natural, unique reading style that integrates the use of contextual and grapho phonic cues, without the postulated disabling influence of systematic instruction. Sadly, for struggling students such well-intentioned clues are neither explicit enough, nor are they likely to occur with sufficient frequency to have any beneficial impact. This approach is sometimes called embedded phonics because teachers are restricted to using only the opportunities for intra-word teaching provided within any given story.

Explicit phonics

In explicit phonics instruction, the sounds associated with the letters are identified in isolation and then "blended" together to form words. During a typical explicit phonics lesson, the children will be asked to produce the sounds of the letters that appear in isolation and in words. A critical step in explicit phonics instruction is blending the isolated sounds of letters to produce words.

(1) Systematic phonics In systematic code instruction, decodable books are used that are aligned with the sound-symbol associations taught in the lesson. These books, created to make independent reading possible for a beginner, are a device to provide practice at reading words that have specific spelling patterns or letter-sound correspondences and to encourage sounding words out.

(2) Decodable Text Decodable text is composed of words that use the sound-spelling correspondences the children have learned to that point and a limited number of sight words that have been systematically taught. As the children learn more sound-spelling correspondences, the texts become more sophisticated in meaning.

(3) "Research asserts that most children benefit from direct instruction in decoding, complemented by practice with simply written decodable stories. Further, for some children this sort of systematic approach is critical. Stories should 'fit' the child's reading level. Beginning readers should be able to read easily 90 percent or more of the words in a story”. Federal Academics 2000 (Public Law 103-227), "First Things First" "Thus phonological training that is integrated with phonics training may be as effective as phonological training conducted separately from phonics training." 23 Hart, T. M., Berninger, V. M., & Abbott, R. D. (1997). Comparison of teaching single or multiple orthographic phonological connections for word recognition and spelling: Implications for instructional consultation. School Psychology Review, 26(2), 279-297. The National Reading Panel refers to fluency. What is reasonable fluency? Meyer and Felton defined fluency as "'the ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly, effortlessly, and automatically with little conscious attention to the mechanics of reading, such as decoding" http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/reading/reading_fluency.html Most understand fluency to mean a high level of performance characteristic of "experts." Fluent performance involves high quality and high speed (Binder, 1996). We say that someone's performance is fluent when it occurs automatically and without hesitation, and when the quality and appropriateness is high. Educators have taken these notions of fluency a step further. They have promoted and developed expert-level performance by providing learning opportunities that encourage progressively faster and more accurate performances (Binder, 1984; Haughton, 1972; Johnson & Layng, 1992); Kelly, 1995; Lindsley, 1992 ). While it seems clear that fluency training is not necessary to achieve high level performance, fast and accurate practice does achieve such outcomes.

Why Build Fluency?

Education and training programs based upon principles of learning have demonstrated the power of building fluency ( Lindsley, 1971; Lindsley, 1972; Lindsley, 1990; Lindsley, 1992 ). For example, elementary school children showed achievement gains between 20 and 40 percentile over a three year period with the addition of just 30 minutes of daily fluency practice of core skills (Beck & Clement, 1991). Similar dramatic gains have been shown with children with learning difficulties, college students, and adults in a literacy program (Johnson & Layng, 1992, Johnson & Layng, 1994). The techniques have proven useful and transferable to the training of sales people as well (Binder & Bloom, 1989). Definitions & Technical Stuff http://members.shaw.ca/celerationtechnologies/index.html The National Reading Panel concluded that guided oral reading is important for developing reading fluency-the ability to read with efficiency and ease. In guided oral reading, students read out loud, to either a parent, teacher or other student, who corrects their mistakes and provides them with other feedback. Specifically, guided oral reading helped students across a wide range of grade levels to learn to recognize new words, helped them to read accurately and easily, and helped them to comprehend what they read.

By contrast, the panel was unable to determine from the research whether reading silently to oneself helped to improve reading fluency. Although it makes sense that silent reading would lead to improvements in fluency, and the panel members did not discourage the practice, sufficient research to conclusively prove this assumption has not been conducted. Literally hundreds of studies have shown that the best readers read silently to themselves more frequently than do poor readers, the panel members wrote. However, these studies cannot distinguish whether independent silent reading improves reading skills or that good readers simply prefer to read silently to themselves more than do poor readers. The panel recommended that if silent reading is used as a classroom technique, intended to develop reading skills and fluency, it should be done in combination with other types of reading instruction, such as guided oral reading. Testimony of Duane Alexander, M.D. Director National Institute Of Child Health And Human Development before the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee, Senate Appropriations Committee, United States Senate APRIL 13, 2000 http://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/dir_nrp.htm

Expected Reading Rates

First half of grade 1 = 45 words per minute

Second half of grade 1 = 60 wpm

First third of grade 2 = 75 words

Second third of grade 2 = 90 wpm

Last third of grade 2 = 110 wpm

First half of grade 3 = 120 wpm

Second half of grade 3 = 135 wpm

Fourth grade and higher = 150 wpm

Carnine, D., & Silbert, J. (1979). Direct Instruction: Reading. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Early 1st = 35 words per minute Late 1st = 50 wpm

Early 2nd = 70 wpm

Late 2nd = 100 wpm

Early 3rd = 120 wpm

Late 3rd = 140 wpm

From Howell, K.W. & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

CBM passages can be obtained from several sources, including:

dlspeece@wam.umd.edu (18 alternate passages at each grade for grades 1-5);

 (15 alternate passages at each grade for grades 1-4); lynn.fuchs@vanderbilt.edu (30 alternate forms at each grade for grades 1-7); http://dibels.uoregon.edu/ www.edformation.com (DIBELS; 9 passages at each grade fo

www.readingprogress.com dlspeece@wam.umd.edu (18 alternate passages at each grade for grades 1-5);

http://dibels.uoregon.edu/ www.edformation.com (DIBELS; 9 passages at each grade for grades 1-3)’ (33 alternate passages at each grade for grades 2 - 8; 23 alternate passages for grade 1).

“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 average reading rate (when reading grade level material) of fifth graders referred for reading assistance is about 60 words per minute compared to the average rate of above 150 wpm.

Rasinski, T.V. (2000, Oct). Speed does matter in reading. The Reading Teacher, 54, 146-151.

Free test: DIBELS

The ability to read aloud accurately, rapidly, expressively and with understanding. Very high (> .85) correlations between oral reading rate and reading comprehension. The faster you can produce it. The stronger the association, thus the better you know it. When you know it to automaticity, you don’t use your conscious mind to do it. This frees up resources for other tasks like comprehension. Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, and Jenkins (2001) reported evidence that a very brief measure of oral reading fluency was a better predictor of performance on a reading comprehension outcome measure than was a brief measure of reading comprehension itself. In this study, with middle and junior high school students with reading disabilities, the correlation between oral reading fluency and the reading comprehension measure was a nearly perfect .91.

More recently, researchers comparing third graders’ performance on the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills measure of Oral Reading Fluency to their scores on state assessments of reading comprehension have found correlations of .70 with the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (Buck and Torgesen, 2003) and .73 with the North Carolina end-of-grade assessment (Barger, 2003).

Students in 3rd grade at or above 110 wcpm are at low risk of reading below grade level (9%) on the state reading comprehension test (FCAT). Students scoring below 80 wcpm are at high risk

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)

• Oral Reading Fluency - Mid First Grade to end of Third Grade
• Retell Fluency - Mid First Grade to end of Third Grade
• Nonsense Word Fluency - Mid prep to end of First Grade
• Phoneme Segmentation Fluency - Mid prep to end of First Grade
• Letter Naming Fluency - Begin Preschool to mid Prep • Initial Sound Fluency - Begin Preschool to late Prep
• Word Use Fluency - Begin Preschool to end Third Grade

What about the National Reading Panel’s interest in vocabulary?

The average number of new words taught directly in a year - about 300 to 500. The average number of new words learned in a year - about 3,000 to 4,000. Osborn, J.H. & Armbruster, B.B. (2001). Vocabulary acquisition: Direct teaching and indirect learning. Basic Education Online Edition, 46(3). [On-Line]. Available: http://www.c-b-e.org/be/iss0111/a2osborn.htm Beginning in about the third grade, the major determinant of vocabulary growth is the amount of free reading. Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304-330. Extensive independent reading is the primary means for increasing vocabulary knowledge (Nagy, 1998). Students who read more learn more about words and their meanings. Although direct, explicit teaching of word meanings is effective and important, it cannot produce the needed growth in students’ vocabulary knowledge that should occur in the fourth grade. Nagy, W. (1998). Increasing students’ reading vocabularies. Presentation at the Commissioner’s Reading Day Conference, Austin, Texas.

According to the National Reading Panel (2000), estimates of students’ vocabulary size indicate that most of a student’s vocabulary is learned in contexts other than formal learning, especially through independent reading. Osborn, J.H. & Armbruster, B.B. (2001). Vocabulary acquisition: Direct teaching and indirect learning. Basic Education Online Edition, 46(3) http://www.c-b-e.org/be/iss0111/a2osborn.htm (In this study) children at the 10th percentile of reading ability in the fifth grade sample read about 50,000 words per year out of school. The comparable figure at the 90th percentile was 4,500,000 words. Fielding, L., Wilson, P., and Anderson, R. (1986). A new focus on free reading: The role of trade books in reading instruction. In T. Raphael & R. Reynolds (Eds.), Contexts of literacy (pp.149-160). NY: Longman Children had on average acquired about 5,200 root words in their vocabulary by the end of grade 2 and an average 3,200 additional root words in grades 3-5 and that advantaged children had acquired 6,200 root words by the end of grade 2 and an additional 2,500 thereafter. Thus, large differences in root word vocabulary had occurred by grade 2. 26

Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498-520. Print exposure appears to compensate for modest levels of general cognitive abilities .... low ability need not necessarily hamper the development of vocabulary and verbal knowledge as long as the individual is exposed to a lot of print. p.162 Stanovich, K.E. (1993). Does reading make you smarter? Literacy and the development of verbal intelligence. Advances in Child Development and Behaviour, 24, 133-180. By the end of first grade, the good readers in our study had seen approximately 18681 words in running text in their basal readers. The poor readers, however, had seen only about half as many – 9975. … by at least the end of second grade (it) is further compounded by differences in the amount of time spent reading outside of school (Juel, 1988). Juel, C. (1993). The spelling-sound code in reading. In S. Yussen & M. Smith (Eds.), Reading across the life span (pp. 95-109). New York: Springer-Verlag. New words are learned mainly through reading. Children’s books contain 50% more "rare" words (outside the vocabulary of 9-12 yr olds) than do adult prime time television, or the conversation of college graduates. Popular magazines have roughly three times as many opportunities for new word learning as prime-time television and adult conversation. Stanovich, K.E. (1993). Does reading make you smarter? Literacy and the development of verbal intelligence. Advances in Child Development and Behaviour, 24, 133-180. Only above average readers gained significantly in incidental (vocabulary) learning. Reading stories to children will only increase the vocabulary of above average readers. Nicholson, T., & Whyte, B. (19XX). Matthew effect in learning new words while listening to stories. In Literacy research: Theory and practice.

What about dyslexia? Definition vary from one that includes all unsuccessful readers, perhaps 30% of students – to one that asserts a specific deficit – either phonological, visual or auditory with a prevalence of about 5%). Other hypotheses exist concerning the neurological origin of dyslexia, in particular related to alternative cognitive theories (auditory, visual). The most notable of those, the “magnocellular theory” (Stein, 2001), hypothesizes that magno-cells in all sensory pathways are deficient, leading both to visual disorders causing reading difficulties, and to auditory disorders causing the phonological deficit. Beyond the criticism already mentioned concerning the prevalence and the causal role of those sensory deficits, the magnocellular theory also faces more specific challenges. In particular, it predicts that dyslexics’ sensory deficits will be observed for stimuli in a certain range of spatial and temporal frequencies characteristic of the response domain of magnocells. In the auditory domain, this translates into the hypothesis of a “rapid auditory processing” deficit proposed by Tallal (1980). The empirical evidence is highly contradictory, split between findings consistent and inconsistent with the theory (see reviews in Ramus, 2003; Rosen, in press; Skottun, 2000). Overall the magnocellular theory in its present state does not seem to be able to adequately characterize the sensory deficits of even the fraction of dyslexics that are so impaired. Overall, there is overwhelming evidence that for the vast majority of children with dyslexia, a specific deficit of the phonological system is the main culprit (see reviews in Ramus, 2003; Rosen, in press). Ramus, F. (in press) The neural basis of reading acquisition. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. True dyslexics appear to be resistant to simple phonological awareness development, probably inherit the condition, and require intensive and early phonological interventions if they are to develop adequate reading and writing skills. The condition is not an intelligence issue. 27

Some adult examples

Dear Kerry,

Thank you very much for such an informative site. I found the site very interesting and could identify with it allot. I'm in my early 30ies and think I suffer from word blindness or some form of dislexia. My partner explain what word blindness was last week and I could Identified with it. (Hense I looked for 'word blind' on the internet and found your site) All my life I've had hugh reading, spelling and pronouncation problems and was alway in special classes at school that did'nt seem to help. To me it's like I never learnt the fundamentals of reading and spelling. To alot of people it's not obveless. I find that these problems cause me stress and anzigalely (anziate) I was caught out last week by my boss when he came over and started dictating a message he wanted me to send. He was amazed that I could not spell or work out was wrong with a word. I was so imbarassed and didn't know what to do. A few years ago I was tested and my spelling was at the age of a 11 year old, I think my reading age was about the same. I have various problems all my life like :

• Unable to work out how to spell a word if someone says it. (or I say it myself) Generally for me I have no idea where to start and I dont know what letters make up different sounds.
• If I'm reading a word and I dont know what the word is I will have a go at trying to pronounce it, but generally its completely wrong as I dont have the understanding on how words are put together, I cant breakdown words into silabiles.
• Unable to pronounce words and I cant say my r's. I think I also have lazy speech as well. Quit often people will think I have said a completly different word than I have said. Ie Saving Prairie but everyone thinks Ive said Ferry. I also have difficultly sounding some words correctly.
• I have the worst hand writing you have ever seen. I was fasinated to read on your site that this was a common problem with people who cant spell. I think I probably do this to discuise the fact that I cant spell.
• I'm am not very good at proof reading my work and constancely have the wrong word in a document or email.
• Poor volcabulary and general knowledge. Generally I dont read many books and my reading speed it slower than most. I have a twin sister with the same problems and believe that my problem is hereaditary. Both my parents had poor spellers/reading skills as well.

I've said to my partner that I really want to try to overcome my problems and he has ofterned to help me (he is very literate and said he would be really happy to help me) but I really feel I need specialised help so that I can re-learn the basics. I know that at my age it is going to take allot of work and help for me to overcome my problems. Can you please direct me to someone or an agency in Sydney that could help or would be willing to work with me. Any comments or suggestions you could offer would be a great help as well. Thanks & Regards, Meg

Can people with an intellectual disability learn to read?

"People can acquire transmitted skills like reading at any age, and can benefit from instruction at any age". Greenough, W.T. (1997). We can't focus just on ages zero to three. APA Monitor, 28, 19. "The bottom line is that the role of mental age is not one of limiting what a child can learn but of limiting the ways in which they can be effectively taught." 28 Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking & learning about print. Cambridge, M.A: MIT Press. The decade of the 1990s will witness, in classrooms serving students with mild mental retardation, the implementation of a group of instructional methods often referred to as effective teaching practices or direct instruction, if we heed the literature published in this area over the past 15 years. Hendrickson, J., & Frank, A. (1993). Engagement and performance feedback: Enhancing the classroom achievement of students with mild mental disabilities. In R. Gable & S. Warren (Eds), Advances in mental retardation and developmental disabilities: Strategies for teaching students with mild to severe mental retardation. The research literature indicates that (direct instruction) facilitates the acquisition of reading skills. This kind of instruction has been very successful with regular students (Winograd & Hare, 1988). Similarly, it has been applied successfully in teaching students with mild disabilities (Frudden & Healy, 1987; Larrivee, 1989). p. 24 Blanton, L.P., & Blanton, W.E. (1994). Providing reading instruction to mildly disabled students: Research into practice. In K.D. Wood & B. Algozzine (Eds.), Teaching reading to high-risk learners: A unified perspective . MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Initially established with learners of more average abilities (for) learning basic skills, these (effective) teaching practices have also been shown to be strongly related to achievement of students with mild mental retardation... A substantial amount of research evidence now supports the effectiveness of this approach for special education. Scruggs, T. & Mastropieri, (1993). Teaching students with mild mental retardation. In R. Gable & S. Warren, Advances in mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Vol.5. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.

Now, what about older themes? students? Do we have to include those 5 National Reading Panel

It is not entirely clear what implications the phonemic awareness research has for older children and adults who struggle with reading. It may be that there is a level of phonemic awareness (O’Connor, Notary-Syverson, & Vadasy, 1996) beyond which there is no advantage for reading development in attempting its enhancement. Indeed, it is possible that for older children phonemic awareness is no longer the appropriate focus, as students may be more in need of orthographic (whole word) rather than phonemic strategies. Not so, asserts Share (1995). He argues that without the induction of the alphabetic principle, skilled reading (implying the use of a generative strategy capable of decoding novel words) will not occur. His view is supported by the finding that dyslexic adult readers (even those with strong compensatory orthographic capacities) continue to demonstrate phonemic awareness deficits, and struggle to decode novel words (Bruck, 1992; Hulme & Snowling, 1992; Pratt & Brady, 1988; Siegel, 1993; Solman & Stanovich, 1992). When considering older students and adults, since the task remains the same, the techniques proved most successful for young students have an a priori advantage over other alternatives in the absence of contrary evidence. There has been some reported work with older children, adolescents and adults. Elbro, Neilsen and Petersen (1994) argued for emphasis upon the alphabetic principle because of the memory constraints imposed by training in whole word recognition:

In many cases, compensated dyslexic adults reported that they believed that they had completely overcome their reading difficulties, but when asked to read novel words they hesitated and admitted that this was difficult for them. These results underline the validity of a positive definition of dyslexia that is based on poor mastery of the phonemic principle of written language. (Siegel, 1988; Stanovich, 1991; Rack, Snowling, & Olsen, 1992; Stanovich & Siegel, 1992). (p.220). A number of similar studies involving adults with reading difficulties have revealed marked deficits in decoding (Bear, Truax, & Barone, 1989; Bruck, 1990, 1992, 1993; Byrne & Letz, 1983; Perin, 1983; Pratt & Brady, 1988; Read & Ruyter, 1985; cited in Greenberg, Ehri, & Perin, 1997). In the Greenberg et al. (1997) study the adults' performance on phonologically-based tasks resembled those of children below 3rd grade. The findings were also consistent with those of Bruck (1992), Byrne & Letz (1983), Fawcett & Nicholson (1995), Pennington, Van 29 Orden, Smith, Green, and Haith (1990), and Pratt and Brady (1988). Even very bright well-compensated adult readers acknowledge that they have had to laboriously remember word shapes, have little or no idea how to spell, and are constantly struggling with new words, especially technical terms related to their occupations. These are classic symptoms of the need for a strong phonics emphasis in the instructional process; indeed, some have argued (Greenberg et al., 1997) that it is most likely the failure of the school system to address the phonological nature of the reading problem that precluded satisfactory progress for these individuals.

The critical variable is not age but stage - whether child or adult - the path to facile reading is similar. Certainly adults have a history that cannot be ignored - most relevant is the likelihood of unproductive habits strongly engraved by years of practice. Adults need to unlearn in addition to learning. The implication is that this may entail slower progress, with the requirement of (possibly) vast amounts of practice accompanied by feedback to ensure the new habits are used effectively. On the positive side is that adults are usually vastly more experienced with language in general, and when their decoding difficulties are relieved their comprehension of what they read improves much more rapidly than it does for most young children. Phonics is the starting motor for an engine subsequently fuelled by confidence and enjoyment. Some starting motors turn sluggishly and demand a significant load from the battery (parents and teacher). If the battery fails, the journey may never begin. However, all phonics are not equal. It is possible to teach phonics carefully and with parsimony; it is possible to do so ineffectively and excessively; and it is possible to do it in name only. Questions such as “What/When/How much phonics?” continue to be examined, but not the question “Should we teach phonics?”, for it has been answered resoundingly in the affirmative.

Older students: Why are so many struggling students not noticed until about Year Four and beyond?

At about Year Four, there is a marked increase in the number of children referred for reading assistance (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990). This may represents the dawning of teachers’ recognition that the maturational delay hypothesis can no longer be used to explain the lack of reading progress. More salient perhaps is the generally unacknowledged explosion of new words in textbooks at about that time (Carnine, 1982) and of the increased complexity of the words in those texts (Henry, 1991). Many students who have relied upon whole-word memory recognition as their mode for storage and retrieval find the strategy collapses in Year Four. Whereas a word recognition capacity of 400 words is adequate for coping with text up to this time (and many children’s visual memory can manage such a load), the demand increases dramatically to about 4000 words around that year, and up to 7000 words by Year Six (Carnine, 1982), what Share (1995) describes as an “orthographic avalanche”(p.17). For the student who relies primarily on word shape, the task is similar to that required in visually memorizing 7000 telephone numbers. In those languages that do rely on images rather than an alphabet for their construction, the number of words that are typically employed in print is far less than in English. For example, Chinese adults are said to have a working familiarity with only about 4000-5000 (Adams, 1990). Students who cannot access the phonological route to identify the escalating array of new words obviously struggle, and progress grinds to a halt. In truth, they had difficulties before this time, but perhaps managed to disguise them in classrooms where careful continuous assessment of word attack skills was unavailable. Unfortunately, this under-identification appears to be even more likely for girls, as their rate of referral for assistance (about 1 in every 4 referrals) does not match the prevalence (about equal with males) of reading problems among females in our society (Alexander, Gray, & Lyon, 1993).

A low Woodcock: Word Attack (nonsense word) score suggests this scenario in students at (or beyond) Year Four. For younger students it is predictive of their reading future. Inability to decode pseudo-words is indicative of the need for an intensive, carefully designed program that provides at least a reasonable opportunity for the accelerated progress needed if a student is to make headway against his peers. If a student is two years behind his peers he must develop in reading at a rate twice as fast as they do, if he is to catch them by the end of primary school (as they will improve by at least two years over that period). While this conception of reading progress is rather crude it does give the flavour of just how immense a task it is. It also helps explain the chilling finding from a Melbourne University study (Hill, 1995), that for most students in this position there is no discernible improvement in reading between Year Four and Year Ten. Most students do not have access to intervention, and 30 their prognosis is grim. For those students who do receive help it is incumbent upon us to provide the best and most efficient intervention available at the time. This implies that the most salient content must be delivered to students in the most effective manner possible. In a study of 3000 Australian students, 30% of 9 year olds still hadn’t mastered letter sounds, arguably the most basic phonic skill. A similar proportion of children entering high school continue to display confusion between names and sounds. Over 72% of children entering high school were unable to read phonetically regular 3 and 4 syllabic words. Contrast with official figures: In 2001 the Australian public was assured that ‘only’ about 19% of grade 3 (age 9) children failed to meet the national standards. Harrison, B. (2002, April). Do we have a literacy crisis? Reading Reform Foundation Newsletter, 48. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.rrf.org.uk/do%20we%20have%20a%20literacy%20crisis.htm Students from the 10th and 90th percentiles differ by grade equivalents equal to their grade (i.e., 6 grade range at the end of 6th grade). (Biemiller, personal communication, August 1, 2002) Professor Andrew Biemiller, Institute of Child Study, University of Toronto. “Learning to read is not just one of the goals of schooling. It is essential if students are to succeed in any grade, in any subject. According to the National Reading Panel, only about 5% of children learn to read effortlessly. About 60% find early reading difficult, and of that number, 20-30% really struggle. By fourth grade, the seriousness of the problem for these children becomes obvious” p.34. Lewis, L. & Paik, S. (2001). Add it up: Using research to improve education for low-income and minority students. Washington: Poverty & Race Research Action Council. http://www.prrac.org/additup.pdf

Other research on older students:

Studies involving adults with reading difficulties have revealed marked deficits in decoding (Bear, Truax, & Barone, 1989; Bruck, 1990, 1992, 1993; Byrne & Letz, 1983; Perin, 1983; Pratt & Brady, 1988; Read & Ruyter, 1985; cited in Greenberg, Ehri, & Perin, 1997). The adults' performance on phonologically-based tasks was worse than that reading-level matched young children, resembling those of children below 3rd grade. These findings are also consistent with those of Bruck (1992), Byrne & Letz (1983), Fawcett & Nicholson (1995), Penington, Van Orden, Smith, Green, and Haith (1990), and Pratt and Brady (1988). … they may not have received adequate instruction in decoding and spelling to remediate the phonological deficits. p.272 Greenberg, D., Ehri, L. C., & Perin, D. (1997). Are word reading processes the same or different in adult literacy students and third-fifth graders matched for reading level? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 262-275. When we gave this (Auditory Analysis Test) and other tests of phonemic awareness to a group of 15-year-olds in our Connecticut Longitudinal Study, the results were the same: even in high school students, phonological awareness was the best predictor of reading ability. Shaywitz, S (No date). Dyslexia. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.sciam.com/1196issue/1196shaywitz.html Most children who become poor readers experience early and continuing difficulties in learning how to accurately identify printed words. This difficulty is expressed most directly on two kinds of reading tasks. First, children destined to be poor readers at the end of elementary school almost invariably have difficulties understanding and applying the alphabetic principle in deciphering unfamiliar words. These children have unusual difficulties learning to use the regular patterns of correspondence between letters and sounds in words as an aid in identifying new words they encounter in text (Siegel, 1989). They have trouble "sounding out" unknown words. Second, poor readers at all grade levels are characterized by slower than normal development of a "sight vocabulary" of words they can read fluently and automatically. Ultimately, it is this difficulty in rapid word recognition that limits comprehension in older poor readers, for these skills allow children to focus on constructing the meaning of what they are reading rather than spending too many of their intellectual resources on trying to identify the words (Adams, 1990). The strongest current theories of reading growth link phonetic and "sight word" reading skills together by showing how good phonetic reading skills are necessary in the formation 31 of accurate memory for the spelling patterns that are the basis of sight word recognition (Ehri, in press; Share & Stanovich, 1995).

Torgesen, J.K. (1998, Spring/Summer). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/reading/torgeson_catchthem.html

Even successful schools will have some students who do not do well in reading and writing. On average, 20% of students entering high school will be reading below what we would expect students to be able to read at that age. About half of these students (10%) will be three years below average for their age in reading. Flockton, L., & Crooks, T. (1997). Reading and speaking assessment results 1996. Wellington: Ministry of Education. “ … the reality for many years has been that high school subject teachers have resisted teaching reading” Vacca, R. T. (1998). Let’s not marginalize adolescent literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 4, 604 609.

There is a strong correlation between ability to read and mathematics achievement (Tseng, 1998). Tseng, S.M. (1998). Reading comprehension and motivation: A comparison of Taiwanese and English-speaking secondary school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Auckland

There is no indication that taking a different approach based on age is warranted.

Although the activities for improving decoding skills in older students will differ from those used with younger students, the skills that need to be learned remain the same (Bruck, 1998). Bruck, M. (1998). Outcomes of adults with childhood histories of dyslexia. In C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorders (pp. 179-200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Best results are achieved by providing instruction every day, rather than scheduling days between sessions. Horowitz, J. (2000). Teaching older nonreaders how to read The Reading Teacher, 54, 24-26. The difficulty of breaking old habits adds to the older poor reader’s challenge. Greenberg, D., Fredrick, L.D., Hughes. T.A., & Bunting, C.J. (2002). Implementation issues in a reading program for low reading adults. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(7), 626-632.

Effective instruction for older students

 Several principles drive effective instruction in reading and language. Such instruction is intensive enough to close the ever-widening gap between poor readers and their grade-level peers as quickly as possible. Reading intervention grounded in research imparts to older readers the skills they missed in primary grades and can bring them to grade level in one to two years (Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Alexander & Conway, 1997; Torgesen et al., in press). The intervention must match the students’ level of reading development, because each stage of growth requires a special focus (Curtis & Longo, 1999). Very poor readers must have their phonological skills strengthened because the inability to identify speech sounds erodes spelling, word recognition, and vocabulary development. For less severely impaired readers, educators must often target text reading fluency. If students can decipher words, educators must aggressively address vocabulary deficiencies with direct teaching and incentives to read challenging material in and out of school. If students do not know the words they are reading and cannot derive meaning from context, they must expand their vocabularies and learn a repertoire of comprehension strategies (Williams, 1998). Students cannot and should not bypass any critical skills necessary for fluent and meaningful reading just because of their chronological age. Moats, L.C. (2000). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing. http://www.cdl.org/resources/reading_room/print/older_read.html

Is it enough to schedule a reading class?

In fact NICHD just held an institute in which they featured 4 promising approaches. Bonnie Grossen's Beacon Schools approach was one of them. Cathy Bardo, the original principal from the famous Goethe Middle School 32 project was the presenter in Washington DC. She knows exactly what it takes to turn a bottom-of-the-barrel middle school around academically, behaviourally, socially. She has done it with the assistance of Bonnie and her model. I think the public needs to know that it isn't easy and it takes "intensive, systematic, long-term intervention". This isn't something you can fix easily -with just a class or two in Corrective Reading. Students need first to become proficient in reading accurately and fluently. This can be done with the decoding track in SRA-McGraw Hills Corrective Reading program. Then they need vocabulary and thinking skill instruction with combinations of the comprehension track of Corrective Reading and the upper levels of the Reasoning and Writing program (Levels D - F). If they are low in math as well, they need to be placed in the upper levels of the Connecting Math Concepts program (Bridges - Level F). They have to have the writing instruction with Expressive Writing and the upper levels of the Reasoning and Writing programs. They also usually need instruction in the Spelling Mastery program. This requires at least three periods daily - not an easy pill to swallow for middles schools with their complex offerings of courses. Most of the scheduling is a nightmare and requires complete commitment to turning the school around. But it can be done and there are a number of excellent implementations.

Some of these students can’t seem to do anything!

Binder (1996) describes as cumulative dysfluency the gradual loss of contact with the curriculum that eventuates when students’ basic skill deficits are left unnoticed, unaddressed, or unaffected by attempts at resolution. As complexity increases in secondary subjects such as the science and history domains, some students reach a ceiling - the requisite advanced abilities in reading comprehension, communication and reasoning failing to develop in concert with the demands. Lewis and Paik (2001) make a similar observation that adequate development of basic skills is essential if students are to find success at whatever the grade and school subject. Problems in basic educational skills, commencing early in an individual’s life, have snowballing negative effects, and the consequences are felt over a lifetime and in numerous domains of the individual’s life. Such students often enter their secondary years disheartened, and well below grade level. They are a frequent source of discipline problems, and highly likely to drop out of school (Montgomery & Rossi, 1994).

How consistent is the prevailing view on literacy in Victorian education with these worldwide research findings “The Curriculum and Standards Framework (CSF11) provides a strong focus for teaching and learning (i.e., the curriculum) and the standards expected of successful learners. The result is a framework that achieves comparability with the highest Australian and international standards. The English key learning area is organised in three strands: Speaking and listening – Reading – Writing”. http://www.bos.vic.edu.au/csf/csfcd/home.htm Note in Curriculum and Standards Framework: • The term phonemic awareness is absent from the CSF document. • Phonics is mentioned once, and only in relation to teaching writing. • The terms explicit, synthetic and systematic do not appear. • The term fluency is absent from the document "When your child is reading a book, use the 3 P's: Pause, Prompt and Praise. Pause if your child is unsure; wait a moment. Let your child look at the pictures and words to work out the meaning. Give a prompt or cue to encourage them to look more closely and have a go. Ask a question such as: What word might make sense? What would sound right? What does it start with? Praise all efforts. If your child is still unsure after trying, tell them the word so they don't lose the meaning of the story" p.3. Department of Education, Employment and Training. In The Age, August 29, 2001, Literacy Week Supplement, Data from the Victorian Multi-age Project Of 272 Victorian teachers (P-2), 77 % relied on whole language, and 6% followed a structured program. 51% had no specific teaching of phonics in their program, 22 per cent indicated that they included teaching of 33 phonics as and when necessary (implicit phonics), while 27 per cent of teachers indicated that they included systematic teaching of phonics as a part of their teaching program. de

Lemos, M. (2002). Closing the gap between research and practice: Foundations for the acquisition of literacy. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research

Some quotes from a parent home reading information sheet: X Park Primary School.

• “It is inappropriate for your child to be directed to ‘sound-out ’ words, using individual letter sounds, as many words cannot be identified in this manner.”
• “When a child gets stuck ask him to have a guess, or look at the picture, add a word that makes sense. Does it ‘look right’”?
• “If a mistake makes sense it doesn’t necessarily need to be corrected” X Hill PS 2002 “Teaching your child reading strategies”. If your child has difficulty with a word:
• Ask your child to look for clues in the pictures
• Ask your child to read on or reread the passage and try to fit in a word that makes sense.
• Ask your child to look at the first letter to help guess what the word might be.

Establishing effective secondary school-based literacy interventions for students at-risk What are the challenges?

There are 5 themes from the National Reading Panel (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension strategies) How much of each should go into our mix? How should the themes best be integrated? How should we decide on our method of teaching? How often need we schedule this assistance? How do we select our students? Who should take the groups? What group size? What hurdles might we meet? What issues of motivation, cooperation, school priorities? For how long need this intervention last? How can we measure progress? Do we need to design our own program or are there good programs we can use?

A noticeable shift from fads to evidence

Direct Instruction programs have been acknowledged as having the research base required under the recent USA Reading First Act, 2001. Manzo, K.K. & Robelen, E.W. (2002). States unclear on ESEA rules about reading. Editorial Projects in Education, 21, 1, 26.

For Direct Instruction there were 49 studies with 182 outcomes. DI had the largest effect size of the three models included in the group displaying the Strongest Evidence of Effectiveness. It is a model that is clearly established across varying contexts and varying study designs; its effects are relatively robust and the model can be expected to improve students’ test scores. The model certainly deserves continued dissemination and federal support Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T., Brown, S. (2002). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Report No. 59. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 28/3/03 from: http://www.csos.jhu.edu./crespar/techReports/report59.pdf Marilyn Jager Adams, author of the major text on reading: “Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print” commented on Direct Instruction thus: "The research is irrefutable." 34 An Educators' Guide to School-wide Reform, a 141-page report from American Institutes for Research, found that only the programs Direct Instruction, High Schools That Work, and Success for All had adequate evidence for effectiveness in reading instruction. Commissioned by five education groups-including the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers The report is also available on the World Wide Web at http://www.aasa.org/issues_and_insights/district_organization/Reform/Approach/direct.htm The development of criteria for what constitutes acceptable research evidence has made easier the task of convincing the educational community of the value of research findings in informing practice. Having established these criteria, it becomes easier to determine which of the plethora of reading programs available does have adequate research support at any given time. The examination of existing evidence employing stringent criteria by a range of groups has supported Direct Instruction as a valuable approach to reading instruction for both regular and struggling readers. For example, the American Federation of Teachers series of documents Building From The Best, Learning From What Works names Direct Instruction programs among their recommendations to schools, as published in: Seven Promising Reading and English Language Arts Programs, Three Promising High School Remedial Reading Programs, and Five Promising Remedial Reading Intervention Programs. Direct Instruction programs are the only interventions recommended in each of these reports. See at: http://www.aft.org/edissues/Reading/Resources.htm

The Council for Exceptional Children provides informed judgements regarding professional practices in the field. The Direct Instruction model was judged by the Editorial Committee to be well validated and reliably used. Read about it at: http://dldcec.org/ld_resources/alerts/#direct A report from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation supports the Direct Instruction model as a viable approach to schoolwide reform. “DI has, in fact, never caught on widely despite consistent proof of effectiveness”.

Traub, J. (1999). Better by design: A consumers’ guide to schoolwide reform. The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. [On Line]. Available: http://www.edexcellence.net/library/bbd/better_by_design.html

Another report, Reading Programs that Work: A Review of Programs for Pre-Kindergarten to 4th Grade (Schacter, 1999), similarly includes Direct Instruction among six school-wide effective reading models. These reports have been influential in drawing attention to the large corpus of supportive research developed over the years indicative of the effectiveness of the Direct Instruction model across a wide range of educational settings. http://www.mff.org/pubterms.taf?file=http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME279.pdf The model is now being implemented with varying degrees of fidelity in increasing numbers of school settings. In the USA, this interest has been furthered by the impact of the Reading Excellence Act (1998) and the Elimination of Reading Deficit Act (2000) with their emphasis on empirically supported programs as a requirement for federal funding. As a consequence, there has been a very rapid rise in interest within the educational community. As an indication, the number of educational web pages that now make reference to Direct Instruction has increased dramatically in the past 18 months as the use of any search engine will attest. Adams & Englemann' meta-analysis resulted in an effect size of .68 for the 44 acceptable comparisons involving Reading Mastery. To further place this medium to large effect size in perspective, a recent meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the whole language approach to reading found an effect size of only .09 (Stahl & Miller, 1989). Adams, G., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on Direct Instruction: 25 years beyond Distar. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.

Corrective Reading:

Decoding and Corrective Reading: Comprehension are among the programs in the Annotated List of Language Arts Programs adopted by the California State Board of Education in 1999, after it abandoned the Whole Language model it had previously mandated from 1987. 35 California Department of Education. (no date). Reading/language arts framework for California public schools: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/lang-arts.pdf

DI for English language learners

The beginning reading programs with the strongest evidence of effectiveness in this review made use of systematic phonics, such as Success for All, Direct Instruction, and Jolly Phonics, but systematic phonics has been identified as a component of effective beginning reading programs for English proficient students as well (see National Reading Panel, 2000; Gersten & Geva, 2003). … Currently available reading methods known to be effective for English proficient students also accelerate the achievement of English language learners.

Slavin, R.E., & Cheung, A. (2003). Effective reading programs for English language learners: A best-evidence synthesis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Retrieved 5/2/2004 from ww.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report66.pdf

Making an impact across schools

Seven schools fully implementing Corrective Reading moved an average of 10 percent of their student body out of the bottom quartile and improved their mean score by 8 percentage points on the SAT-9. Schools implementing only the decoding component moved 7 percent out of the bottom quartile and improved their mean score by 6 percentage points.

Grossen B. (2004). Success of a Direct Instruction model at a secondary level school with high-risk students Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 161-178. http://www.higherscores.org/index_files/Success%20of%20DI.pdf The consensus view of most important instructional features for interventions

• Provide ample opportunities for guided practice of new skills
• Provide a significant increase in intensity of instruction
• Provide systematic cueing of appropriate strategies in context
• Provide systematic and explicit instruction on whatever component skills are deficient: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension strategies
• Interventions are more effective when they provide appropriate levels of scaffolding as children learn to apply new skills

Torgesen, J. (2003). Using science, energy, patience, consistency, and leadership to reduce the number of children left behind in reading. Barksdale Reading Institute, Florida.

Retrieved 3/5/2004 from http://www.fcrr.org/staffpresentations/Joe/NA/mississippi_03.ppt 36

Trying to catch up what’s been missed isn’t easy! Average child                                                                                                      

7 6 5 Reading grade level 4 3 2 1 1 7 6 5 Reading grade level 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 Grade level Struggling reader 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 Grade level 5 6 7 37 10 Catch-up slope 9 8 7 6 5 Reading grade level 4 3 2 1 1 2 Characteristics of DI programs

• Clear academic objectives 3 4 5 Grade level 6 7
• Sequenced curriculum presents curriculum in logical order
• Scripted lessons to assist non-specialist teachers
• Choral responses enable monitoring each child • Brisk pace keeps students engaged
• Correction procedures reduce errors
• Positive reinforcement assists participation 8
• Numerous massed and spaced practice opportunities for retention
• Continuous progress monitoring and mastery tests to preclude unnoticed failure
• Shown effective for the range of learners from gifted to mild intellectual disability
• Shown effective across ages from beginner to adult.

Corrective Reading program:

A remedial reading program designed for students in Year 3 and above. It comprises two strands: Decoding and Comprehension. Within these strands are a number of levels. (A, B1, B2, C1, C2) corresponding to the students’ attainments as assessed with a placement test. The Decoding strand teaches word attack, word identification, and fluency and is most often the first and most salient intervention.

Decoding lessons involve:

• Word-attack skills
• Group story-reading
• Individual reading checkouts
• Workbook activities

For secondary level

Students are often assessed in their final year of primary school or early Yr 7. A screening test such as the Progressive Achievement Tests in Reading (PAT-R) – Revised (2001) ACER. A Group test Yr 4 - 10. 38 Comprehension 40 min. Eight or nine prose passages - multiple-choice comprehension questions http://www.acer.edu.au/_images/acerpress/catalogimages/items/PAT.jpg • Those considered at risk (i.e., are expected to have difficulty with secondary text books, perhaps the lowest 3 stanines i.e., lowest 23%) are offered assistance

 CRP offered in place of English Program or LOTE program, or simply every day for period X regardless of what the timetable indicates.

• Lesson fits a 50-minute timetable • Group sizes of 15 or less
• Those seen as at risk are first assessed with the Corrective Reading program Placement Test http://www.sraonline.com/index.php/home/curriculumsolutions/di/correctivereading/placetestdecoding/663

Placement outcomes are:

• the student’s current decoding skill level is below those of the lowest level of the program (Level A), and would be best addressed with a beginning reading program, such as “100 Lessons”
• the student is appropriate for placement in one of the four program levels, or
• the student has already mastered the decoding skills taught at each level, and any reading deficits are probably not in the area of decoding.

Approximate decoding year levels

Level A - early 1st Year to early 2nd (Start Rate 45 wpm - End Rate 60 wpm)

Level B1 - early 2nd Year to end of 2nd (Start Rate 60 wpm - End Rate 90 wpm) Level B2 - early 3rd Year to end of 3rd (Start Rate 90 wpm - End Rate 120 wpm)

Level C1 - early 4th Year to end of 4th (Start Rate 100 wpm - End Rate 120 wpm)

Level C2 - early 5th Year to end of 5th. (Start Rate 120 wpm - End Rate 130 wpm)

Expected Progress: Approximately one grade level in each 65 lesson decoding level

Average reading delay of students arriving at secondary school with reading problems is about 3 years.

• Level A Decoding is very basic, but there may be the occasional student in secondary school who has made little progress since Year 1. Level A improves their ability to identify the sounds of letters; sound out words that are presented orally and then blend them; decode some irregularly spelled words; read words “the fast way”; and improve spelling somewhat. 39 One can train an aide or parent volunteer to teach one-to-one if required.

Level B Decoding allows them to:

• more readily decode unfamiliar words than previously
• develop automatic recognition of some irregular words
• read with increased fluency. Unlikely that will they have complete reading independence after completing Level B

Outcome of Level C Decoding

• improved ability to manage texts from other subjects
• increased coping with the large number of irregular and technical words. Even after Level C Decoding, some students may lack basic word knowledge – they may not show good comprehension of orally presented or written material.

Program fidelity:

Departures from the prescribed program such as

• omitting some elements, for example, individual turn-taking, or
• omitting specific exercises or tasks
• failing to detect and correct errors Each may have a significant effect on the average group progress (if the departures are severe).

For absolute non-readers:

Group program: Reading Mastery program (Engelmann & Bruner, 1999). McGraw Hill publisher 1:1 tutoring: For use by parents or in 1:1 tutoring - Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons (Engelmann, Haddox, & Bruner, 1983) from RMIT bookshop (03 99257237

What forms of program evaluation are possible?

• Attention to the accuracy of every student response
• Daily rate and accuracy tasks
• Regular within-program mastery tests
• Formal reading tests
• Questionnaires to teachers, students, parents

So, tell me about DI programs generally How are they different from other instructional programs?

The Direct Instruction model is highly structured and teacher directed. In terms of responsibility for learning outcomes, it emphasises the role of the teacher. The model is in direct contrast to child-centred, discovery approaches in which student responsibility for learning is paramount. There is a priority on the efficient use of time - maximizing the time students spend engaged in the learning activities. The most obvious difference is that DI lessons are scripted. In a traditional reading program, the teacher is given few guidelines on how to present the material. For example, when teaching reading comprehension the teacher might be told, "Discuss the concept of main idea". Loose guidelines such as this leave tremendous latitude concerning what the teacher actually says and does. It is very easy for teachers to unknowingly change the wording used to teach essential skills or concepts leading to ambiguity, thus making it especially difficult for some students to learn. Teachers may use vocabulary that is too sophisticated for some students, leaving success only to those who can understand the language. In a DI lesson, what the teacher says is actually printed out on the page. The students' responses are also printed out on the page. Teacher wording is thereby controlled, making it easier for students to learn.

DI programs are also different from other programs because they have been researched and tested to prove that they work. There are very big differences between DI and most curriculum materials. They are scripted so that the presenter does not need to be knowledgeable about teaching reading. They cover a lot of curriculum material in a short time because lessons are rapid-paced and because errors are kept to a minimum through careful sequencing of the steps.

In addition to scripted lessons and rapid pacing, are there other ways the DI programs are different? Yes. Students make many responses during DI lessons, many more, in fact, than they would normally make in standard classroom lessons. In a typical DI lesson, students will make between eight and twelve responses each minute. That means that students will make between 240 and 360 responses in a half-hour lesson. This is particularly important because students get a lot of opportunities to practise correct responses, teachers get many opportunities to praise students for performing correctly, and teachers also get many opportunities to correct student errors. In fact, teachers have the opportunity to correct errors immediately, long before persistent errors develop. A child is likely to reach mastery in a shorter amount of time.

OK, but the students can't always answer correctly or they wouldn't be learning anything, would they?

That's right. Research shows that academic skills are best improved when materials are designed so that students are correct 75-85 percent of the time. This gives students lots of opportunities for success and the praise that comes with it, and it still gives them something to conquer. The DI programs are specifically designed to accomplish a level of correct responding that is about 80% for students who are correctly placed by the placement tests. This means that on about 20% of the questions that students are given the first time, they will make an error. This is intentional planning. Without errors, it is doubtful that the students would be learning much of anything. However, it is a DI principle that all errors are corrected immediately. How to correct errors can be a fairly sophisticated process, but there is a general rule that applies very often: Give the answer, repeat the question, repeat the part of the lesson in which that question appeared, and go on to the next part of the lesson. This procedure always has the effect of having the student practise the correct response when the question is embedded in the lesson.

If the students are just saying the things printed in the book, aren't they just learning by rote?

This is an all too common misunderstanding of DI. Some people feel that it derives from a failure to understand how the programs are put together. After all, if one merely saw one or two lessons, and saw the kind of interaction we've been talking about, it is likely that s/he would get this impression. The students appear to be parroting, especially when the teacher must perform several error corrections. However, a closer look at the way the material evolves from lesson to lesson reveals a very different picture. For instance, in the Reading Mastery program, the student first learns to say when the teacher points to the letter "m". This is appropriately called rote learning. Later, however, the student learns to use this skill in a sophisticated strategy for sounding out words "mmmaaannn." Still later, the student is capable of sounding many regular words that she or he has never before practised. This is not rote learning; it’s solving new problems based on well-learned, generalizable skills. (Some of this section was adapted from: Advantage Schools Inc. http://www.advantage-schools.com/home/di.htm )

O.K., but I'm still not convinced. What is the research showing that Direct Instruction programs are effective, and for whom?

Yes, there is quite a lot. The most important research study is called Project Follow-Through. It was a federally funded project that began in the early 1970's. About a dozen different programs were tested at school sites located all over the U.S. to see whether any of them could help maintain the gains that poverty-level students made in Project Headstart, but lost almost as soon as they started public school. The programs represented all important educational philosophies, including open-classrooms, Piagetian-based learning, behaviour modification, and DI. The DI program consisted of reading, math and language programs. The results overwhelmingly supported the superiority of the DI method over all other programs. All tests of academic skills not only showed the DI programs to be superior, but DI was the only program to bring these low-performing students within the national norm. In addition, the DI programs proved superior in social measures, such as measures of "self-esteem," even when compared to programs that directed their energy specifically at improving self-esteem. "Research on best practices indicates that instruction directed by teachers, targeting specific skills, and delivered to small groups is particularly efficacious."

Stevens, R.J., Slavin, R.E., Farnish, A.M. (1991). The effects of co-operative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 8-16.

"The decade of the 1990s will witness, in classrooms serving students with mild mental retardation , the implementation of a group of instructional methods often referred to as effective teaching practices or direct instruction, if we heed the literature published in this area over the past 15 years."

 Hendrickson, J., & Frank, A. (1993). Engagement and performance feedback: Enhancing the classroom achievement of students with mild mental disabilities.

In R. Gable and S. Warren (Eds), Advances in mental retardation and developmental disabilities: Strategies for teaching students with mild to severe mental retardation. Vol.5. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley. "Initially established with learners of more average abilities (for) learning basic skills, these (effective) teaching practices have also been shown to be strongly related to achievement of students with mild mental retardation .....A substantial amount of research evidence now supports the effectiveness of this approach for special education ."

Scruggs, T. & Mastropieri, K. (1993). Teaching students with mild mental retardation. In R. Gable and & S. Warren (Eds.), Advances in mental retardation and developmental disabilities: Strategies for teaching students with mild to severe mental retardation. Vol.5. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley. "... the areas discussed may be viewed as illustrations of the general applicability of effective instructional methods to training autistic children...... The similarity of teaching methods suggests that principles underlying effective instruction may be more influential in the process of learning than the special characteristics of any particular student population. "

O'Neill, R. & Dunlap, G. D.I. principles in teaching autistic children. Direct Instruction News, Spring. 1984.

"Thus techniques based on direct and effective instructional practices are anywhere from 5 to 10 times more effective than the "special" practices attempting to cure LD (learning disabled) students by influencing unobservable constructs (e.g. perception)....thus the effective schooling research needs to be better integrated into LD practice." Kavale, K. (1990). Variances & verities in learning disability interventions. In T. Scruggs and B. Wong (Eds), Intervention research in learning disabilities. New York: Springer Verlag. "The documented success ... of direct instruction reading programs with thousands of hard-to-teach and high-risk children is unsurpassed in the annals of reading history." Bateman, B. (1991). Teaching word recognition to slow learning children. Reading, Writing & Learning Disabilities, 7, 1-16. "Children with deficits or weaknesses in these skills should be identified early (kindergarten or first grade), and educators and speech pathologists should work together to provide direct instruction in these areas." (Also see Catts, 1991; Felton, 1993). Wood, F. B., & Felton, R. H. (1994). Separate linguistic and attentional factors in the development of reading. Topics in Language Disorders, 14, 42-57. "Effective reading programmes are not differentially effective - they are equally effective for all groups of children ". p. 234. Goyen, J. (1992). Diagnosis of reading problems: Is there a case? Educational Psychology, 12, 225-237.

Is DI only for the low performers? Effects across different ability levels

EVIDENCE 13

EVIDENCE 14

Summary of research findings on various interventions Effect size: Strong > 0.5 Intervention Moderate 0.35 - 0.5 No. of studies Weak < 0.35 Perceptual-motor training Modality instruction (Learning Styles) Direct Instruction 180 39 25 Av. effect size 0.08 0.14 43 0.84

Where should we focus - decoding or comprehension? Isn’t reading really about comprehension?

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.

Even among experienced readers individual differences in comprehension of text reflect efficiency of phonological processing at the word level. Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L. G., & Dickinson, C. C. (1996). Reading and spelling difficulties in high school students: Causes and consequences. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 267-294.

Once decoding skills are automatized, growth in text comprehension follows.

Foorman, B., Francis, D., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 63-71.

Differences in reading comprehension could be explained by differences in phonological coding on non words, but not by differences in semantic word knowledge. p. 220

Elbro, C., Nielsen, I., & Petersen, D. K. (1994). Dyslexia in adults: Evidence for deficits in non-word reading and in the phonological representation of lexical items. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 205-226.

Decoding problems account for the majority of cases of severe reading disability among students of otherwise average intellectual ability (see reviews by Stanovich, 1988; Vellutino & Denckla, 1991). p. 47

Spector, J. (1995). Phonemic awareness training: Application of principles of direct instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11, 37-51

To examine the relationship between word decoding and reading comprehension, Shankweiler et al. (1999) assembled 361 English-speaking children aged 7.5 to 9.5, of whom 168 had reading disabilities. They found the simple ability to read aloud a list of English words accounted for 79% of the variance in reading comprehension (r = .89, p < .0001). Even the ability to do the same thing with non-words (e.g., skirm, bant) correlated very highly with reading comprehension, accounting for 62% of the variance (r = .79, p < .0001).

Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Brady, S., Fowler, A., Dreyer, L. G., Marchione, K. E., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 69-94.

In each grade, skill in word recognition was more predictive of reading comprehension than was listening comprehension.

Juel, C. (1993). The spelling-sound code in reading. In S. Yussen & M. Smith (Eds.), Reading across the life span (pp. 95-109). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Facility in decontextualised word identification is a basic prerequisite for extracting meaning from written text. ... performance on the word identification measure was the best predictor of performance on the reading comprehension test.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S. (1994). Component of reading ability: issues and problems in operationalizing word identification, phonological coding, and orthographic coding. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues. Philadelphia: Brookes Publishing Co., pp. 279-332.

The groups receiving direct instruction in alphabetic code had significantly greater reading comprehension than the literature-emphasis groups. These results are not surprising, given the need for 44 decoding to be sufficiently automatic that memory and attention can be devoted to grasping the gist of the text.

Foorman, B., Francis, D., & Fletcher, J. (1997, March 18). Breaking the alphabetic code, A17. The Globe and Mail.

“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.

So, from the above, there is evidence that decoding and fluency are worthwhile emphases for a secondary literacy program

Corrective Reading: Decoding strand (general issues common to the various program levels)

Facts About The Problem Reader (taken from the CRP Series Guide)

The Corrective Reading program series is designed to change the behaviour of the problem reader. The specific decoding tendencies of the problem reader suggest what a program must do to be effective in changing this student's behaviour.

• The problem reader makes frequent word identification errors. • The student makes a higher percentage of mistakes when reading connected sentences than when reading words in word lists.
• Often the student reads words correctly in word lists and misidentifies the same words when they are embedded in connected sentences.
• The specific mistakes the reader makes include word omissions, word additions, confusion of high-frequency words (such as what and that, of and for, and and the).
• The student also reads synonyms (saying pretty for beautiful).
• The student often guesses at words, basing the guess on the word beginning or ending. And the student is consistently inconsistent, making a mistake on one word in a sentence and then making a different mistake when re-reading the sentence.
• The student doesn't seem to understand the relationship between the arrangement of letters in a word and the pronunciation of the word.

Often the student is confused about the "word meaning" (a fact suggested by "synonym reading", "opposite reading", and word guessing). The strategy seems to be based on rules the student has been taught. The problem reader follows such advice as: Look at the beginning of the word and take a guess; Think of what the word might mean, and Look at the general shape of the word. The result is a complicated strategy that is often backwards: The student seems to think that to read a word one must first understand the word, then select the spoken word that corresponds to that understanding. Although the problem reader may use a strategy that is meaning based, the reader is often preempted from comprehending passages. The reason is that the student doesn't read a passage with the degree of accuracy needed to understand what the passage actually says. (Omitting the word not from one sentence changes the meaning dramatically.) Furthermore, the student's reading rate is often inadequate, making it difficult for the student to remember the various details of the passage, even if they were decoded accurately. Often the problem reader doesn't have an effective reading

The student receives daily practice in oral reading, with immediate feedback.

(Only through oral reading can we discover what the student is actually reading.) The student reads word lists with information about how to pronounce various letter combinations (such as th and or). The student also reads sentences and passages composed of words that have been taught. The sentences and passages are designed so they are relatively easy if the student approaches words as entities that are to be analyzed according to the arrangement of letters, but difficult if the student guesses oh the basis of the context or syntax of the sentence. (The sentences are designed so that guesses often lead to mis-identification of the word.)

The mastery tests and checkouts in the series assure that the student observes progress in reading rate and reading accuracy. The series presents comprehension items in a way that demonstrates the relationship between what is decoded and how it is to be understood. Initially, the comprehension activities are deliberately separated from the decoding activities so that the student's misconceptions about reading are not exaggerated. The comprehension activities, however, show the student that what is read is to be understood.

Finally, the series addresses the problem reader's poor self-image. The series is designed so the student can succeed on real reading tasks. Furthermore, a point system that is based on realistic performance goals assures that the reader who tries will succeed and will receive reinforcement for improved performance. In summary, the series uses a two-pronged approach. Each level teaches effective reading skills to replace the student's ineffective approach to reading. Each level also contains an effective management system that turns students on to reading. This turn-on is not achieved by "seducing" the reader with entertaining topics but by rewarding the reader for steady improvement in reading performance. The approach WORKS.

Finally, the poor reader is not a highly motivated student. For this student, reading has been punishing. The student often professes indifference: "I don't care if I can read or not." But the student's behaviour gives strong suggestions that the student cares a great deal. The student's ineffective reading strategies and negative attitudes about reading become more ingrained as the reader gets older. To overcome them requires a very careful program, one that systematically replaces the strategies with new ones and that provides lots and lots of practice.

The problems

An effective corrective reading program must address the specific needs of the problem reader. The learner must learn to look at the order of letters in a word and learn that this order suggests the general pronunciation of the word. Furthermore, the student must learn that the game is simple: First figure out how the letters suggest one should say the word. Then see if the word you say is one that you recognize, one that has meaning. (Note that this strategy is basically the opposite of the one the typical problem reader uses.) The problem reader must receive practice in reading connected sentences that are composed of words that have been taught in isolation. Merely because the student reads words in lists does not imply transfer to written sentences. The student must receive strong reinforcement for working on reading because the task is very difficult and frustrating for the student. The student has received a great deal of evidence that reading is a puzzle that can't seem to be solved. Finally, the student must receive practice in reading a variety of passages. If the student practices reading only narrative passages, the student will not "automatically" transfer the reading skills to textbooks, articles, or other forms of expository writing. Therefore, different styles must be introduced.

The Corrective Reading decoding programs are successful with problem readers because they provide the careful integration, the practice, and the management details that the problem reader needs to succeed.

Corrective Reading decoding program design

There are two major features evident in the CRP. They are the emphasis on decoding skills (phonics) and the Direct Instruction approach to teaching the phonics content. It includes work on both isolated words and connected sentences, but its major emphasis is at the level of word structure. It is made clear to students that the decoding of novel words involves careful word analysis rather than partial cue or contextual guessing. Students are continually prompted to take account of all letters in a word, and become sensitised to common (and often problematic) letter groupings, for example, those beginning with combinations st, bl, sl, fl, pl, sw, cl, tr, dr; or 46 ending with nt, nd, st, ts, mp, ps, cks, ls, ms, th, er, ing, ers, y. The sentences provided are constructed in a manner which allows few clues for contextual guessing, but provides ample opportunities to practise what has been learned in the teacher-presented word-attack segment of the lesson. Lessons are designed to be provided in groups of up to 15 students. Most first time groups comprise about 10 students. The rationale for this reduction involves the lack of experience of the teachers with the program, and the observation that in most groups of poor readers there are usually several students difficult to motivate, and maintain on-task. This first hurdle is difficult for teachers more used to a less directive model of teaching. Lessons are scripted, and most teachers report requiring at least 20 lessons before reasonable comfort with the approach is achieved. Teacher support is valuable in the early stages to assist in this skill development, and to preclude teacher-initiated program changes that may jeopardise program success. The requisite level of support varies from teacher to teacher; however, in most cases it is difficult to provide the extensive training model described by the program designers. The program designers argue that the program combines the benefits of 1:1 tutoring with the effectiveness of group instruction. This is achieved by the use of choral responses prompted by various signals (a new skill for most teachers). Not only must teachers follow a script, but they must be able reliably to signal students when to respond, and then pay attention to each student’s response in order to monitor skill development and teaching effectiveness. The results of this monitoring process help determine lesson pacing by controlling the amount of repetition necessary for mastery. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to continuously monitor every student’s progress - thus smaller group sizes are helpful for first-time program teachers. As teachers’ reliance on the script diminishes, and as their signalling improves, so their adroitness at student monitoring improves and they are better able to manage larger groups. The issues of behaviour management looms larger in secondary than primary schools. Participation in the reading program often involves parent, but not student, consent; that is, students were not volunteers. Most schools considered the needs of the students too important to allow students the right of veto. To help motivate students whose history has made reading a non-preferred activity, the program includes a points system for each lesson segment. Most schools perceive the advantage of this system and incorporate it successfully into their plan. The potential for program disruption by a few disillusioned students is an additional reason for beginning with smaller group sizes.

Lessons typically range from 45 minutes to one hour, dependent on teacher lesson pacing. Typically pacing improves with experience, but initially some teachers are unable to complete a whole lesson in the time allotted. Program design specifies an optimum schedule of five lessons each week. This level of intensity has been found important for students with reading problems, as they tend to have difficulty retaining new skills and knowledge. For this reason, there is strong emphasis on massed practice for mastery, and spaced practice for retention. If lesson frequency falls significantly, retention may be jeopardised leading to a general progress deceleration. However not all schools are able to timetable five lessons per week, and even those which do so find competing events sometimes forced class cancellation. The Corrective Reading Program is often chosen as the intervention program for the RMIT Psychology Clinic because of my experience with it, and its record of success in improving the reading outcomes for children at risk. This has been noted in the empirical studies available in the research literature, and also in the regular evaluations I perform in schools and in the Clinic. At the Clinic we also train parents to provide the program to individual students.

Corrective Reading Series Guide: Information about each level DECODING A: Who it’s for

Decoding A is appropriate for extremely poor readers in the second half of grade 3 through high school who virtually lack decoding skills. These students read so inaccurately and haltingly that they are prevented from comprehending what they read.

What is taught

The following skills are taught in Decoding A.

• Identifying the sounds of letters.
• Sounding out words that are presented orally and then saying them fast.
• Decoding irregularly spelled words.
• Reading words “the fast way”.
• Reading short selections
• Reading sentences
• Spelling.

Related skills such as matching, word completion (for example, rhyming), and symbol scanning are included on the student worksheets.

The basic objective in Decoding A is to teach students that there are regularly spelled words, words that are pronounced by blending the sounds of the letters in them. Once students understand that the identification of a word is related to its spelling, irregularly spelled words, such as said and what, are introduced. These words are spelled one way but pronounced in different, irregular” way. The sentence-reading exercises give students practice in reading words that are presented within a context. Usually students who qualify for this program do not understand what decoding is. This problem is magnified when they try to read sentences. Usually, their sentence-reading strategy involves guessing based on the syntax or the position of words within the sentence. For instance, they guess that the first word is the. The objective of the sentence-reading activities is to retrain students in how to read words in sentences. Although work on isolated words (in lists) teaches word-attack skills, practice in reading sentences ensures that students apply these skills. The sentences in this program are designed so that there is low probability of guessing a word correctly. If students guess the next word in a sentence on the basis of the preceding words, they most likely will be wrong. The low probability feature provides students with consistent evidence that guessing is not effective. A guess equals a mistake; therefore, students quickly abandon the guessing approach and use the decoding skills being taught. The story-reading exercises give students practice in decoding material similar to what they will encounter at the beginning of Decoding B1 and in answering comprehension questions about what they have read.

Outcome behaviour

Upon completion of Decoding A, students should be able to do the following activities.

• Read sentences, such as She was a master at planting trees. These sentences are composed primarily of regularly spelled words (containing as many as six sounds).
• Read short selections, such as the following:

Ten men got in a truck.

They went to the creek and set up a tent.

How can ten men fit in the tent?

They can not.

Six men will sleep under a tree.

• Read common irregular words such as what, was, do, said, to, of, and you with only infrequent errors. • Read words that begin with difficult letter combinations such as st, bl, sl, fl, pl, sw, cl, tr, dr.
• Read words that end with difficult letter combinations such as nt, nd, st, ts, mp, ps, cks, ls, ms, th, er, ing, ers, y.
• Pronounce commonly confused words parts such as the k sound in trick, the e sound in set, the s ending sound in mats, runs, and munches.
• Spell simple words that have a clear sound-symbol relationship, including words that contain th, wh, sh, ch, and various other letter combinations.
• Independently perform on various simple activities, such as matching sounds and completing words with missing letters. Other activities are independent. The workbook activities take about 10 minutes. Students earn points by staying within an error limit for errors on the worksheet for the lesson.

DECODING B1 Who it’s for

 Decoding B1 is appropriate for most problem readers in grades 3 through 12. They guess at words. They have trouble reading words like what, that, a, and the when the words appear in a sentence context. They add or omit words. They often read synonyms for printed words and are generally inconsistent in their reading behaviour (reading a word correctly one time and missing it the next time).

What is taught

The typical Decoding B1 lesson is divided into four major parts.

1. Word-attack skills

2. Group story-reading

3. Individual reading checkouts

4. Workbook activities

Word-attack skills take up about 10 minutes of the period. Students practice pronouncing words, identifying the sounds of letters or letter combinations, and reading isolated words composed of sounds and sound combinations that have been learned by the students. Students earn points for performance in the word-attack portion of the lesson.

Group story-reading follows immediately after word-attack skills. This part of the lesson takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Students take turns reading aloud from their student book (storybook). Students who are not reading follow along. The stories are divided into parts. If the group reads a part within the error limit, the teacher presents specified comprehension questions for the part.

Individual reading checkouts follow the group story-reading and take about 10 minutes. Assigned pairs of students read two passages. The first is from the lesson just read by the group; the second is from preceding lesson. Each member of the pair first reads the passage from the current story, then the passage from the preceding lesson. A student can earn points for both passages. Points for the first passage are earned if the student must read the passage within a specified rate criterion and also a specified error criterion. (For instance, the student must read 85 words in one minute, with no more than two errors).

Workbook activities are presented as the last part of the lesson. Some of these activities are teacher-directed and are very important to the students’ skill development. Although the content “distracts” the reader, for the reader to read with acceptable accuracy. During lessons 1 through 5, students read only isolated sentences (totalling about 75-100 words). The stories begin on lesson 6 and continue on each lesson. Their length increases from about 200 words to 700 by lesson 60. Students receive practice in comprehension skills with the following activities:

• Orally answering questions about each part of the story after reading the part within an error limit.
• Writing answers to a variety of comprehension items that require call of story events, sequencing, and characters

The daily oral reading checkouts provide each student with a lot of practice in reading connected sentences. Because the student work in pairs, the entire checkout doesn’t take very long, about 10 minutes for both checkouts help students gradually develop acceptable reading rates (from 55 words per minute at the beginning of the program to 90 words per minute at the end). 49 The workbook activities are carefully integrated with the word-attack activities and with the stories that the students read. From lesson to lesson, there is a careful development of skills in the workbook. It is very important for the students to do the workbook activities as part of each lesson. Each worksheet is one page. The different activities provide students with practice in writing sounds copying, answering comprehension questions, spelling and transforming words. Many of the activities deal with word details because these are the details the problem reader tends to ignore.

The following activities are included in Level B word-attack skills. • Pronouncing words with consonant blends (slam, cast, flip), orally constructing words with endings (adding ed to show to pronounce showed), and identifying the component sounds of orally presented words.

• Identifying the long and short sounds of the vowels o, e, a, and I.
• Identifying the sounds of consonants.
• Identifying the sounds of letter combinations (th, ee, sh, or, ol, ch, wh, ing, er, oo, ea, oa, ai, ou, ar, oul, ir, igh, al) and reading words with those combinations.
• Reading lists of regularly spelled words, such as mat and trip, and irregularly spelled words, such as what and said.
• Reading words that contain difficult consonant blends (drop, splash, slip). • Reading words with endings (dropping, rested)
• Reading silent-e words (save, times, hoped). • Reading compound words (herself, anybody).
• Practicing patterns drills that demonstrate consistent phonic relationships (big, bag, beg, bug).

The stories in Decoding B1 increase in length, difficulty, and interest. All stories are composed of words that have been taught in the series or words that the students can already read. After new words and word types are introduced in the word-attack activities, the words are incorporated in stories. Furthermore, the introduction of words in stories is cumulative, which means that once words have been introduced, they recur in the stories. The syntax and structure of the stories are designed for the problem decoder and are designed to correct the mistake s the reader typically makes. Early stories are “low interest” stories because the poor reader must concentrate on a new game - looking at words and identifying the, without guessing. With higher interest stories, the reader becomes preoccupied with the content of the story and reverts to habitual, inappropriate decoding strategies, which means that errors increase greatly. Later in the program, after students have practiced the game of accurate decoding, the stories become more interesting. Appropriate strategies are now strong enough.

Outcome behaviour

Upon completion of Decoding B1, students’ progress can be seen in both improved accuracy and improved rate. Students can read the passage from lesson 65 with 98 percent accuracy and at a minimum rate of 90 words per minute.

So how many levels of the Corrective Reading program do we have to put our students through?

 The early levels begin to retrain students to attend to word parts (letters, letter groups) and this takes time, as does the overcoming of previously entrenched though unsuccessful strategies, such as guessing from context or from the first letter or so. The stories in the Corrective Reading program are intentionally constructed to scaffold the students’ developing decoding ability. However, these decodable-text stories, though developmentally important, do not reflect the inconsiderate text associated with age-related interest level reading or school texts. Those sources are uncontrolled for regularity, usually employing many irregular words that are likely to trouble our developing reader. Thus students may not show great improvement on texts outside the program despite the dramatic development in the skills of reading. It is not until Level C: Decoding that students begin to accelerate the growth of their store of irregular words. To enable a student to cope with the complexity of secondary school texts, completion of Level C: Decoding is advisable. Engelmann, S., Carnine, L., Johnson, & G., Meyer, L. (1988). Corrective Reading: Decoding C. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Decoding C: Skills Applications

The fourth and most advanced level of the decoding programs in SRA's Corrective Reading series is Decoding C Skill Applications. This program is designed to teach advanced word-attack skills. The basic thrust of the program is to help students develop the skills necessary to decode a wide variety of words and to handle different sentence constructions as they appear in many kinds of reading materials. By completing Decoding B2, students have become far more accurate decoders. However, poor decoders have practiced faulty decoding strategies-guessing on the basis of word beginnings, context, syntax, and so on-for many years. Usually, the habits built up during this period are not neutralized through only 1 school year of work. Although in 1 year students acquire the basis of a new strategy, they need continued practice in using word-attack skills to firmly establish the newly formed accuracy habits. And the students need more than to merely practice the word attack and story-reading skills presented in Decoding B1 and 132. In those programs,. the vocabulary and syntax of the fictional selections are highly controlled. Students are not confronted with either the vocabulary or the sentence forms that appear in textbooks. The passive voice, the use of parenthetical (non restrictive) clauses, the longer multiclause sentences, and similar constructions are deliberately avoided in Decoding B1 and 132.

One goal of Decoding C is to fill the gap between tightly controlled syntax and vocabulary presentations and presentations typically encountered in traditional reading materials. Another goal is to present the meaning of words frequently encountered in text materials. Vocabulary exercises are presented so students will be introduced to new words before reading them. Many of the more than 600 words included in the vocabulary exercises are words students have already encountered; however, students frequently have only a vague or incorrect notion of their meaning. Another goal is to provide reinforcement of a broad variety of comprehension question types. The types include literal comprehension, vocabulary, new information facts, and inferential reading.

Another goal of Decoding C is to help students apply the decoding skills taught in the program to reading material encountered outside the program. Because the procedures used in Corrective Reading instruction are unique, students sometimes fail to realize that the skills are applicable to material outside the program. After all, for years these students have not been able to handle material in various subject areas successfully. Unless they receive pointed demonstrations that undermine the I-can't-do-this attitude, students may continue to read successfully in the Corrective Reading group and still not apply these skills to other reading situations. Decoding C demonstrates how to apply new skills to reading newspapers, magazines, and textbooks. The final goal of this program is to decrease students' dependence on highly structured presentations and to place greater emphasis on their independent, self-initiated work. Students contribute subject-matter ideas for the reading material that comes from outside the program. Then they select word-attack words from this outside material. Although students continue to receive adequate repetition of words in the word-attack portion of the lesson, the teacher's role as guide is generally reduced. In summary, Decoding C bridges the gap between a carefully controlled and directed presentation and an independent one in which vocabulary and syntax have not been screened. The program exposes students to new vocabulary words and new kinds of comprehension items. Oral reading practice continues throughout the program to provide the teacher with a means of assessing students' reading accuracy. The scope of the reading material expands as students progress through the program, and the amount of silent reading and independent work increases. Students who are carefully taught will complete the program with decoding skills that will allow them to read a variety of fictional and expository materials.

Who it’s for.

Decoding C is designed for relatively poor readers in grades 3 through 12. The program is appropriate for students who understand English and whose scores on the Corrective Reading placement test indicate that they 51 belong in the program. Decoding C is not appropriate for students who do not speak any English, or whose grasp of English is quite weak. Extensive use of Decoding C has demonstrated that the program works effectively with students who traditionally would be identified as learning disabled, educationally handicapped, or perceptually handicapped. As long as students demonstrate the skill level necessary to enter the program, they may be placed in the program. Finally, students who meet the rate and accuracy criteria at the end of Decoding B2 qualify for this program. There is no need to re-administer the placement test to these students unless the test is used as a criterion referenced mastery measure.

What is taught

The skills taught in Decoding C are word attack, selection reading, and comprehension. The following activities are included in Word Attack Exercises.

• A review of words containing sound combinations such as th, oa, ea, ai, ou, ar, ir, er, ur, igh, oi, tion, c(e,i), g(e,i)
• Introduction of the sound combinations ure, aw, au, tial, cial • Introduction of the meaning of more than 400 vocabulary words • Introduction of the meaning of the affixes ex, ly, un, re, dis, pre, tri, sub, less, ness, able
• Practice in reading words containing the various sound combinations and affixes
• Practice in writing complex words as root words plus affixes

The following activities provide practice in selection-reading skills.

• Reading selections that give specific factual information on a particular topic
• Reading selections that are fictional
• Reading selections that contain a high percentage of new words
• Reading selections from magazines, newspapers, and other sources

The following activities provide practice in comprehension skills.

• Answering orally presented comprehension questions about the selections that are read
• Writing answers to a variety of comprehension questions, including both literal and inferential items

The materials

The materials for Decoding C consist of this Teacher's Guide, two Teacher Presentation Books with answers for the student Workbook, a non-consumable Student Book, and a consumable student Workbook. This guide contains basic information about the program and specific information for presenting exercises and correcting mistakes. The Guide also includes a copy of the Decoding Placement Rest (Appendix A), a Scope and Sequence Chart (Appendix B), a list of Behavioural Objectives (Appendix C), an alphabetical Glossary of Defined Words (Appendix D), and a Skills Profile Chart (Appendix E). Teacher Presentation Book Cl covers Lessons 1-60; Book C2 covers Lessons 61-125. Both books contain a glossary of defined words. The Teacher Presentation Books contain a script for each lesson. Scripts specify what you say and do and how students are to respond. This blue type indicates what you say. (This type indicates what you do.) This italic type shows the students' response. The following sample from Lesson 26 demonstrates how the type is used.

So what are the issues in reading comprehension emphasised by the National Reading Panel? Evidence indicates that, in order to be able to read, children must be able to decode text, translating it into a speech form, but children must also be able to understand spoken language if they are to understand what they decode. From the results of the National Reading Panel, at: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.htm

Comprehension has come to be viewed as “the essence of reading ” (Durkin, 1993). This knowledge a reader brings with him enables the reader to make meaning of the text, to form memory representations of these meanings, and to use them to communicate with others information about what was read. Readers normally acquire strategies for active comprehension informally. Comprehension strategies are specific procedures that guide students to become aware of how well they are comprehending as they attempt to read and write. Explicit or formal instruction on these strategies is believed to lead to improvement in text understanding and information use. Instruction in comprehension strategies is carried out by a classroom teacher who demonstrates, models, or guides the reader on their acquisition and use. When these procedures have been acquired, the reader becomes independent of the teacher. Using them, the reader can effectively interact with the text without assistance. Readers who are not explicitly taught these procedures are unlikely to learn, develop, or use them spontaneously.

Cognitive strategies for improving reading comprehension Comprehension strategies are procedures that guide students as they attempt to read and write. For example, a reader may be taught to generate questions about the text as it is read. These questions are of the why, what, how, when, or where-variety; and by generating and trying to answer them, the reader processes the text more actively. The value of cognitive strategies in comprehension instruction is, first, their usefulness in the development of instructional procedures, and second, the learning of these procedures by students as an aid in their reading and learning, independent of the teacher.

Typically, instruction of cognitive strategies employed during reading consists of:

1. The development of an awareness and understanding of the reader ’ own cognitive processes that are amenable to instruction and learning 2. A teacher guiding the reader or modeling for the reader the actions that the reader can take to enhance the comprehension processes used during reading

3. The reader practising those strategies with the teacher assisting until the reader achieves a gradual internalization and independent mastery of those processes (Palinscar & Brown, 1984; Paris & Oka, 1986; Pressley et al., 1994).

Durkin ’s (1979) highly cited observational studies of reading instruction in grade 4 showed that most teachers, in fact, spent little time on comprehension instruction. Only 20 minutes of comprehension instruction was observed in 4,469 minutes of reading instruction. This lack was echoed by Duffy, Lanier, and Roehler (1980). They described teachers as spending time in assigning activities, supervising and monitoring students as to being on task, directing recitation sessions as a way of assessing what the students were doing, and providing corrective feedback when the students erred. The teachers did not teach or show the students’ skills, strategies, or processes that they could use in reading to comprehend what they read and to be successful in learning information in the text.

The Panel identified 453 studies on comprehension. The seven individual strategies that appear to be effective and most promising for classroom instruction are (in alphabetical order) comprehension monitoring, cooperative learning, graphic and organizers including story maps, question answering, question generation, and summarization. In addition, many of these strategies semantic have also been effectively used in the category “multiple strategy, ”where readers and teachers interact over texts. “Becoming an effective transactional strategies instruction teacher takes several years ”(Brown et al., 1996, p. 20). “The data suggests that students at all skill levels would benefit from being taught these strategies” (Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996, p. 201). Reading comprehension improvement occurs when teachers demonstrate, explain, model, and implement interaction with students in teaching them how to comprehend a text. In studies involving even a few hours of preparation, instructors taught students who were poor readers but adequate decoders to apply various strategies to expository texts in reading groups, with a teacher demonstrating, guiding, or modeling the strategies, and with teacher scaffolding (e. g., Palinscar & Brown, 1984; see Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996 for a review). Students using these strategies, even in limited ways, produced noticeable improvement in the use of the instructed strategies, albeit with only modest improvement on standardized reading tests (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). More intensive instruction and modeling have been more successful in improving reading and standardized test scores (Bereiter & Bird, 1985; Block, 1993; Brown et al., 1996). Many of the studies involve teaching one group of students a particular cognitive strategy to use while reading. These studies show that readers can learn a strategy and use it effectively in improving their comprehension. Reading, however, requires the coordinated and flexible use of several different kinds of strategies. Considerable success has been found in improving comprehension by instructing students on the use of more than one strategy during the course of reading. Skilled reading involves an ongoing adaptation of multiple cognitive processes. Becoming an independent, self-regulated, thinking reader is a goal that can be achieved through instruction of text comprehension (Brown et al., 1996).

How well has the knowledge gleaned from research filtered into the classroom to impact teachers actual practice? In spite of apparent effectiveness, teachers may not be using effective comprehension instruction strategies without having themselves had preparation in instruction (Anderson, 1992; Bramlett, 1994; Brown, 1996; Duffy, 1993; Durkin, 1979; Pressley, Johnson, Symons, McGoldrick, & Kurita, 1989; Pressley, 1998; Reutzel and Cooter, 1988) Durkin (1981) observed that when comprehension skill instruction is present, in many classrooms teachers appear to be “mentioning ”a skill to students and “assigning ”it to them rather than employing the effective instruction modeling and transactional practices that research supports (Durkin, 1981; Reutzel & Cotter, 1988). In general, students were provided with opportunities to practice comprehension strategies, but were not actually taught the strategies themselves nor the utility value of applying them (Pressley, 1998, p. 198).

Who are the students who have serious problems in comprehension strategies?

They are the students who struggle with most aspects of their schooling. Their problems are usually not confined to reading. They do not follow instructions. They have a poor memory for information. They struggle to repeat sentences. They don’t understand or employ logic in arguments. Their vocabulary is limited. Motivation is not their strength.

Does a given child have only a decoding problem, or is his decoding ability actually commensurate with his other language skills? That is, he may have comprehension problems generally. Stanovich (1988) describes the dyslexic child as one with a severe phonological problem, but (initially at least) no other language difficulties. He contrasts this child with the garden variety reading-problem student, who shares the phonological problem (though perhaps to a lesser extent) with his dyslexic colleague, but who also has other language difficulties, such as language comprehension, vocabulary, short-term memory, or attentional problems. The rationale for making such a discrimination revolves around the instructional decisions that need to be made consequent upon the assessment. For the dyslexic child, there is considerable consensus in the research community that the deficit lies in the area of phonological processing (Elbro, Nielsen, & Petersen, 1994; Yap & Van Der Leij, 1993), and that the intervention focus needs to be at the level of word decoding. Consistent with research findings (Adams, 1990), our best RMIT Clinic results have come from reading programs that have a strong phonic emphasis and involve explicit instruction (Foorman, 1995; Perfetti, 1992) - such as the Corrective Reading Program - Decoding strand. The garden variety reading problem is also addressable by the same program, at least at the decoding level. This is a valuable intervention to introduce, as the increased facility for decoding reduces the attentional requirements 54 needed at the level of print-decoding, thus freeing up valuable attentional capacity for the task of comprehension. However, this group of students may also need assistance with the comprehension of what they decoded, and additional intervention should be considered simultaneously with, or perhaps after, the decoding program. The Corrective Reading Program - Comprehension strand is a program that has been successfully used in primary and secondary settings and by parents (Clunies-Ross, 1990; Noon & Maggs, 1980) for this purpose. The deceptively simple way to discriminate between these two (dyslexic and garden variety) groups of students is to compare their attainment on a reading comprehension task to that on a listening comprehension task. The Brigance Comprehensive Inventory Of Basic Skills has the capacity to provide such a comparison, with its reading comprehension and listening comprehension subtests (up to Year 9). This technique is now considered by many researchers as the most appropriate method of discriminating these two groups since the discrepancy defined dyslexia model has fallen from favour in recent times. In this previous approach, dyslexia was assessed by the presence of a discrepancy between a child’s intelligence and his reading attainment. However, it is now increasingly recognized that intelligence is far from perfectly correlated with reading. Stanovich (1992) calculated a median correlation of 0.34 across 14 studies involving 26 measures whose correlations ranged from 0.10 to 0.66. The range of correlations relate to the choice of intellectual and reading tests. The lower figures are more likely when the reading measure has a strong word-decoding emphasis, and the higher figures when comprehension is the major focus. Given this only moderate correlation, any discrepancy may be more reasonably considered a normal statistical variation than a specific neurological deficit. More recently, the Spadafore Diagnostic Reading Test (1983) has been employed in the RMIT Clinic, as it is normed to Year 12.

Further, it is noted that the development of literacy is closely intertwined with the development of intelligence (Stanovich, 1993). That is, the continued normal development of intelligence may rely on an adequate volume of reading. This assertion may be difficult to accept, but vocabulary development and higher-order comprehension skills are best advanced through reading (Nagy & Anderson, 1984) once the beginning stages are passed. Thus, as children with reading difficulties grow older, their lack of reading could be expected to reduce the initial gap between intelligence and attainment. That is, over time, dyslexic students measured intelligence may come to more closely resemble that of their garden-variety colleagues, as problems additional to the phonological core develop (Stanovich, 1988a). Sadly, the intelligent under-achiever may appear to become less intelligent because of our educational system's failure to adequately address his needs at the critical early stage. The other major problem with discrepancy-defined dyslexia is that a different group (between 2%-35% of the population) is described by different intelligence tests, and through different subtest-analysis. For example, there has been debate over whether verbal or performance (or both) scales should be used - the use of one over the other certainly defines a different group as dyslexic. There is also disagreement over how large a discrepancy (eg 1, 1.66, or 2 SD) is needed for a diagnosis of dyslexia; over the minimum intelligence level needed for a dyslexia classification; and, over the type of reading test chosen to define the reading deficit.

Given the slippery nature of such assessment choices, it is unsurprising that such a model is falling from favour, although it still has currency in some educational circles. Comparing the results of listening comprehension to reading comprehension also makes intuitive sense, because listening comprehension tasks are much more closely related to reading than are the more global tasks involved in intellectual assessment. It offers the capacity to define those children who have a major problem only at the level of print. They will perform well on the listening comprehension tasks, using their impressive general language skills to answer questions about a story read to them. On the reading comprehension task however, they will do relatively poorly as their under-developed decoding skills prevent them bringing into play their well developed general language skills. When required to decode a passage unassisted, they struggle, as did their garden-variety peers. On the other hand, the garden-variety students would be expected to perform similarly on both tasks. Their reading problems are general rather than specific, and they may not have any particular reading subskill restricting their development. Their decoding skill is commensurate with their other language skills, such that if they know the meaning of a word (or phrase, or sentence), they can comprehend it whether it is presented orally or in print. The consequence for the high LC (listening comprehension)-low RC (reading comprehension) child should be intensive assistance at the decoding level. For the low LC-Low RC child, intensive assistance at both the decoding and comprehension levels is indicated.

Other possible outcomes are high LC-high RC, a result predictable from an all-round good reader; and low LC high RC, a rare result, possibly from a student with acute attentional, hearing, or short-term memory problems. In this case, the permanence of text would allow the student to use his intact language comprehension skills, whereas the ephemeral nature of the spoken story precludes such access. Hyperlexic students (a rare sub-group with excellent word recognition, but poor reading comprehension) would not be detected by this discrepancy analysis, because their listening comprehension parallels their reading comprehension (Sparks, 1995). This LC-RC discrepancy represents an alternative definition of the group known as dyslexic; however, as with the IQ discrepancy-defined dyslexic, an issue is how great a discrepancy should be considered significant. Some (including the RMIT Clinic) have considered two years to be very significant (Anderson, 1991) given the extent of commonality of the tasks; although this is clearly an arbitrary figure, its significance being higher the younger the age of the child. As the term dyslexia is unlikely to disappear (at least in the short term), and parents almost always ask questions about it, the Clinic policy is to make use of the listening comprehension-reading comprehension discrepancy in discussions with parents. This is its major value since the techniques employed include systematic phonics whether the difficulty is described as dyslexic or garden-variety. The dyslexic classification does, however sensitize clinicians to the possibility that dyslexic students may be more treatment resistant (Berninger & Abbott, 1994) than garden-variety students, and some may also require additional direct phonemic awareness instruction if they do not make early and sustained progress with a systematic phonics program.

How do we go about teaching comprehension separately?

Is it right to separate comprehension from decoding?

In Gough’s view states reading has two components: decoding and linguistic comprehension. Poor readers are either poor in decoding, poor in linguistic ability, or poor in both. It is called the Simple View of reading and reading disability (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) and has received much support in both reading development theory and in research into instruction. The following principle was distilled from the findings of more than 30 years of research studies under two very expensive federally funded programs: the $1 billion Project Follow Through Study, and the $200 million in studies conducted under the direction of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). “Teach decoding and comprehension skills separately until reading becomes fluent. Both instructional activities should occur, but decoding and comprehension instruction should be taught separately while students are still learning to decode. Comprehension skills learned through teacher-read literature can be applied to students' own reading once they become fluent decoders.” Beyond decoding, the reader must: Activate relevant background knowledge; Employ comprehension strategies (summarizing, predicting, clarifying, questioning); Apply critical thinking; Know what words mean.

The Corrective Reading Comprehension strand is a viable program for these students For students who read without understanding, the Corrective Reading Comprehension programs develop vocabulary, information, and comprehension strategies needed for academic success.

Who are the students who lack comprehension skills?

• They do not understand the language concepts (vocabulary, common facts, and grammar) underlying much of the material being taught in classrooms.
• They don’t retain information that is presented to them 1. can’t repeat sentences they hear 2. difficulty in following oral instructions • They read passively
• They have trouble with deductions
• They are not able to work independently
• They are unmotivated

This program helps underachieving readers develop higher-order thinking and reasoning tactics used by successful readers—applying prior knowledge, making inferences, and analyzing evidence.

Placement test at: http://www.sraonline.com/index.php/home/curriculumsolutions/di/correctivereading/placetestcomp/664 Lessons incorporate information from science, social studies, and other content areas to build general knowledge and develop study skills.

Level A: Thinking Basics (65 lessons) teaches basic reasoning skills that form the framework for learning information. It also fills crucial gaps in students' background knowledge. Students who place in Comprehension A

• do not understand the concepts underlying much of the material being taught in classrooms.
• do not have well-developed recitation skills.
• cannot repeat sentences they hear, so they have trouble retaining and answering questions about information that is presented.
• don't even understand the material when it is presented orally.

Level B: Comprehension Skills (B1, 60 lessons; B2, 65 lessons) teaches literal and inferential comprehension strategies.

Students who place in Comprehension B

• lack some common basic information, such as how many months are in a year.
• deficient in thinking operations, though more advanced than Level A • make about fifteen errors on the Placement Test.
• miss the difficult statement-repetition items and some of the information items.
• trouble identifying how things are the same,
• have trouble with the deductions that involve "maybe."

Level C: Concept Applications (140 lessons) teaches students to use thinking skills independently. Students who place in Comprehension C

• can draw deductions, make inferences, and respond to specific instructions.
• do not yet have a facility for working independently

The Corrective Reading programs are available from McGraw Hill. Ph. 9836 7061. The contacts in NSW are Betty Ratcliffe 0411 599 820, and Cally Moores 0411 599 934; in QLD Leona Greer, 0411 599 927 Training is available from Claire Scott, Training Enhancement for Schools, Teachers and Students (TESTS), 9889 3527

Some issues for schools in the implementation of Corrective Reading Establishing DI programs

At the secondary level, students are often assessed in their final year of primary school and those considered at risk (i.e., are expected to have difficulty with secondary text books) are offered assistance through the Reading Program in place of their English Program or their LOTE program, or simply every day for period X regardless of what the timetable indicates. For other subjects they are part of the regular program. There are costs and benefits to each approach. However careful evaluations of the Corrective Reading program over the years have consistently demonstrated the success of the approach. The evaluations often includes formal pre and post testing, parent questionnaires and teacher comments. It has been generally accepted by school communities that the benefits have outweighed the costs.  After the initial whole class screen (often with a group test like the Progressive Achievement Test, ACER), those seen as at risk are provided with the Corrective Reading program Placement Test Decoding: http://www.sraonline.com/index.php/home/curriculumsolutions/di/correctivereading/placetestdecoding/663

For any given student, the possible outcomes of such assessments are:

1. the student’s current decoding skill levels are below those of the lowest level of the program (Level A), and would be best addressed with a beginning reading program, such as “The Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons program available from the RMIT, Bundoora bookshop. Phone (03) 9925 7237. More information is available from one of the author’s webpage at http://www.startreading.com .

2. the student is appropriate for placement in one of the four program levels, or

3. the student has already mastered the decoding skills taught at the upper level, and any reading deficits are probably not in the area of decoding.

The average reading lag of students coming arriving at secondary school with reading problems is about 3 years and it is unlikely that will they have independence after completing Level B – though it does allow them to (a) more readily decode unfamiliar words than previously and (b) develop good automatic recognition of irregular words. One of the desired outcomes of Level C is improved ability to manage texts from other subjects, and to cope with the large number of irregular and technical words they are increasingly required to address.

It should be remembered that the Decoding B & C programs focus primarily on students who have lacked word attack skills - who have read so haltingly and so inaccurately that they were prevented from comprehending what they read. While their word attack skills after Level C would then be adequate for comprehension, many of the students still lack basic word knowledge and so may not show good comprehension of orally presented or written material. They are then in a position to improve in those areas through the regular English program, through encouragement for them to read a wide range of literature (from trucking magazines to classics) and through an awareness by subject teachers that these students continue to have needs in the area of comprehension, spelling, syntax, and expressive writing skills.

Where to for these students?

An issue for schools is whether to continue upon completion of one program level for any given group. Some schools consider that all needy children should have an opportunity to participate; whereas, others prefer to follow the same cohort through several levels. The issue is a vexed one when resources are insufficient to meet the longer term needs of all the students. Felton (1993) made the point that, for disabled learners, several years of Direct Instruction may be necessary before they are able to make adequate progress in reading without requiring additional educational assistance. This is particularly so for secondary students who have a long history of failure, and whose reading problems have impaired their vocabulary development compared to that of their peers. One measure which may assist schools in determining which students should be in the continuers group involves consideration of reading volume. The students who participate in the program are likely to have done much less reading than their more facile peers, and evidence as to any increase in the volume of reading undertaken by the students may be valuable. Stanovich (1986) pointed to the effect of volume of reading on reading progress, and it may be that a mediating variable between program conclusion and the need for further intervention resides in the amount of reading subsequently performed. The likelihood of students reverting to poor reading strategies is unknown, but is a hazard when an intervention does not include a longitudinal component. It is possible for students to develop strong word attack strategies and to make progress in reading generally, but for such skills to have little or no impact on day to day reading, or to lose its impact after program completion.

It is for this reason that the continuous within-program tests of rate and accuracy should be important elements in the overall evaluation of program success. There are clear behavioural objectives to be achieved by the end of the program. For example, by the end of Level A students are expected to be reading the daily stories and regular mastery tests at a rate of 60 words per minute at a specified error rate, and for Level B1, 90 words per minute. It is not possible to meet those speed and accuracy criteria if the reader adopts contextual cues, partial word cues, or word shape analysis strategies. Thus, the program does prompt the practice of effective reading strategies. These may be strengthened by within-school and home-based programs designed to promote and monitor increased reading volume in the post-program period. Regular subsequent assessment could be used to 58 ascertain the degree to which student progress in reading can be achieved independently for any given student. Some students may have reached the independence level (self-teaching) described by Share (1995); whereas the progress of other students may stall, indicating the need for a further program level. At last count there were more than 350 schools in Victoria having one or more Direct Instruction programs in reading, spelling, language, maths, and writing. Of these, about 60 are secondary schools, and about 100 Catholic. Whilst most schools continue the programs’ usage because of their excellent results it is also pleasing to note that there is a wider body of research evidence to support their usage.

What are the limits of instructional influence on progress?

The instructional emphasis expressed in the Corrective Reading program does not preclude the acknowledgement that causes of failure can reside within the individual, but allows for the possibility of resolving problems by manipulating instruction regardless of the source of the difficulty. There are a number of elements within the Direct Instruction programs that may have the effect of enhancing student progress. For example, the within program attention to student responses allows for the identification of difficulties at the time they occur, rather than at the program’s conclusion. In particular, the program requirements for repeating tasks until mastery is achieved, of monitoring each student’s responses and their daily rate and accuracy checks - should be examined when considering any student’s failure to progress. The mastery tests provided for the program (usually at mid-point and conclusion) also provide a safeguard against a student’s failure remaining unobserved throughout the program. Even motivational/attentional variations are addressable through the incentive program integral to the Corrective Reading program. There are several safeguards against failure addressed by the program. One involves information provided to teachers on how best to react to any incorrect student responses detected during the lesson. There are clear scripted correction procedures specific to different tasks, designed to redirect students to the appropriate response. It typically involves an instantaneous correction sequence in which the teacher models the correct response, leads the student through the correct response, and finally tests the student for the correct response. Teachers are exhorted at the conclusion of most teaching routines to repeat until firm. This is designed to provide additional practice when errors are noted, the practice intended to reduce error incidence in the future. If errors are continually made by the same one or two students, the teacher is faced with a dilemma - to slow the pace of the lesson, provide more practice of each task for the entire class, or, to continue at the pace comfortable to most of the class, and hope that the stragglers at least derive some benefit.

A more humane, though resource expensive option is to coopt an aide or parent volunteer to pre-teach each lesson prior to the regular group lesson. This allows for individually appropriate pacing, tailored to the student’s need, and allows the student to continue a rate of progress in concert with his peers during the group session. Usually this double-teaming has the effect of supporting the student in the critical early stages of foundation skill development, improving the student’s adaptation to the program structure, and increasing the student’s confidence to respond with the group. In the author’s experience a short burst of this added assistance allows for successful return to reliance on the group instruction alone. Another instructional decision point occurs when most of the group makes an incorrect response. In this case, the teacher should examine instructional variables. Some of the candidates could be faulty (perhaps ambiguous) presentation, overly rapid lesson pacing, and, the presence or absence of pre-skills necessary for correct responding during the current task.

What is program fidelity?

The major issue arising from the above discussion is the emphasis on instructional considerations in any attempts to increase the breadth of a program’s success. Both the early detection of problems (monitoring) and the planned response to detected problems should be critical foci in such attempts. As the Corrective Reading program was carefully designed to allow continuous monitoring of student progress, a failure to present the 59 curriculum in the prescribed manner (if the deviations are deleterious) should become readily apparent. Some of the deviations noted by the author in schools merely comprise unnecessarily verbose explanations, or interesting but largely irrelevant excursions into other topics. These minor deviations may detract from the elegance of the design, thus reducing efficiency, but they are unlikely to jeopardise outcomes for students. Other departures from the prescribed program such as omitting some elements, for example, individual turn taking, or specific exercises or tasks, may have a significant effect on the average group progress (if the departures are severe). Alternatively, the modifications may interfere with the progress of some (probably the most vulnerable) students, for it is the most vulnerable students who adapt least easily to ambiguous or incomplete instructional sequences. The early detection of difficulties in any given student is critical to the achievement of broadband success.

The program designers argue that the Corrective Reading program is an individual program, but presented in a group format. For this efficiency to succeed, the teacher must observe each student’s responses by first ensuring that choral responding is precise, thus enabling the detection and teacher correction of incorrect responses. The teacher also requires well-developed powers of observation to systematically attend to each response of each student. The extent to which teachers can do this successfully depends upon several factors, such as hearing acuity, ability and determination to ensure their students achieve truly choral responding, and the group size. The teachers’ manuals recommend group sizes of 15 or less. In the author’s experience, inexperienced Direct Instruction teachers should reduce the number to below 10 until they become more skilled. The vigilance provided by teachers in attending to student responses is a major defence against any student’s failure in the program. Given that there can be students who do not progress as hoped, this may be an area in which additional training and monitoring of teachers should be a priority. Several elements of program fidelity appear critical. In a cumulative curriculum, it is essential that all tasks are mastered if students (especially the vulnerable) are to make progress. The in-built continuous progress evaluation is valuable in detecting quickly individual or group difficulty at any point. It is through these program features that problems of progress resistance can be addressed, and hence students spared the fate of participating in an ineffectual educational process. In the long term, it may be that individual programming, enabling appropriate and immediate response to student difficulty, can more precisely be delivered through the use of computer-based interactive videodisc in conjunction with voice recognition software. In such a scheme, variations in student learning rates could be effectively and efficiently compensated for through differential presentation rates, error correction, and massed and spaced practice. Student responses could then determine the lesson structure that would, in turn, be capable of adjustment as the needs of the student alter.

Other program characteristics and effectiveness

There is a consensus that the earlier the intervention for at-risk learners the more rapid and widespread is the success; however, in secondary schools, the students have already experienced some years of reading failure, and the habit of employing ineffective strategies for reading is firmly ingrained. The effects of resistance born of failure can form obstacles to progress at least as difficult to overcome as the original source of the reading difficulty. For this reason, the Corrective Reading program includes a motivational system based on assigning points for maintaining speed and error limits. Teachers’ comments suggest that this element of the program should not be underestimated in making judgements about which are the program’s most effective elements. Numerous positive comments have been made about the student enjoyment and increased on-task behaviour attributable to the points system. Additionally, the system has helped to capture the cooperation of many students initially negative about being involved in the program. One difficulty evident in much of the reading research involves ensuring students transfer their newly developed knowledge and skills to the task of everyday reading. For this to occur, the students need to notice that the new strategies are superior to the old 60 An element contributing to the impressive gains no doubt involves the time and intensity of the intervention. Longer interventions allow for greater content coverage and adequate practice, though of course there is no guarantee that all intervention designs specifically incorporate such effective teaching characteristics. Program intensity involves a combination of lesson length, lesson density, and lesson frequency. Lesson length for the Corrective Reading program is about 40 minutes. This period allows for a reasonable content coverage in each session and for the integration of new knowledge into the existing structure. As the programs involve a cumulative sub-skills approach to reading comprehension - the introduction of new skills, the practice of recently acquired skills and the amalgamation of these with the already-established core - requires careful lesson planning and sufficient time for this amalgamation to occur.

Program density involves the extent to which students are actively engaged in learning during the lesson time. Various concepts such as time on task, academic engaged time, and academic learning time have been employed to address the issue of student engagement. An observational study by Allington, Stuetzel, Shake, and Lamarche (1986) noted that typically only about one third of the time allocated to remedial reading instruction was actually spent in direct reading activities, the rest consumed by management issues, waiting, transition, and absence from the room. One way of promoting student engagement is to plan for overt responses. When students are producing overt responses it is apparent that students are participating, and their learning can be monitored. The additional advantage of overt responses involves the opportunity to provide corrective feedback. Another element of lesson density involves the proportion of correct to incorrect responses. Students who struggle with reading require high rates of success if they are to adopt new strategies, transfer new skills across tasks, and persevere with the new strategies. Teachers in this study have commented on the high success rates achieved daily through careful lesson design, and student placement at the appropriate program level. The author has counted 300 responses from a student in a 10 minute word attack segment of a Corrective Reading program lesson. This represents a very high intensity of participation; additionally, the success rate was very high, above 90%. Lesson frequency appears to be important, perhaps because of the need for spaced practice of newly mastered skills. It has been noted that students, particularly those at-risk, readily forget what they have learned when lesson frequency is too low. If this occurs, additional time is spent in relearning rather than in incorporation activities. Frustration and disengagement are the possible negative outcome of under-scheduling. The program guidelines recommend five lessons per week, although this may not achieved by all schools. Most schools allow for five sessions per week, but almost inevitably other priorities intrude. These usually involve activities such as school swimming programs and other sports, visiting guests and excursions. Often a period of school holidays (either 2 or 6 weeks) interrupts the lesson sequence. The effect of variable frequency impacts most notably on the students most at-risk. They are the students most likely to lose hard-won gains through forgetting. The total contact hours are also relevant. Each level of the Corrective Reading program entails about 50 hours of instruction.

Program fidelity: Teacher training

The Direct Instruction model as explicated in the massive Follow Through experiment paid significant attention to the issue of fidelity of implementation. The designers’ examination of implementation research had found moderate to high correlations between student outcome and degree of adherence to prescribed procedures (Engelmann, Becker, Carnine, & Gersten, 1988). The training program for their teachers involved several elements: presenting the rationale, demonstrating technique, providing practice and feedback in response to teacher performance, and, observing real classes - weekly for the first four months, then fortnightly. That process may take a year overall, with the level of complexity of the skills to be introduced increasing over that period. In examining the training modules it is evident that the model of teacher training adopted by the designers involves the same direct instruction principles as underlie the student skill development programs. In the design of the delivery system, the focus was on those teacher behaviours that resulted in optimum student achievement. This concern for detail mirrored the designers’ approach to field testing instructional routines also. In that process, theoretical principles of instructional design drove the initial development of content, but it was 61 multiple-setting field testing that determined the final design. For example, the Corrective Reading program (Level B Decoding) underwent nine revisions before publication (Hanner & Engelmann, 1984). Engelmann (1988) argues that the average teacher would need to practise an exercise in a reading program at least a dozen times before the fluent orchestration of component presentation and correction skills is attained. These skills involve comfortable and facile use of the specified teacher wording, using lesson pacing appropriate to the example and to the student group, using signals in an unambiguous and natural manner, and providing adequate (but not excessive) reinforcement. In his view, this practice and associated feedback should not take place in the classroom but in less complex settings such as “dummy” runs with colleagues, etc. Such practice is considered important as a beneficial precursor (though not sufficient) to the transfer of training to the real world of the classroom.

Engelmann’s experience has been that, without safeguards, less than 30% of the skills practised (outside the classroom) will be evident subsequently in classrooms. Thus, the provision of in vivo coaching was found to be especially important for the acquisition of skill. This is unsurprising given the increased salience of observing a model performance in one’s own classroom. Glang and Gersten (1987) commented on the value for teachers in seeing how their own students responded to the expert instructional techniques presented by the visiting supervisor. Unfortunately, this level of support is rarely available in our educational settings.

Within program controls

In most schools, it has not been possible to provide the intensity and duration of teacher-training recommended by the authors. It has been noted in other studies that program fidelity can be a major contributor to the success or otherwise of an intervention. Schneider, Kuspert, Ruth, Vise, and Marx (1997) found that whilst differences in focus and duration (time allotted daily and overall program length) had a significant effect on outcome; so did the degree of pre-program and within-program teacher training have a significant influence on the degree of success experienced by students. A major difference in implementing the Corrective Reading program compared to most experimenter-developed curricula involves the extent of within-program control of curriculum and delivery. The programs used in this study are very prescriptive - the teacher making few judgements about curriculum issues. The content and delivery are scripted, and the teachers’ role is relatively transparent. The teachers’ skill revolves around classroom management, task presentation, and response monitoring (making decisions about the degree of repetition needed, or the need for error correction).

Thus, one source of variation in “loose” programs may involve limitations due to the under-developed teaching abilities of some teachers. Another source in programs that provide only general lesson plans (or even less structured, topic areas) is the variation in the manner in which different teachers may choose to present the curriculum - the degree of teacher directed vs. self directed learning, the amount of massed and spaced practice, and the error correction opportunities, for example. Such variables are known to impact on student outcomes, and variation at this level can be confounded with the effects of program content. The level of prescription in the Direct Instruction programs is valuable in reducing, though not eliminating, teacher differences. It has been noted that there is usually reasonable consistency of results across different schools in the sense that the effects tend to be described as large by most schools. This suggests that the designers’ intent of reducing the impact of teacher differences has been achieved to some extent. This is a non trivial finding as the requirement of training in some programs has been a significant added cost to be considered in conjunction with program effectiveness. For example, in the Foorman et al. (1997) studies, teacher training involved between 30 and 90 hours initially, and subsequent twice monthly lesson observation. It is possible that an increased level of initial training and subsequent monitoring of teacher presentation skills can increase student achievement levels. It is also possible that as teachers become more experienced their effectiveness increases. However, the reported improvements evoked by teachers who are inexperienced in the program are educationally and educationally significant at the current low levels of support, an important finding in the real world of inadequate funding. Pressley and Beard El-Dinary (1997) make the point that designers 62 cannot afford to be too precious when their excellent results are not replicated because schools fail to exactly duplicate the procedures used in the evaluation studies. An important question for any program being considered by a school is the degree to which it is robust to changes in its content or delivery across a range of settings.

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking & learning about print. Cambridge, M.A: MIT Press.

Allington, R. L., Stuetzel, H., Shake, M., & Lamarche, S. (1986). What is remedial reading? A descriptive study. Reading Research and Instruction, 26(1), 15-30.

Anderson, V. (1991). The neuropsychology of learning disabilities: Assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Melbourne.

Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (1994). Redefining learning disabilities. Moving beyond aptitude-achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment protocols. In G. Reid Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities. New views on measurement issues. Maryland: Brooks Publishing.

Brigance, A. H. (1992). Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills. Aust: Hawker Brownlow.

Clunies-Ross, G. (1990). Some effects of direct instruction in comprehension skills with sixth grade students. Behaviour Change, 7, 84-89.

Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Elbro, C., Nielsen, I., & Petersen, D. K. (1994). Dyslexia in adults: Evidence for deficits in non-word reading and in the phonological representation of lexical items. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 205-226.

Engelmann, S. (1988). The logic and facts of effective supervision. Education & Treatment of Children, 11(4), 328-340.

Engelmann, S., Becker, W. C., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1988). The Direct Instruction Follow Through model: Design and outcomes. Education and Treatment of Chidren, 11(4), 303-317.

Engelmann, S., Hanner, S., & Johnson, G. (1988). Corrective Reading: Decoding A. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Engelmann, S., Johnson, G., Carnine, L., Meyer, L., Becker, W., & Eisele, J. (1988). Corrective Reading: Decoding B1, B2. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Engelmann, S., Meyer, L., Johnson, G., Carnine, L. (1988). Corrective Reading: Decoding C. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Foorman, B. R. (1995). Research on "the great debate" code-oriented versus whole language approaches to reading instruction. School Psychology Review, 24, 376-392.

Foorman, B., Francis, D., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 63-71.

Glang, A., & Gersten, R. (1987, Winter). Coaching teachers. Direct Instruction News, pp. 1, 4, 5, 7.

Hanner, S., & Engelmann, S. (1984, May). Learner verification for the Corrective Reading Program. AADI Newsletter, 3-5.

Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304-330.

Noon, L., & Maggs, A. (1980). Accelerating written language processes in normal and gifted children: Direct instruction strategies and sequences. Reading Education, 5, 11-26.

Perfetti, C. A. (1992). Introduction. In N. N. Singh & I .L. Beale (Eds), Learning disabilities: Nature, theory and treatment. New York: Springer-Verlag

Pressley, M. & Beard El-Dinary, P. (1997). What we know about translating comprehension-strategies instruction research into practice, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 486-488.

Schneider, W., Kuspert, P., Roth, E., & Vise, M. (1997). Short and long term effects of training phonological awareness in kindergarten: Evidence from two German studies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66, 311-340.

Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151-218.

Spadafore, G. J. (1983). Spadafore Diagnostic Reading Test. CA: Academic Therapy Publications.

Sparks, R. L. (1995). Phonemic awareness in hyperlexic children. Reading and Writing: An Inter-disciplinary Journal, 7, 217-235.

Stanovich, K. E. (1988a). The right & wrong places to look for the cognitive locus of reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 154-157.

Stanovich, K. E. (1988b). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590-612.

Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Speculation on the causes and consequences of individual differences in early reading acquisition. In Phillip P. Gough, Linnea C Ehri, & Rebecca Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition. (pp.307-341) USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stanovich, K. E. (1993). Does reading make you smarter? Literacy and the development of intelligence. Advances in Child Development and Behaviour, 24, 133-179. 63

Yap, R., & Van Der Leij, A. (1993). Word processing in dyslexics: An automatic decoding deficit? Reading and Writing: An Inter-disciplinary Journal, 5, 261-279.

My Wishlist

1. Early screening and identification of beginning or late kinder students 2. Teach phonemic awareness informally in Kindergarten (or preschool) 3. Provide intensive phonemic awareness teaching to those not progressing

4. Adopt a phonics-first emphasis to reading instruction – providing small group assistance to those slow to progress

5. Assess all students in school (primary and secondary) with mass screening, e.g., Progressive Achievement Comprehension Test (ACER) 6. Provide daily reading instruction for struggling students from Year 3 to secondary school with the appropriate level of the Corrective Reading program

A Blueprint For A Multi-Level Approach To Literacy

Become involved in language activities with the families of children prior to school Provide a cascading level of support to parents of young children – from informal tip sheets to one-on-one interventions. Schools liaise with feeder kindergartens to enable dovetailing of objectives and programs Include phonemic awareness activities in kindergarten programs Make contact with the parents of struggling readers before the younger siblings arrive Screen all students prior to school entry on phonemic awareness and letter sounds/names. Make literacy the school’s highest priority Involve all available resources – teachers, parents, volunteers, retirees, grandparents Include research-supported instruction in beginning reading in Prep grade – emphasise phonemic awareness and phonics outside of the literature segments of the literacy program. Separate comprehension skills and decoding in the early stages of reading development Teach students the metacognitive comprehension skills of reading. Teach students organisational skills explicitly Assess student progress continuously, and respond rapidly and intensively to early signs of failure Develop a Frameworks document that reflects all these features Principals provide leadership on professional development of teachers Teacher training institutions to alter their approach to literacy to better reflect current knowledge of reading development and instruction.

Armbruster, B.B., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/research/reading_first1.html

The RMIT Psychology Clinic The RMIT Psychology Clinic provides assessment and training to parents wishing to supplement the reading instruction supplied by their child’s school. Telephone 99257722 or 9252376 or write to The Co-ordinator, RMIT Psychology Clinic, Plenty Road Bundoora 3083

Typical Clinic Sequence (Cost currently $60/ 1 hr session)

Session 1: Initial Interview (a) Relevant information (b) Clinic’s role (c) Agreement about what’s possible (d) Intervention responsibility Session 2: Intellectual assessment Session 3: Assessment of reading/other educational skills Session 4: Discussion of the written report Sessions 5+: Reading intervention training; monitoring of progress weekly by phone Later sessions: Mid and post-program testing; new programs selected 64 The Direct Instruction programs employed in the RMIT Psychology Clinic combine phonics and phonemic awareness instruction. Referrals may be made by clients or professionals by ringing 9925 7722 on Tuesday mornings or Friday mornings. Training for the parents to use these programs with their children is provided as appropriate. The programs are loaned to the parents.

The Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons program can be purchased from the RMIT, Bundoora bookshop. Phone (03) 9925 7237. More information is available from one of the author’s webpage at http://www.startreading.com Programs regularly used in the RMIT Psychology Clinic Dixon, R. (1976).

Morphographic Spelling. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Dixon, R. (1997).

Corrective Spelling Through Morphographs. NSW, Australia: McGraw-Hill.

Dixon, R., Engelmann, S., Meier M., Steely, D., & Wells, T. (1990).

Spelling Mastery. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Dixon, R., Engelmann, S. Bauer, M.M., Steely, D., & Wells, T. (1998). Spelling Mastery. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Engelmann, S. & Bruner, E. C. (1988). Reading Mastery. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Engelmann, S. Haddox, P., & Bruner, E. (1983). Teach Your Child To Read In 100 Easy Lessons. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Engelmann, S., Hanner, S., & Johnson, G. (1988). Corrective Reading: Decoding A. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Engelmann, S., Johnson, G., Carnine, L., Meyer, L., Becker, W., & Eisele, J. (1988).

Corrective Reading: Decoding B1, B2. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Engelmann, S., Carnine, L., Johnson, & G., Meyer, L. (1988). Corrective Reading: Decoding C. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Engelmann, S., Haddox, P., Hanner, S., & Osborne, J. (1989). Corrective Reading: Comprehension. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Corrective Reading program: Decoding Placement Test Preparation: Reproduce one copy of the test for each student and each tester.

Administration:

Select a quiet place to administer the test. Students who are to be tested later should not observe or hear another student being tested. You will need a test form for each student and a stopwatch or a watch with a second hand. When administering the test, sit across from the student. Position the test form so that the student cannot see what you are writing on the form. Fill out the top lines of the test form (student information). Keep this filled-out test form and hand the student a clean copy of the test. PART 1 (113 words) Tell the student “Read this story out loud. Follow along with your finger so you don't lose your place. Read carefully”. Begin timing as soon as the student begins reading the first sentence. Record each decoding mistake the student makes in oral reading. Mark an X on the filled-out form to show where the student made each mistake. If the student omits a word, mark an X above the omitted word. If the student adds a word that does not appear in the story, mark an X between two words to show where the word had been added. If the student misidentifies a word, mark an X above the misidentified word.

Do not count the same misidentified word more than once. (For example, if the student misidentified the name "Hurn" four times, count only 1 error.) If the student cannot identify a word within 3 seconds, say the word and mark an X above it. If the student makes a mistake and then self-corrects by saying the correct word, mark an X above the word. If the student sounds-out a word but does not pronounce it at a normal speaking rate, ask What word? If the student does not identify it, mark an X above the word. Do not count the re-reading of a word or phrase as an error if the word is read correctly both times. 65 After each of the word-identification errors, immediately tell the student the correct word. When recording the errors, make sure that your copy of the story is not visible to the student.

The student should not be able to see the marks that you're making. Stop timing as soon as the student completes the story. Enter the total errors for Part I on the appropriate line at the top of the filled-in test form. Also record the time required by the student to read Part I. Refer to the placement schedule for Part I to determine placement or whether you should administer another part of the test. Part II Part II is a series of sentences that are to be read aloud by the student. You do not need to time this part of the test. To administer, present the section labeled Part II and tell the student “Read these sentences out loud. Follow along with your finger so you don't lose your place. Read carefully”. Record each decoding error the student makes while reading.

When the student finishes reading Part II, enter the total errors for Part II on the appropriate line at the top of the test form. Then determine the student's placement by referring to the placement schedule for Part II. Fill in the "Placement" blank at the top of the test form. Part III (152 words) & IV (201 words) Each of these Part III and Part IV test sections is a passage that is to be read aloud by the student and timed. To administer, present the appropriate section and tell the student “I'm going to time your reading of this selection. Read out loud and read carefully”. Record errors as specified for Part I.

When the student finishes reading Part III, enter the total errors and time required at the top of the test form. Then refer to the placement schedule for Part III to determine placement or whether you should administer Part IV. When the student finishes reading Part IV, enter the total errors and time required at the top of the test form. Then determine the student's placement and fill in the "Placement" blank. 66 67 Decoding Placement Schedule

ERRORS TIME PLACEMENT OR NEXT TEST

Part 1 Kit made a boat. She made the boat of tin. The nose of the boat was very thin. Kit said, "I think that this boat is ready for me to take on the lake." So Kit went to the lake with her boat. Her boat was a lot of fun. It went fast. But when she went to dock it at the boat ramp, she did not slow it down. And the thin nose of the boat cut a hole in the boat ramp. The man who sold gas at the boat ramp got mad. He said, "That boat cuts like a blade. Do not take the boat on this lake any more."

Part 2 Can she see if it is dim? And it can fit in a hand. Now the hat is on her pet pig. I sent her a clock last week. How will we get dinner on this ship? The swimming class went well. When they met, he felt happy. Then she told me how happy she was. The tracks led to a shack next to the hill. They said, "We will plant the last of the seeds." What will you get when you go to the store? You left lots of things on her desk. PART I 22 or more __ Administer PART II Test 12 to 21 more than 2:00

Level A, Lesson 1 12 to 21 2:00 or less Administer PART II Test 0 to 11 more than 2:00 Level B1, Lesson 1 0 to 11 2:00 or less Administer PART III Test PART II 41 or more No Corrective Reading placement; use a beginning reading program 8 to 40 Level A, Lesson 1 0 to 7 Level B1 Lesson 1 PART III 15 or more Level B1 Lesson 1 6 to 15 more than 2:30 Level B1 Lesson 1 6 to 15 2:30 or less Level B2, Lesson 1 0 to 5 more than 2:30 Level B1 Lesson 1 0 to 5 2:30 or less Administer PART IV Test PART IV 9 or more Level B2, Lesson 1 4 to 8 more than 1:30 Level B2, Lesson 1 4 to 8 1:30 or less Level C, Lesson 1 0 to 3 more than 1:20 Level C, Lesson 1 0 to 3 1:20 or less Doesn't need Corrective Reading

Part 3 Hurn was sleeping when it happened. Hurn didn't hear the big cat sneak into the cave that Hurn called his home. Suddenly Hurn was awake. Something told him, "Beware!" His eyes turned to the darkness near the mouth of the cave. Hurn felt the fur on the back of his neck stand up. His nose, like noses of all wolves, was very keen. It made him very happy when it smelled something good. But now it smelled something that made him afraid. Hurn was five months old. He had never seen a big cat. He had seen clover and ferns and grass. He had even eaten rabbits. Hurn"s mother had come back with them after she had been out hunting. She had always come back. And Hurn had always been glad to see her. But now she was not in the cave. Hurn's sister, Surt, was the only happy smell that reached Hurn's nose.

Part 4 During a good year, a large redwood will produce over six kilograms of seed, which is nearly a million and a half seeds. And the year that our redwood seed fluttered from the cone was an exceptionally good year. The parent tree produced over eight kilograms of seed that year, enough seed to start a forest that would be ten square kilometers in size. However, only a few redwood seeds survived. In fact, only three of the seeds from the parent tree survived their first year, and only one of them lived beyond the first year. Obviously, our seed was lucky. It was a fortunate seed because it was fertile. If a seed is not fertile, it cannot grow, and about nine out of every ten redwood seeds are not fertile. Our seed also had the advantage of landing in a place where it could survive. If it had fallen on a part of the forest floor covered with thick, heavy litter, it probably would not have grown. If it had fluttered to a spot that became too dry during the summer, it would have died during the first year. Our seed landed in a spot where moles had been digging.

Corrective Reading program - Decoding B: Lesson 12 EXERCISE 1 • PRONUNCIATION OF ENDINGS 1. Print in a column on the chalkboard: ed, s. 2. (Point to ed and s.) You're going to say words with these endings. 3. Here's the first word: talk. (Point to ed.) Say (pause) talk with this ending. (Touch under ed) Talked. Yes, talked. (Point to s.) Now say (pause) talk with this ending. (Touch under s.) Talks. Yes, talks. 4. Next word. (Point to ed) Say (pause) rob with this ending. (Touch under ed) Robbed. Yes, robbed. (Point to s) Now say (pause) rob with this ending. (Touch under s) Robs. Yes, robs. 5. (Repeat step 4 for pick.) Individual test Call on individual students to read all the words in the column. Correction Reminder: (Follow these steps to correct all word-identification errors during word-attack skills.) 1. The word is __. 2. What word? (Signal.) 3. Spell __. (Signal for each letter.) What word? (Signal.) 4. Go back to the first word in the (row/column). • What word? (Signal.)

EXERCISE 2 ENDINGS BUILDUP 1. Print in a column on the chalkboard: yell, ask, lock, help. 2. You're going to read these words. Then I'm going to change each word. 3. (Point to the beginning of yell. Pause.) What word? (Signal.) Yell. Yes, yell. 4. (Repeat step 3 for ask, lock, help.) 68 To correct word-identification errors: a. The word is ——. b. What word? (Signal.) c. Spell __. (Signal for each letter.) What word? (Signal.) d. Return to the first word in the column and present the words in order. 5. (Add ed to each word: yelled, asked, locked, helped.) 6. (Point to the beginning of yelled. Pause.) What word? (Signal.) Yelled. Yes, yelled. 7. (Repeat step 6 for asked, locked, helped.) 8. (Erase ed from each word. Repeat steps 3-7 until firm.)

EXERCISE 3 SOUND COMBINATION: oo 1. Open your Student Book to Lesson 12. Touch the letters o-o in part 1. • oo too broom soon room 2. In many words, the letters o-o make the sound oo as in too. What sound? (Signal.) oo. 3. You're going to read words that have the sound oo. You're going to say the sound for the underlined part and then read the word. 4. First word. • What sound? (Signal.) oo. What word? (Signal.) Too. 5. Next word. • What sound? (Signal.) oo. What word? (Signal.) Broom. 6. (Repeat step 5 for each remaining word.)

WORD READING EXERCISE 4 1. Touch the first word in part 2. • began before begin What word? (Signal.) Began. 2. Next word? • What word? (Signal.) Before. 3. (Repeat step 2 for begin.) EXERCISE 5 WORD READING 1. Touch part 3. • orders told pals next lift were they sweeping back trash help set think just You're going to say the sound for the underlined part and then read the word. 2. First word. • What sound? (Signal.) or. What word? (Signal.) Orders. 3. Next word. • What sound? (Signal.) ooolll. What word? (Signal.) Told. 4. (Repeat step 3 for each remaining word.) 5. (Repeat steps 2-4 until firm.)

EXERCISE 6 • DOUBLE CONSONANTS AND ENDINGS Task A 1. Find part 4. Touch the first word in column A. • A stopping runner grinned B robber sitting dropped 2. What word? (Signal.) Stopping. C hopping robbed stopper 3. Spell stopping. Get ready. (Signal for each letter.) What letter is doubled in stopping? (Signal.) p. 4. Next word. What word? (Signal.) Runner. 5. Spell runner. Get ready. (Signal for each letter.) What letter is doubled in runner? (Signal.) n. 6. Next word. What word? (Signal.) Grinned. 7. Spell grinned. Get ready. (Signal for each letter.) What letter is doubled in grinned? (Signal.) n. Task B 1. Touch the first word in column B. • What word? (Signal.) Robber. 69 2. Spell robber. Get ready. (Signal for each letter.) What letter is doubled? (Signal.) b. 3. Next word. What word? (Signal.) Sitting. 4. Spell sitting. Get ready. (Signal for each letter.) What letter is doubled? (Signal.) f. 5. Next word. What word? (Signal.) Dropped. 6. Spell dropped. Get ready. (Signal for each letter.) What letter is doubled? (Signal.) p. Task C 1. Touch the first word in column C. • What word? (Signal.) Hopping. 2. Spell hopping. Get ready. (Signal for each letter.) What letter is doubled? (Signal.) p. 3. Next word. What word? (Signal.) Robbed. 4. Spell robbed. Get ready. (Signal for each letter.) What letter is doubled? (Signal.) b. 5. Next word. What word? (Signal.) Stopper. 6. Spell stopper. Get ready. (Signal for each letter.) What letter is doubled? (Signal.) p.

EXERCISE 7 WORD READING Task A Irregular Words 1. Touch the first word in part 5. • one where there gave day questions what to do woman of you have down give brown 2. That word is one. What word? (Signal.) One. 3. Spell one. (Signal for each letter.) What word? (Signal.) One. 4. Next word. • That word is where. What word? (Signal.) Where. 5. Spell where. (Signal for each letter.) What word? (Signal.) Where. 6. Next word. • That word is there. What word? (Signal.) There. 7. Spell there. (Signal for each letter.) What word? (Signal.) There. 8. Next word. • That word is gave. What word? (Signal.) Gave. 9. Spell gave. (Signal for each letter.) What word? (Signal.) Gave. 10. Next word. • That word is day. What word? (Signal.) Day. 11. Spell day. (Signal for each letter.) What word? (Signal.) Day. Task B 1. This time you'll just read the words. Go back to the first word. • What word? (Signal.) One. 2. Next word. • What word? (Signal.) Where. 3. (Repeat step 2 for each remaining word.)

EXERCISE 8 WORD-ATTACK SKILLS: Individual Tests Note: Criterion is 80 percent of rows and columns read without error. 1. There are 12 rows and columns. If we can read 10 of them without making a mistake, everybody in the group earns 5 points. 2. (Call on individual students. Each student reads a row or column. Tally the rows and columns read without error, if the group reads at least 10 rows and columns without making errors, direct all students to record 5 points in Box A of their Point Chart.) 3. (If the group did not read at least 10 rows and columns without errors, do not award any points for the Word Attack Skills exercises.)

EXERCISE 9 STORY READING Task A 1. (Hold up a Student Book and point to the story in part 6.) You can earn points for each part of the story. TIM AND HIS BIG SISTER 70 Tim's big sister did not ask questions. She gave orders. She told her dog what to do. She told her pals what to do. But when she told Tim what to do, he asked questions. One day she said, "Gel a broom and sweep the room." Then Tim asked, "Which broom and which room?" His sister said, "The red broom. Get that broom. Then sweep this room." Tim said, "Where is the red broom?" His sister said, "It is next to the brown broom." Do you know what Tim asked next? Tim's sister said, "The brown broom is in the back room." [1] Tim got the broom and began to sweep. Just then, his sister yelled, "Help me lift this trash can." Tim asked, "How can I keep on sweeping and lift trash cans?" His sister yelled, "Drop that red broom and help me." Tim set the broom down and went to the trash can. He asked, "What is in that trash can?" His sister got mad. She said, "What do you think is in the trash can?" Tim said, "That is my question. If you ask questions, I will give orders." He did just that. He told his sister what to do. [2] 2. (Point to the end of the first part.) The first part ends here. The number tells you that the part is worth 1 point. The second part goes to the end of the story. The number at the end of the story tells you the second part is worth 2 points. 3. Remember, you can earn points for reading each part without making more than 3 errors. 4. (Call on a student to read the title.)

5. (Call on individual students, each to read one or two sentences. Praise students who read without making errors.) To correct word-identification errors: a. (As soon as a student misidentifies a word, say:) The word is ——. What word? b. Go back to the beginning of the sentence and read that sentence again.

6. At the end of each part of the story: a. (Tell the students the number of errors the group made and whether the group earned points for that part.) b. (Praise the group if they made no more than 3 errors.) c. (If the group made more than 3 errors, direct the group to re-read the part,) Task B 1. I'll re-read the first part of the story and then ask you questions about that part. 2. (Read the first part of the story. Call on individual students to answer each question.) a. Did Tim's sister usually ask questions? No. b. What did she usually do? Idea: Gave orders. c. How would you give an order to tell somebody to sweep the porch? Idea: Say, "Sweep the porch." d. What do you think Tim asked after his sister said, "The red broom is next to the brown broom?" Idea: "Where is the brown broom?" e. Where were the red broom and the brown broom? Idea: In the back room. 3. (Read the second part of the story. Call on individual students to answer each question.) a. When Tim started sweeping, his sister ordered him to do something else. What? Idea: Lift the trash can. b. His sister asked, "What do you think is in the trash can?" Is that giving an order or asking a question? Asking a question. c. Tim said, "That's my question. If you ask questions, I'll" ... do what? Give orders. d. What do you think he told his sister to do? (Accept reasonable responses.) 4. (After asking the comprehension questions for the second part, tell the students the total number of points to record in Box B of their Point Chart. Maximum = 3 points.) 71

READING CHECKOUTS EXERCISE 10 • READING CHECKOUTS Task A 1. (For this part of the lesson, assigned pairs of students work together during the checkouts.) 2. Starting today, you're each going to do two reading checkouts. The first checkout is on the first part of story 12. If the reader makes no more than 2 errors, the reader earns 3 points. Do that checkout now. Remember to raise your hand when you've finished reading. Then the other person in the pair can read the first part of the story. 3. (Direct students who made no more than 2 errors to record 3 points in Box C-1 of their Point Chart.) Task B Timed Reading 1. (After all students have completed their first reading checkout, say:) Now you will work in pairs and do a timed reading checkout. The timed checkout is on the first part of story 11. Don't read the title. Start with the first word of the story. You'll read for one minute. 2. For this checkout, I'll tell you when to start and when to stop. The reader keeps reading for the whole minute. The reader will try to read at least 55 words during the minute and make no more than 3 errors. The 55th word is underlined in the Student Book. Checkers will count errors. 3. First set of readers, get ready. • Go. (After one minute, say:) Stop. 4. Checkers, raise your hand if your reader made no more than 3 errors. (Direct checkers who raised their hand to count the number of words their reader read.) 5. (Direct students who read 55 words or more and made no more than 3 errors to record 3 points in Box C-2 of their Point Chart.) 6. (Direct students to plot their reading rate [words per minute] and number of errors on the Individual Reading Progress Chart on page 69 of their Workbook.) 7. (Repeat the procedure, steps 3-6, with the second member of each pair reading the first part of story 11.)

EXERCISE 11 WRITING LETTERS FOR SOUNDS 1. Open your Workbook to Lesson 12. • Find part 1. • You're going to write the letter or letters for each sound that I say. 2. First sound: ing. What sound (Signal.) ing. Write it. 3. Next sound: oo. What sound? (Signal.) oo. Write it. 4. (Repeat step 3 for lll, b, fff, eee, d, aaa, mmm, g.) Individual test (Call on a student.) Read the letters you wrote, starting with the first blank.

EXERCISE 12 COMPLETING WORDS 1. Touch the first line in part 2. • Spell the part. Get ready. (Signal for each letter.) c-k. 2. Fix it up to say sock. What word? (Signal.) Sock. Do it. (Check work and correct.) 3. Next line. • Spell the part. Get ready. (Signal for each letter.) s-h. 4. Fix it up to say shelf. What word? (Signal.) shelf. Do it. (Check work and correct.) 5. (Repeat steps 3 and 4 for ck [black], tr [trash], ore [store].)

EXERCISE 13 STORY PICTURE 1. Find part 4. • The picture shows something that happened in the story. 72 2. Touch item 1. • I'll read the item: Tim got the broom and began to blank. Write the word that goes in the blank. (Check work and correct.) 3. (Call on a student.) What word goes in the blank? Sweep. Yes, sweep. 4. Touch item 2- • I'll read: Make an X to show where he got the broom. Make an H on the thing Tim's sister told Tim to lift. Do it. (Check work and correct.) 1 . Complete your Workbook lesson. If you make no more than 4 errors, you earn 6 points. 2. (After checking the Workbooks, direct students who made no more than 4 errors to record 6 points in Box D of their Point Chart.) Lesson Point Summary Tell students to add the points in Boxes A, B, C-1, C-2, and D, plus any bonus points they have earned, and to write this number in the Total box of the Point Chart. • Point Schedule for Lesson 12 Box Maximum Points A Word Attack 5 B Story Reading 3 C-1 1st Reading Checkout (not timed) 3 C-2 2nd Reading Checkout (timed) 3 D Workbook 6 Bonus (maximum - 2) (2) Total (maximum without bonus points) 20 1 oo too broom soon room 4 2. began before begin 3. orders told pals next lift were they sweeping back trash help set think just A B C stopping robber hopping runner sitting robbed grinned dropped stopper 5' one where there gave day questions what to do woman of you have down give brown 6. Tim and His Big Sister Tim's big sister did not ask questions. She gave orders. She told her dog what to do. She told her pals what to do. But when she told Tim what to do, he asked questions. One day she said, "Get a broom and sweep the room." Then Tim asked, "Which broom and which room?" His sister said, "The red broom. Get that broom. Then sweep this room." Tim said, "Where is the red broom?" His sister said, "It is next to the brown broom." Do you know what Tim asked next? Tim's sister said, "The brown broom is in the back room." [1] Tim got the broom and began to sweep. Just then, his sister yelled, "Help me lift this trash can." Tim asked, "How can I keep on sweeping and lift trash cans?" His sister yelled, "Drop that red broom and help me." 73 Tim set the broom down and went to the trash can. He asked, "What is in that trash can?" His sister got mad. She said, "What do you think is in the trash can?" Tim said, "That is my question. If you ask questions, I will give orders." He did just that. He told his sister what to do.

[2] LESSON 11 Tim Asked Questions Tim asked a lot of questions. His dad told him to go to the store for milk. Tim asked, "Which store?" When his mom told him to set the cups on the shelf, he asked, "Which shelf?" His sister said, "Give me a hand." Tim said, "Which hand?" Last week, Tim was at a ranch. The rancher told him, "Get on a horse and go down that path." Tim asked 2 questions. What questions do you think he asked? [1] The rancher told Tim to get on a black horse, and Tim did that. Then Tim went down the path and got to a creek. He said, "How is this horse going to get over this creek?" The horse showed him how. The horse jumped over the creek. But Tim fell into the creek when the horse jumped. Tim sat in the middle of the creek and said to the horse. "I see how you got over the creek." Then he asked a question. What do you think he asked? [2]

EXERCISE 1 ANALOGIES The first Thinking Operation is Analogies. Task A 1. We're going to make up an analogy. Everybody, what class are a horse and a frog in? (Signal.) Animals. Yes, animals. 2. We're going to make up an analogy that tells how those animals move. What's the analogy going to tell about those animals? (Signal.) How those animals move. Remember that. 3. What are some ways that a horse moves? (Call on individual students. Accept all reasonable answers.) Let's say our horse gallops. 4. What are some ways that a frog moves? (Call on individual students. Accept all reasonable answers.) Let's say our frog hops. 5. A horse gallops and a frog hops. Everybody, say the whole analogy. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) A horse is to galloping as a frog is to hopping. (Repeat until firm.) 6. The analogy tells something about those animals. (Pause.) What does the analogy tell about those animals? (Signal.) How those animals move. (Repeat until firm.) 7. Everybody, say the analogy one more time. (Signal.) A horse is to galloping as a frog is to hopping. 8. (Repeat steps 6 and 7 until firm.) TaskB 1. We're going to make up an analogy. Everybody, what class are a rooster and a lion in? (Signal.) Animals. Yes, animals. 2. We're going to make up an analogy that tells where you find those animals. What's the analogy going to tell about those animals? (Signal.) Where you find those animals. Remember that. 3. Where are some places you find a rooster? (Call on individual students. Accept all reasonable answers.) Let's say you find our rooster on a farm. 74 4. Where are some places you find a lion? (Call on individual students. Accept all reasonable answers.) Let's say you find our lion in a zoo. 5. You find a rooster on a farm and a lion in a zoo. Everybody, say the whole analogy. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) A rooster is to farm as a lion is to zoo. (Repeat until firm.) 6. The analogy tells something about those animals. (Pause.) What does that analogy tell about those animals? (Signal.) Where you find those animals. (Repeat until firm.) 7. Everybody, say the analogy one more time. (Signal.) A rooster is to farm as a lion is to zoo. 8. (Repeat steps 6 and 7 until firm.)

EXERCISE 2 DEFINITIONS The next Thinking Operation is Definitions. 1. Destroy means wreck. 2. What does destroy mean? (Signal.) Wreck. What word means wreck? (Signal.) Destroy. (Repeat step 2 until firm.) 3. Listen. The baby wrecked the toy. Say that. (Signal.) The baby wrecked the toy. (Repeat until firm.) Now say that sentence with a different word for wrecked. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) The baby destroyed the toy. (Repeat until firm.) (Repeat step 3 until firm.) 4. Listen. His car was wrecked in the accident. Say that. (Signal.) His car was wrecked in the accident. (Repeat until firm.) Now say that sentence with a different word for wrecked. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) His car was destroyed in the accident. (Repeat until firm.) (Repeat step 4 until firm.) 5. Listen. The storm destroyed the field. Say that. (Signal.) The storm destroyed the field. (Repeat until firm.) Now say that sentence with a different word for destroyed. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) The storm wrecked the field. (Repeat until firm.) (Repeat step 5 until firm.)

EXERCISE 3 DEFINITIONS 1. A synonym for fast is quick. 2. What's a synonym for fast? (Signal.) Quick. And what's a synonym for quick? (Signal.) Fast. (Repeat step 2 until firm.) 3. Listen. His motorcycle is very fast. Say that. (Signal.) His motorcycle is very fast (Repeat until firm.) Now say that sentence with a synonym for fast (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) His motorcycle is very quick. (Repeat until firm.) (Repeat step 3 until firm.) 4. Listen. The horse was not quick. Say that. (Signal.) The horse was not quick. (Repeat until firm.) Now say that sentence with a synonym for quick. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) The horse was not fast. (Repeat until firm.) (Repeat step 4 until firm.)

DEFINITIONS 1. Big. (Pause.) What's a synonym for big? (Signal.) Large. And what's a synonym for large? (Signal.) Big. (Repeat step 1 until firm.) 2. Listen. The moon looks very big tonight. Say that. (Signal.) The moon looks very big tonight. (Repeat until firm.) Now say that sentence with a synonym for big. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) The moon looks very large tonight. (Repeat until firm.) (Repeat step 2 until firm.) 3. Duplicate. (Pause.) What's a synonym for duplicate? (Signal.) Copy. And what's a synonym for copy? (Signal.) Duplicate. (Repeat step 3 until firm.) 4. Listen. I can copy her writing. Say that. (Signal.) I can copy her writing. (Repeat until firm.) Now say that sentence with a synonym for copy. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) I can duplicate her writing. (Repeat until firm.) (Repeat step 4 until firm.) 5. Indolent. (Pause.) What's a synonym for indolent? (Signal.) Lazy. And what's a synonym for lazy? (Signal.) Indolent. (Repeat step 5 until firm.) 6. Listen. I feel lazy after eating a lot. Say that. (Signal.) I feel lazy after eating a lot. (Repeat until firm.) Now say that sentence with a synonym for lazy. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) I feel indolent after eating a lot. (Repeat until firm.) (Repeat step 6 until firm.) 75

EXERCISE 5 STATEMENT INFERENCE The next Thinking Operation is Statement Inference. 1. Listen. The hawk descended to catch a small amphibian. Say that statement. (Signal.) The hawk descended to catch a small amphibian. (Repeat until firm.) Individual test Call on individual students to say the statement. 2. Everybody, listen. The hawk descended to catch a small amphibian. What kind of amphibian did the hawk descend to catch? (Signal.) Small. What descended to catch a small amphibian? (Signal.) The hawk. What did the hawk do to catch the small amphibian? (Signal.) Descended. What did the hawk do? (Signal.) Descended to catch the small amphibian. Why did the hawk descend? (Signal.) To catch the small amphibian. (Repeat step 2 until firm.) Individual test Call on individual students to answer a question from step

2. EXERCISE 6 BASIC EVIDENCE: Using Facts The next Thinking Operation is Basic Evidence. 1. You're going to use two facts to explain things that happened. (Hold up one finger.) First fact. Most animals breathe air. Say it. (Signal.) Most animals breathe air. (Repeat until firm.) (Hold up two fingers.) Second fact. Sweets cause cavities. Say it. (Signal.) Sweets cause cavities. (Repeat until firm.) 2. Everybody, say those facts again. (Hold up one finger.) First fact. Most animals breathe air. (Hold up two fingers.) Second fact. Sweets cause cavities. (Repeat until the students say the facts in order.) Individual test Call on students to say the facts in order. 3. Here's what happened. The whale swam to the surface of the water. Tell me the fact that explains why that happened. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) Most animals breathe air. 4. Listen. First fact. Most animals breathe air. Second fact. Sweets cause cavities. 5. Here's what happened. George would not eat candy. Tell me the fact that explains why that happened. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) Sweets cause cavities. 6. Here's what happened. The dentist did not want her patients to chew gum. Tell me the fact that explains why that happened. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) Sweets cause cavities. 7. Here's what happened. The fly died in the covered jar. Tell me the fact that explains why that happened. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) Most animals breathe air. 8. (Repeat steps 5-7 until firm.)

EXERCISE 6 DESCRIPTION The next Thinking Operation is Description. 1. Listen. See if you can figure out what I'm talking about. It has a handle. Name three tools I could be talking about. (Call on individual students. Accept all reasonable responses; for example, hammer, rake, broom.) 2. It has a handle and it has bristles. Name two tools I could be talking about. (Call on individual students. Accept all reasonable responses; for example, broom, toothbrush.) 3. It has a handle, it has bristles, and you sweep with it. Everybody, name the tool I'm talking about. (Signal.) A broom.

EXERCISE 7 DEDUCTIONS: With all and every The next Thinking Operation is Deductions. 76 1. I'll say rules with all or every. You say them the other way. What two words are we going to use? (Hold up one finger.) All. (Hold up two fingers.) Every. 2. Listen. Every bird is warm-blooded. Say that. (Signal.) Every bird is warm-blooded. Now say it the other way. Get ready. (Signal.) All birds are warm-blooded. (Repeat step 2 until firm.) 3. Here's a new rule. All purses are containers. Say that. (Signal.) All purses are containers. Now say it the other way. Get ready. Every purse is a container. (Repeat step 3 until firm.) 4. Here's a new rule. All canines are dogs. Say that. (Signal.) All canines are dogs. Now say it the other way. Get ready. (Signal.) Every canine is a dog. (Repeat step 4 until firm.) 5. Here's a new rule. Every human being is a mammal, Say that. (Signal.) Every human being is a mammal. Now say it the other way. Get ready. (Signal.) All human beings are mammals. (Repeat step 5 until firm.)

EXERCISE 9 DEDUCTIONS: With every 1. Listen to this rule. Every bird has bones. Say the rule. (Signal.) Every bird has bones. 2. Listen. A Bengal tiger is a feline. What does the rule let you know about a Bengal tiger? (Signal.) Nothing. 3. Listen. Every bird has bones. A salmon is a fish. What does the rule let you know about a salmon? (Signal.) Nothing. 4. Listen. Every bird has bones. A rooster is a bird. What does the rule let you know about a rooster? (Signal.) A rooster has bones. How do you know that a rooster has bones? (Signal.) Because every bird has bones. 5. Listen. Every bird has bones. A pheasant is a bird. What does the rule let you know about a pheasant? (Signal.) A pheasant has bones. How do you know that a pheasant has bones? (Signal.) Because every bird has bones. 6. (Repeat steps 2-5 until firm.)

EXERCISE 10 AND/OR The next Thinking Operation is And/Or. 1. Listen. I'm going to touch my ear or touch my eye. What am I going to do? (Signal.) Touch your ear or touch your eye. (Repeat until firm.) 2. Am I going to touch my ear? (Signal.) Maybe. Am I going to touch my eye? (Signal.) Maybe. 3. Here I go. (Touch your ear.) Did I touch my eye? (Signal.) No. Did I touch my ear? (Signal.) Yes. 4. (Repeat steps 1-3 until firm.) 5. New problem. I'm going to touch my ear and touch my eye. What am I going to do? (Signal.) Touch your ear and touch your eye. (Repeat until firm.) 6. Am I going to touch my ear? (Signal.) Yes. Am I going to touch my eye? (Signal.) Yes. 7. Here I go. (Touch your ear and touch your eye at the same time.) Did I touch my ear? (Signal.) Yes. Did I touch my eye? (Signal.) Yes. 8. (Repeat steps 5-7 until firm.)

EXERCISE 11 SAME: Review The next Thinking Operation is Same. 1. I'll name some things. When I call on you, name ways that those things are the same. 2. A hairbrush and a broom. (Call on one student.) Name eight ways they are the same. (Praise the student if he or she names eight ways.) 3. A bicycle and a ship. (Call on one student.) Name eight ways they are the same. (Praise the student if he or she names eight ways.) 4. A banana and a lemon. (Call on one student.) Name eight ways they are the same. (Praise the student if he or she names eight ways.) 5. An oak tree and a pig. (Call on one student.) Name eight ways they are the same. (Praise the student if he or she names eight ways.) Points (Pass out the Workbooks. Award points for Thinking Operations.) 77 Workbook Exercises We're going to do Workbooks now. Remember to follow my instructions carefully.

EXERCISE 12 DESCRIPTION 1. Everybody, touch part A in your Workbook. Figure out which cake I describe. 2. Item 1. This cake is a dark cake that is square. This cake has two layers. Listen again. (Repeat the description.) Write the letter for item 1. 3. Item 2. This cake is a round cake that has three layers. This cake is light. Listen again. (Repeat the description.) Write the letter for item 2. 4. Item 3. This cake is square and dark. This cake has a cherry on top. Listen again. (Repeat the description) Write the letter for item 3. 5. Let's check your answers. Mark any items you missed with an X. 6. Item 1. This cake is a dark cake that is square. This cake has two layers. Everybody, what letter? (Signal.) B. 7. (Repeat step 6 for items 2 and 3.) Answer key 2. D 3.

A EXERCISE 13 ANALOGIES 1. Everybody, touch part B-1 in your Workbook. This analogy shows what appliances clean. What does the analogy show? (Signal.) What appliances clean. Look at the pictures and name the appliances that are in the analogy. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) A vacuum cleaner and a washing machine. Remember, the analogy shows what those appliances clean. Circle the picture that completes the analogy. (Wait.) Everybody, touch the right pictures and say the whole analogy. Get ready. (Signal.) A vacuum cleaner is to a rug as a washing machine is to a shirt. (Repeat until firm.) If you didn't circle the picture of a shirt, make an X next to the picture you circled. Everybody, touch part B-2 in your Workbook. This analogy shows what parts objects have. What does the analogy show? (Signal.) What parts objects have. Look at the pictures and name the objects in the analogy. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) A tree and a car Remember, the analogy shows what parts those objects have. Circle the picture that completes the analogy. (Wait.) Everybody, touch the right pictures and say the whole analogy. Get ready. (Signal.) A tree is to a leaf as a car is to a tire. (Repeat until firm.) If you didn't circle the picture of a tire, make an X next to the picture you circled. Individual test (Call on individual students to do one of the following:) a. Say the analogy shown in part B-1. b. What does that analogy show about those appliances? c. Say the analogy shown in part B-2. d. What does that analogy show about those objects?

EXERCISE 14 TRUE-FALSE 1. Everybody, touch part C in your Workbook. I'll say statements about the picture. 2. Get ready to circle true, false, or maybe. Item 1. There is a mammal in the picture. Circle the answer. (Wait.) 3. Item 2. The frog will jump on the horse. Circle the answer. (Wait.) 4. Item 3. There are no reptiles in the picture. Circle the answer. (Wait.) 5. Item 4. The mammal was born in water. Circle the answer. (Wait.) 6. Item 5. The frog was born in water. Circle the answer. (Wait.) 7. Item 6. Both of the animals are cold-blooded. Circle the answer. (Wait.) 8. Everybody, let's check your answers. Say true, false, or maybe. 9. Item 1. There is a mammal in the picture. (Signal.) True. 78 10. (Repeat step 9 for items 2-6.)

EXERCISE 14 CLASSIFICATION 1. Everybody, touch part D in your Workbook. These boxes show 3 classes. Touch box B. All the things in that box are chairs. Tell me what kind of chairs they are. (Pause 3 seconds.) Get ready. (Signal.) Rocking chairs. So, box B shows the class of rocking chairs. 2. Touch box A. Not all the things in that box are rocking chairs. Tell me the class name for the things in box A. (Pause 3 seconds.) Get ready. (Signal.) Chairs. 3. Touch box C. Not all the things in that box are chairs or rocking chairs. Tell me the class name for the things in box C. (Pause 3 seconds.) Get ready. (Signal.) Furniture. 4. Now let's figure out which of these classes is the biggest. Tell me the rule about the bigger class. (Signal.) If a class has more kinds of things, it's bigger. Look at box A, box B, and box C and figure out which box has more kinds of things than the others. (Pause 4 seconds.) Which box? (Signal.) Box C. Tell me the class name for the things in box C. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) Furniture. Points (Award points for Workbooks.) Information We're going to work on Information now.

EXERCISE 16 • CALENDAR: Holidays 1. Here's a fact about another winter holiday. Valentine's Day is always in February. Say that fact. (Signal.) Valentine's Day is always in February. (Repeat until firm.) 2. Tell me three holidays that are in winter. (Pause 2 seconds.) Get ready. (Signal.) Christmas, New Year's Day, and Valentine's Day. Tell me the holiday that is in February. (Pause 2 seconds.) Get ready. (Signal.) Valentine's Day. Tell me the holiday that is in December. (Pause 2 seconds.) Get ready. (Signal.) Christmas. Tell me the date of Christmas. (Pause 2 seconds.) Get ready. (Signal.) December twenty-fifth. (Repeat step 2 until firm.) 3. Tell me the holiday that is in January. (Pause 2 seconds.) Get ready. (Signal.) New Year's Day. Tell me the date of New Year's Day. (Pause 2 seconds.) Get ready. (Signal.) January first. Tell me the holiday that is in February. (Pause 2 seconds.) Get ready. (Signal.) Valentine's Day. Tell me the season that all those holidays are in. (Pause 2 seconds.) Get ready. (Signal.) Winter. (Repeat step 3 until firm.) 4. (Repeat steps 2 and 3 until firm.) Individual test (Call on individual students to answer one of the following questions:) a. What season is Christmas in? b. What's the date of Christmas? c. What season is New Year's Day in? d. What's the date of New Year's Day? e. What season is Valentine's Day in? f. What month is Valentine's Day in?

EXERCISE 17 MEMORIZATION: Poem 1. You're learning a poem about American Indians. Let's name those Indians. 2. Creek. Say it. (Signal.) Creek. Choctaw. Say it. (Signal.) Choctaw. Cherokee. Say it. (Signal.) Cherokee. Seminole. Say it. (Signal.) Seminole. Chickasaw. Say it. (Signal.) Chickasaw. (Repeat step 2 until firm.) 3. I'll say the whole poem about American Indians. American Indians were what they saw. Some were Creek and some Choctaw. American Indians were what they saw. Cherokee, Seminole, and Chickasaw. 79 4. Say it with me. (Signal. Respond with the students.) American Indians were what they saw. Some were Creek and some Choctaw. American Indians were what they saw. Cherokee, Seminole, and Chickasaw. (Repeat until students are responding with you.) 5. All by yourselves. (Signal.) American Indians were what they saw. Some were Creek and some Choctaw. American Indians were what they saw. Cherokee, Seminole, and Chickasaw. (Repeat until firm.) To correct: a. (Stop the students as soon as you hear a mistake.) b. (Say the line they missed.) c. (Have them repeat the line they missed.) d. (Repeat step 5.) Individual test Call on individual students to say the whole poem. Praise students who make no errors.

• EXERCISE 18 CALENDAR: Months, Seasons 1. Everybody, tell me how many months are in a year. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) Twelve. 2. Name the months in a year. (Signal.) January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. 3. You told me the (pause; signal) months in a year. 4. Everybody, tell me how many seasons are in a year. (Pause.) Get ready. (Signal.) Four. 5. Name the seasons in a year. (Signal.) Winter, spring, summer, fall. 6. You told me the four (pause; signal) seasons in a year.

EXERCISE 19 MEMORIZATION: Poem Say that poem we learned about the mechanic and the astronomer. Get ready. (Signal.) A mechanic fixes cars, An astronomer looks at stars, A captain has two bars, And a boxer spars and spars. (Repeat until firm.) Individual test Call on individual students to say the whole poem. Individual test Call on individual students to name the months or seasons in a year. Points (Award points for Information. Have the students add up their daily total.)

END OF LESSON 29 80 What abou t spelling?

Spelling Through Morphographs (Dixon & Engelmann, 2000) McGraw-Hill A 140 lesson remedial program designed to give older students the tools they need to learn to spell. By teaching a variety of morphographs - prefixes, suffixes and word bases - and a set of rules for combining them, students are able to learn over 500 morphographs giving them the ability to spell over 12,000 words by the end of the program. This highly effective morphographic approach to spelling (20-30 min/day) not only helps students to remember their spelling, but helps them understand the meaning of unfamiliar words. Placement test at http://www.mcgrawhill.ca/school/schoolGraphics/sra_spellingthroughmorphographs.pdf Prefixes Morphographs Bases re Suffixes discover d pute able 81 un Words formed recover, recoverable, recovered, unrecoverable, unrecovered, repute, reputable, reputed, disreputable, disrepute, covetable, covered, uncover, uncoverable, uncovered, discover, discoverable, discovered, undiscoverable, undiscovered, dispute, disputable, disputed, undisputable, undisputed, etc. Evaluative research on Corrective Reading Program

Allan, P. (1993). A case study of the efficacy of the Corrective Reading program with a nine-year old girl. RMIT. Unpublished manuscript.

Arthur, C. (1988). Progress in a high school LD class. Direct Instruction News, 2, 17-18.

Baker, J. H., (1980). An evaluation of the use of the direct instruction Corrective Reading (Decoding B) program in a Victorian secondary school. Unpublished manuscript.

Branwhite, A.B. (1983). Boosting reading skills by direct instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 291 298.

Campbell, M. L. (1983). Corrective Reading program evaluated with secondary students in San Diego. Direct Instruction News, pp. 1, 23. Clunies-Ross, G. (1990). Some effects of direct instruction in comprehension skills with sixth grade students. Behaviour Change, 7, 84-89.

Chamberlain, L. A. (1987). Using Direct Instruction in a Victoria, BC resource room. ADI News, 7, 7-9.

Darch, C. (1993). Direct Instruction: A research-based approach for designing instructional programs. in R. C. Eaves, & P. J. Laughlin, (Eds.), Recent advances in special education and rehabilitation. Boston: Andover Med. Publishers.

Drage, J. (1983). Corrective Reading: A quasi-experimental evaluation of junior secondary remedial reading students. Phillip Institute of Technology. Unpublished manuscript.

Edlund, C., & Ogle, R. (Spring, 1988). Amount of training in DI and outcomes with secondary handicapped students. Direct Instruction News, 14-15.

Engelman, S., Becker, W., Hanner, S., & Johnson, G. (1989). Corrective Reading-Series Guide. USA: McMillan McGraw Hill.

Gersten, R. M., Woodward, J., & Darch, C. (1986). Direct Instruction: A research based approach to curriculum design and teaching. Exceptional Children, 53(1), 17-31.

Glang, A., Singer, G., Cooley, E., & Tish, N. (1992). Tailoring Direct Instruction techniques for use with elementary students with brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 7(4), 93-108.

Gregory, R. P., Hackney, C., & Gregory, N. M. (1982). Corrective Reading program: An evaluation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 33-50.

Gregory, R. P., Hackney, C., & Gregory, N. M. (1982). Corrective Reading program: The use of educational technology in a secondary school. Reading Education, 2(2), 21-25.

Grossen, B. (1998). The research base for Corrective Reading, SRA. Blacklick,OH: SRA.

Grossen B. (2004). Success of a Direct Instruction model at a secondary level school with high-risk students Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 161-178.

Hanner, S., & Engelmann, S. (1984). Learner verification for Corrective Reading program. AADI Newsletter, May, 3-5.

Hempenstall, K. (1984). Evaluation of Direct Instruction program, Healesville High School. Unpublished manuscript.

Hempenstall, K. (1985). Evaluation of Direct Instruction program, Healesville High School. Unpublished manuscript.

Hempenstall, K. (1986). Evaluation of Direct Instruction program, Healesville High School. Unpublished manuscript.

Hempenstall, K. (1987). Evaluation of Direct Instruction program, Healesville High School. Unpublished manuscript. Hempenstall, K. (1988). Evaluation of Direct Instruction program, Healesville High School. Unpublished manuscript.

Hempenstall, K. (1996). The gulf between educational research and policy: The example of direct instruction and whole language. Behaviour Change, 13(1), 33-46.

Herr, C. (1989). Using Corrective Reading with adults. ADI News, 8(2), 18-21. Holdsworth, P. (1984). Corrective Reading tested in U.K. ADI News, 4(2), 1-4.

Kassendorf, S. J., & McQuaid, P. (1987, Fall). Corrective reading evaluation study. Direct Instruction News, 9. Lee County School District. 1997). An evaluation of Corrective Reading. Lee County, AL: Lee County School District.

McLean, C., & Moore, J. (1985). Holy Family Education Centre Literacy Program. NSW Journal of Special Education, 3, 35-44.

Maggs, A., & Murdoch, R. (1979). Teaching low performers in upper-primary and lower-secondary to read by direct instruction methods. Reading Education, 4(1), 35-39. 82

Marchand-Martella N., Martella R.C., Bettis D.F., & Blakely M.R. (2004). Project PALS: A description of a high school based tutorial program using corrective reading and peer-delivered instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 179-201.

Noon, L., & Maggs, A. (1980). Accelerating written language processes in normal and gifted children: Direct instruction strategies and sequences. Reading Education, 5(1), 11-26.

Polloway, E. A., & Epstein, M. H. (1986). The use of Corrective Reading (SRA) with mildly handicapped students. ADI News, 5(2), 2-3.

Polloway, E. A., Epstein, M. H., Polloway, C. H., Patton, J. R., & Ball, D.W. (1986). Corrective Reading program: An analysis of effectiveness with learning disabled and mentally retarded students. RASE, 7(4), 41-47.

Reading Treatment and Research Centre. (1986). Corrective Reading program: An evaluation in a Victorian Technical school. Melbourne, Australia.

Robinson, V. (1983). Corrective Reading program implementation at Healesville High School.

Lilydale Counselling, Guidance & Clinical Services. Unpublished manuscript.

Ross, D. (1998). Competing theories: Teach comprehension or teach decoding to improve reading comprehension in older poor readers. St Kitts, West Indies: Berne University.

Sommers, J. (1995). Seven-year overview of Direct Instruction programs used in basic skills classes at Big Piney Middle School. Effective School Practice, Fall, 29-32.

SRA Publishers. (no date). Direct Instruction: Corrective Reading research. Retrieved 1/5/2004 from http://www.sraonline.com/index.php/home/curriculumsolutions/di/correctivereading/correctivereadresear/666

Thomson, B. (1992). A field report: Specific learning disabilities Corrective Reading pilot study 1989-90. Direct Instruction News, 11, 13.

Thorne, M. T. (1978). “Payment for Reading”. The use of the “Corrective Reading scheme” with junior maladjusted boys. Remedial Education, 13, 87-89.

Westworth, I. (1998). Evaluation of a Corrective Reading Program: The effects on comprehension and decoding skills. Australia: RMIT. Unpublished manuscript.

Some additional web references: An Educators’ Guide to Schoolwide Reform.

This guide provides a review of the research on 24 schoolwide reform models. For each approach reviewed, the guide provides ratings accompanied by profiles and research references. This work was conducted by the American Institutes for Research (www.air.org ) and was contracted by the American Association of School Administrators (www.aasa.org ), American Federation of Teachers (www.aft.org ), National Association of Elementary School Principals (www.naesp.org ), National Association of Secondary School Principals (www.nassp.org ), and National Education Association (www.nea.org ). Available at www.aasa.org/Reform/index.htm . Lewis, L. & Paik, S. (2001). Add it up: Using research to improve education for low-income and minority students. Washington: Poverty & Race Research Action Council. http://www.prrac.org/additup.pdf National Reading Panel. (2000). National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org . Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. This report from the American Federation of Teachers describes the essential knowledge teachers should have in order to be successful at teaching all children to master reading. Recommendations for improving the teaching of reading are made regarding teacher education and professional development.

Available at www.aft.org/edissues/rocketscience.htm .

Torgesen, J.K. (1998, Spring/Summer). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator. http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/reading/torgeson_catchthem.html

Research Reports on Adolescent Literacy Every child a graduate: A framework for an excellent education for all middle and high school students.

Joftus, S. (Ed.). (2002). Every child a graduate: A framework for an excellent education for all middle and high school students.

Washington D.C.: Alliance for Excellent Education. http://www.ccsso.org/content/PDFs/Every%20Child%20a%20Graduate.pdf 83

Literacy Education and Reading Programs in the Secondary School: Status, Problems, and Solutions (2002) Freya M.J., Zippere; M. Thomas Worley; Michelle W. Sisson; Rhonda W. Said NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 86, No 632

The status of literacy education and the reading program at the secondary school level is examined. Current problems and possible solutions for those problems are discussed. Results of a survey of principals' perceptions of their reading programs in a local school system are analyzed and supported by appropriate literature on the topic. On the Web: http://www.nassp.org/news/bltn_literacyed0902.html The Keys to Literacy (2002) Council for Basic Education A CBE special report on excellent reading instruction. The second edition includes eight authors, chosen for their national reputation and commitment to a literate society. The articles address reading research, teacher training, student instruction, and reading comprehension. A list of follow-up actions accompanies the articles to assist administrators, teachers, and parents in applying this knowledge to their own instructional activities.

On the Web:

http://www.c-b-e.org/PDF/KeystoLiteracy2002.pdf The Urban High School’s Challenge: Ensuring Literacy for Every Child (2002) Carnegie Corporation of New York With the goal of elevating the issue to the national agenda, this paper details the importance of adolescent literacy and its essential role in society. It describes various approaches across the nation that address the need for systemic change in the teaching of reading to high school students.

On the Web:

http://www.carnegie.org/pdf/literacy.pdf Adolescent Reading: A Synthesis of Research (2002) Mary E. Curtis, Center for Special Education, Lesley University This paper summarizes the major findings of adolescent reading research conducted since 1990 and makes recommendations for areas that have yet to be considered. Completed at the request of NIFL and NICHD, the results were presented at Practice Models for Adolescent Literacy Success: The Second Workshop on Adolescent Literacy in Baltimore, MD in May 2002. On the Web: http://216.26.160.105/conf/nichd/synthesis.asp Strategic Instruction Model: The Strategic Instruction Model Approach to Improving Adolescent Literacy (2002) B. Keith Lenz, The University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning The Center for Research Learning's model to address many of the needs of diverse learners, Strategic Instruction Model (SIM), promotes effective teaching and learning of critical literacy skills and strategies to students. This series of papers discuss the model, evaluations of the model, the instructional components, the use of the model in secondary schools, and its effects on high school students. On the Web: http://www.ku-crl.org Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension (2002) RAND Reading Study Group RAND convened 14 experts in the field of reading to propose strategic guidelines for long-term research and development. Originally intended to inform the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) about ways to improve the quality and relevance of education research and development, this report is the product of those efforts. On the Web: http://www.rand.org/cgi bin/Abstracts/ordi/getabbydoc.pl?doc=MR-1465 This paper describes the design principles, instructional practices, and specific curricula of Direct Instruction- one example of focused, systematic, explicit instruction.

Kozloff, M.A., LaNunziata, L., Cowardin, J., & Bessellieu, F.B. (2001). Direct instruction: Its contributions to high school achievement. High School Journal, 84(2), 54-74. Retrieved 10/5/2004 from http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/dihighschool.html 84 Success of a

Direct Instruction Model at a secondary level school with high-risk students (2002) Bonnie Grossen, University of Oregon Direct Instruction is a model of reading instruction within a larger, more generic category of teacher- directed instruction. The goal of the DI model is to improve achievement levels of low-performing students by accelerating learning through a highly engineered curriculum for learning success and efficiency as well as achieving 100% on task behaviour using every available minute of the school period. This paper discusses the model, literacy measures, procedures, and results. On the Web: http://www.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/page5.html Teaching Children to Read: Reports of the Subgroups (2000) National Reading Panel This 480-page comprehensive report explains the methodology and scientific research used by the National Reading Panel in its effort to assess the best ways to teach children to read. The report is divided into five topics: Alphabetics, Fluency, Comprehension, Teacher Education and Reading Instruction, and Computer Technology and Reading Instruction. On the Web: http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/subgroups.htm Teaching Children to Read: Summary Report (2000) National Reading Panel This 35-page summary report explains the origin of the Panel and its congressional charge, and succinctly describes the research methodology used and the findings of each of the Panel subgroups: Alphabetics, Fluency, Comprehension, Teacher Education and Reading Instruction, and Computer Technology and Reading Instruction. On the Web: http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/summary.htm Handbook of Reading Research, Volume III (2000) Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc. Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, Rebecca Barr A comprehensive overview of issues in the field of reading research, this volume is divided into the following topics: literacy research around the world, methods of literacy research, literacy processes, literacy practices and literacy policies. Adolescent Literacy: A Position Statement for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association (1999) David W. Moore, Thomas W. Bean, Deanna Birdyshaw, James A. Rycik IRA recommends a wide variety of motivating reading material; instruction that encompasses reading comprehension, critical reading, and study strategies across the curriculum; qualified teachers who can respond to each learner's uniqueness; and reading specialists to assist individual students. On the Web: http://www.reading.org/pdf/1036.pdf

Reading for Understanding: A Guide to Improving Reading in Middle and High School Classrooms (1999) Ruth Schoenbach, Cynthia Greenleaf, Christine Cziko, Lori Hurwitz This guide to improving reading in middle and high school classrooms describes a successful approach to helping student improve their literacy. The program, Adolescent Literacy, increased the average reading scores by more than two years after only seven months of instruction for the entire freshman class at a San Francisco high school. The report discusses the strategies, like reading apprenticeships, and support systems needed to implement and evaluate such programs throughout a school. On the Web: http://www.josseybass.com/cda/product/0,,0787950459||2978,00.html Joes Torgesen on what science tells us about teaching literacy to adults. http://www.fcrr.org/staffpresentations/Joe/NA/adult_literacy_tampa.pdf

Dr Kerry Hempenstall

Kerry Hempenstall. (2008) Corrective Reading: An Evidence Based Remedial Reading Intervention. Australasian Journal of Special Education Vol. 32, No. 1, , pp. 23–54

“This article first examines recent theoretical and empirical research on reading development and instruction in English-speaking countries. Then, a study is described that examines the effects of a synthetic phonics-emphasis Direct Instruction remedial reading program on the phonological processes of students, with teacher-identified serious reading problems, attending several Melbourne suburban schools. The 206 students (150 males and 56 females, mean age 9.7 years) were pre-tested on a battery of phonological tests, and assigned to the treatment condition or to a wait-list comparison group. The 134 students in the intervention group received the 65 lessons (in groups of up to 10) of the Corrective Reading: Decoding program from reading teachers at their schools. When compared with a similar cohort of 72 wait-list students from the same schools, the students made statistically significant and educationally large gains in the phonologically-related processes of word attack, phonemic awareness, and spelling, and statistically significant and moderately large gains in phonological recoding in lexical access, and phonological recoding in working memory. The study contributes to an understanding of the relationship between phonological processes and reading, and to an approach to efficiently assisting students whose underdeveloped decoding places their educational progress at risk. The Direct Instruction model has a relatively long history in reading education, the first program having been published in 1969. However, there has been surprisingly little serious attention paid to it from both the educational bureaucracy and the educational research community, despite its strong body of supportive empirical evidence.

Reports of Operation Follow Through (Engelmann, Becker, Carnine, & Gersten, 1988; Grossen, 1996), and the studies reported in meta-analyses by White (1988) and by Adams and Engelmann (1996) have not been accorded the attention that might have been expected. However, this anomaly has been part of a long lamented and broader malaise—the failure of research-based knowledge to have an impact upon educational decision making (Carnine, 1995; Hempenstall, 1996, 2006; Stanovich, 1994, Stone, 1996). In recent years, there has been a marked change in this education myopia in the USA and Great Britain, though, as yet, not in Australia. It is a change that is also evident in fields other than reading instruction, for example, the rise of evidence-based medicine in patient care (Sackett, Rosenberg, Muir Gray, Haynes, & Richardson, 1996), and empirically validated treatment in psychotherapy (American Psychological Association, 1993). These changes have been wrought despite significant resistance from entrenched traditionalists in their respective professions. Evoking a sense of optimism is the gradual pressure for change spreading across those nations using written alphabetic languages. The similarity of recommendations among numerous national and state reports in the USA, for example, those of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Lyon, 1998), the National Reading Panel (National Reading Panel, 2000), the American Institutes for Research (1999), the National Research Council (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), and the Texas Reading Initiative (1996), has demonstrated the considerable consensus existing about the crucial elements of reading development and instruction.

The importance to successful instruction of phonemic awareness and the alphabetic principle has been strongly asserted. The extra traction gained by systematic synthetic phonics instruction over more ad hoc, loosely specified phonics approaches is clearly noted in these reports. The impact on students of such careful explication of the code can be described as inoculative against reading failure. In this sense, it parallels the use of a vaccine to evince immunity to a specific disease—a public health measure considered worthwhile for all, even though only some of the population may be at risk. In Britain, the National Literacy Strategy (Department of Education and Employment, 1998) was released to all primary schools, requiring them to abandon the Whole Language approach to reading. Components of the former system, such as teaching students to rely on context clues to aid word reading, were discredited in the Strategy, and explicit phonics instruction was mandated from the earliest stages of reading instruction. ‘There must be systematic, regular, and frequent teaching of phonological awareness, phonics and spelling’ (Department for Education and Employment, 1998, p. 11). Unfortunately, the strong resistance to such explicit teaching led to substantially less instructional change than was anticipated, and correspondingly less improvement in national literacy figures. In 2006, the Primary Framework for Literacy and Mathematics (Primary National Strategy, 2006) was released, updating its 1998 predecessor, and mandating practice even more firmly onto an evidence base. In particular, it withdrew its imprimatur from the 3-cueing system (Hempenstall, 2003) approach to reading, and embraced the Simple View (Hoover & Gough,1990) of reading that highlights the importance of decoding as the pre-eminent strategy for saying what’s on the page.

Under the 3-cueing system, making meaning by any method (pictures, syntactic, and semantic cues) took precedence over decoding as the prime strategy. The new 2006 Strategy mandates a synthetic phonics approach, in which letter–sound correspondences are taught in a clearly defined sequence, and the skills of blending and segmenting phonemes are assigned high priority. This approach contrasts with the less effective analytic phonics, in which the phonemes associated with particular graphemes are not pronounced in isolation (i.e., outside of whole words). In Reading Instruction, Reading Difficulties 25 the analytic phonics approach, students are asked to analyse the common phoneme in a set of words in which each word contains the phoneme being introduced(Hempenstall, 2001). The lesser overall effectiveness of analytic phonics instruction may be due to a lack of sufficient systematic practice and feedback usually required by the less able reading student (Adams, 1990). In Australia, the National Enquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (Department of Education, Science, and Training, 2005) recommendations exhorted the education field to turn towards science for its inspiration. For example, the committee argued strongly for empirical evidence to be used to improve the manner in which reading is taught in Australia. In sum, the incontrovertible finding from the extensive body of local and international evidence-based literacy research is that for children during the early years of schooling (and subsequently if needed), to be able to link their knowledge of spoken language to their knowledge of written language, they must first master the alphabetic code—the system of grapheme–phoneme correspondences that link written words to their pronunciations. Because these are both foundational and essential skills for the development of competence in reading, writing and spelling, they must be taught explicitly, systematically, early and well. (p. 37) Perhaps extra impetus for similar reform in Australia will arise from the Parents’ Attitudes to Schooling report from the Department of Education, Science and Training (2007). Among the findings was that only 37.5 per cent of the surveyed parents believed that students leave school with adequate literacy skills.

Generally, the impact of state and national testing has led to greater transparency concerning how our students fare in their literacy development. Media attention on these findings and on the occasional litigation have focused community attention, and (thereafter) renewed government attention to the issue of reform. From a theoretical perspective, each of the National Reading Panel (2000) recommended foci for reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension) is clearly set out and taught in Direct Instruction literacy programs. These same instructional features were endorsed in the report of the National Enquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. An examination of the program teaching sequences in, for example, the Reading Mastery (Engelmann & Bruner, 1988) and Corrective Reading (Engelmann, Hanner, & Johnson, 1999) texts attests to their comprehensive nature. However, these necessary elements are only the ingredients for success. Having all the right culinary ingredients doesn’t guarantee a perfect souffle´. There are other issues, such as what proportion of each ingredient is optimal, when should they be added, how much stirring and heating is necessary? Errors on any of these requirements lead to sub-optimal outcomes. So it is with literacy programs. ‘Yet there is a big difference between a program based on such elements and a program that has itself been compared with matched or randomly assigned control groups’ (Slavin, 2003, p. 15). Just because a program has 26 K. Hempenstall most, or all, of the elements doesn’t guarantee that it will be effective necessarily. Engelmann (2004) points to the logical error of inferring a whole based upon the presence of some or all of its elements. The logic error is seen in the following: If a dog is a Dalmatian, it has spots. Therefore, if a dog has spots, it is a Dalmatian (Engelmann, 2004, p. 34). In this simile, the Dalmatian represents programs known to be effective with students. It is possible to analyse the content of these programs, and then assume incorrectly that the mere presence of those characteristics is sufficient to ensure effectiveness. This ignores the orchestration of detail that also helps determine effectiveness. Engelmann is thus critical of merely ‘research-based’ programs, that is, programs constructed only to ensure each respected component is somewhere represented in the mix. Reading First is a massive program in the USA designed to improve literacy outcomes for disadvantaged students in the first four years of schooling.

Early reports (Office of Management and Budget, 2007) indicate that it is having a positive impact nationally; however, one criticism of it is that the criterion for acceptability of the programs used was diluted. Reid Lyon, the primary architect of Reading First, was critical of the modification of his plan that funding should be provided only for programs with proven effectiveness—to the easier-to-meet criterion that programs had only to be based on scientifically based reading research (Shaughnessy, 2007). A possible reason for this Department of Education decision relates to the lack of well designed studies of reading instruction. According to Slavin (2007), there are only two beginning programs generally acknowledged to have strong empirical evidence of effectiveness: Success for All and Direct Instruction. It was considered politically unacceptable to allow only two programs to dominate beginning reading to the nation’s disadvantaged children. This decision has other ramifications. It has led to some programs offering only the appearance of being evidence-based, thereby diminishing the potential of the national scheme overall. In most published reading schemes, program designers assume that teachers know how to structure a lesson effectively when they are provided with some worthwhile content. This assumption is far from universally justified. The content may be research-based, but its presentation may be competent, slipshod, or cursory. Corrective feedback may or may not occur systematically. Mastery by students may or may not be expected. Practice opportunities may or may not be adequate for the population. Regular data-based monitoring may or may not occur. Teacher creativity may abound. This loose coupling between content and delivery would horrify an empirically-trained psychologist, as it would a surgeon trained to follow protocols.

It also highlights why the crucial element in evaluation is not simply that a program is consistent with scientific findings, but also that it has been demonstrably successful with the target population. So for a true measure, we must look beyond theoretical acceptability, and examine empirical studies to show that a particular combination of theoretically important elements is indeed effective. The questions become: Has a particular program demonstrated independently replicated effectiveness? For what populations? Reading Instruction, Reading Difficulties. The development of criteria for acceptable research evidence is a common element in the reweighting of empirical research in the professional fields mentioned earlier. In the case of reading, it should make easier the task of convincing the educational community how valuable could be the findings of rigorous research in informing practice. Having established these criteria, it becomes easier to determine which of the plethora of reading programs available do have adequate research support at any given time. Unfortunately, the standard of educational research generally has not been high enough to enable confidence in its findings. Partly, this is due to a preponderance of short-term, inadequately designed studies. When Slavin (2004) examined the American Educational Research Journal over the period 2000–2003, only 3 out of 112 articles reported experimental/control comparisons in randomised studies with reasonably extended treatments.

The examination of existing evidence employing criteria (of various levels of stringency) by a range of groups has supported Direct Instruction as a valuable approach to reading instruction for both regular and struggling readers. For example, the American Federation of Teachers series of documents Building on the best: Learning from what works (1997) nominates Direct Instruction programs among each of its recommendations across different facets of education: Seven Promising Reading and English Language Arts Programs, Three Promising High School Remedial Reading Programs, Five Promising Remedial Reading Intervention Programs and Six Promising Schoolwide Reform Programs. A report from the American Institutes for Research (1999), An educators’ guide to school-wide reform, found that only three programs, Direct Instruction among them, had adequate evidence of effectiveness in reading instruction. In a follow-up evaluation (American Institutes for Research, 2006), 800 studies of student achievement were reviewed involving 22 programs directed at US high-poverty, low-performing schools. The two programs rated most highly were those that offered a high level of manualisation of both curriculum and non-curriculum features. The level of detail and the field testing and rewriting that occur before these programs are published does not preclude excursions from fidelity, but on average it does attenuate them. The two programs were Engelmann’s Direct Instruction and Robert Slavin’s Success for All. Other similarly supportive reviews of Direct Instruction include: Reading programs that work: A review of programs for pre-kindergarten to 4th grade (Schacter, 1999), Current practice alerts (Council for Exceptional Children, 1999), Bringing evidence driven progress to education (Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, 2002), Center for Education Reform: Best bets (McCluskey, 2003), Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis (Borman, 2007; Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2002), Review of comprehensive programs (Curriculum Review Panel, 2004), and CSRQ Center Report on Elementary School CSR Models (American Institutes for Research, 2005).

These reports have been influential in drawing attention to the large corpus of supportive research developed over the years indicative of the effectiveness of the Direct Instruction model across a wide range of educational settings. The model is now being implemented with varying degrees of fidelity in increasing numbers of school settings. Considering the two aspects of reading research described above—the theoretical and the empirical—it is evident that the Direct Instruction model has strengths in each area to support its use. In line with current research findings, the programs focus on critical areas such as phonemic awareness (the ability to decompose the spoken word into its constituent sounds) and letter–sound relationships. The themes critical for struggling students are paid careful attention in the program design. These are adequate lesson frequency (daily), and sufficient daily and spaced practice to reduce the risk of forgetting, immediate correction of errors to guide the student towards mastery, and continuous assessment of progress to validate the effectiveness of the teaching. Refreshingly, the assessment emphasises the teaching process rather than the child as the major issue. Failure to learn is viewed as failure to teach effectively, and specific corrective teaching procedures are developed to redress the problems should lack of progress be observed. The emphasis on teaching quality rather than learner quality makes redundant any explanations of failure based on intelligence, race, readiness, first language, or home background. It is an empowering approach because it acknowledges and reinforces the status and power of teachers to make a real difference to students. Interestingly, in Australia there has been a rise in the adoption of Direct Instruction programs without any state or federal government support until recently. About 350 schools in Victoria have implemented one or more Direct Instruction programs (McGraw Hill, personal communication, June 2007) across basic skill areas, such as language, reading decoding and reading comprehension, spelling, writing, and maths. In state education department documents, the former wholesale acceptance of the Whole Language model has been sharply declining, except for the maintenance of a near-relation, Reading Recovery, as the first line of remediation. It is an expensive intervention, given that it is required by 40–50% of first grade students in Victoria (Office of the Victorian Auditor General, 2003).

The recent review by Reynolds and Wheldall (2007) highlights the limitations of that approach in attempting to achieve universal literacy. In recent times, there has been some interest in Direct Instruction from the federal government—Working out what works (Hoad, Munro, Pearn, Rowe, & Rowe, 2005), and in the literature review presented to the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy: A review of the empirical evidence identifying effective interventions and teaching practices for students with learning difficulties in Years 4, 5 and 6 (Purdie & Ellis, 2005). At the state level in Victoria, the Successful Interventions Literacy Research Project (Department of Education, Employment, and Training, 2001) reported favourably upon one such program—the Corrective Reading program. Many of the schools employing Direct Instruction programs have opted for the remedial decoding program known as Corrective Reading: Decoding (Engelmann, Reading Instruction, Reading Difficulties 29 Hanner, & Johnson, 1999) with mid-primary and older remedial readers, as it is around that time that the developmental lag explanation for a lack of a student’s progress begins to ring hollow. Because the Corrective Reading program has been available in various editions since 1978, there have been a significant number of evaluations completed, though not many have been sufficiently well designed to meet stringent publication criteria. Grossen (1998) reviewed some of the available research on the program, both controlled comparisons and school evaluations. She described eight studies that evaluated only Corrective Reading Decoding, one that evaluated only the sister program, Corrective Reading: Comprehension, and five that used both programs. The populations included general education students, limited English-speaking students, and special education students with various identified disabilities. Grossen reported that students in the Corrective Reading interventions progressed faster than students in the comparison groups in all but one of the studies. Similar results were reported for secondary students by Harris, Marchand-Martella, and Martella (2000), and also by Grossen (2004) in a larger-scale implementation.

In a study of 45 incarcerated adolescents, Malmgren and Leone (2000) noted significant gains in fluency and accuracy of reading when 30 of 65 lessons of Corrective Reading: Decoding and Corrective Reading: Comprehension were provided. They also highlighted the problem of late intervention in observing that even these improved reading scores remained within the first percentile. Sometimes the Direct Instruction programs have been modified for specific purposes. In a randomised design, Trezek and Malmgren (2005) successfully employed Decoding Level A, along with a means of making the articulatory gestures visual, with hearing impaired students. When compared to a comparison group, strong and significant differences were noted at post-test on identifying sounds in isolation, and on nonsense word reading. Lovett et al. (1994) used a 35 lesson training program developed from Reading Mastery: Fast Cycle 1 & 2 (Engelmann, & Bruner, 1984), and Corrective Reading to teach word identification to dyslexic students for one hour four times per week. They compared results to a control group taught a study skills program, and achieved highly significant post-test gains for the experimental group—effect sizes (d) of 0.76, 1.11, and 0.90 on the three training measures. The transfer to real words was impressive, and ‘was based on the successful training of what is considered the core deficit of developmental dyslexia: phonological processing and nonword reading skill’ (p. 818). Further, they argue, ‘this training success rests on embedding letter–sound training in an intensive phonological training program’ (p. 819). In a further study, offering 70 hours of Direct Instruction-based phonological instruction, Lovett et al. (2000) noted similarly large treatment effects, evident even in comprehension tasks. In summary, Corrective Reading program’s instructional content and design is considered to meet the criteria for acceptance as a scientifically based reading program (Oregon Reading First, 2004). However, there remains a need for better quality studies to add to the research base (Smith, 2004).

Another issue relevant to this study is the question: To improve decoding, is instructional time for struggling readers most effectively devoted to a dedicated phonemic awareness program along with a synthetic phonics program? Alternatively, is this precious time better spent solely in synthetic phonics activities? Johnston and Watson (2004) assert that phonological awareness training may be important alongside analytic phonics, but unnecessary when synthetic phonics is employed. In the Ehri et al. (2001) meta-analysis it is clear that the impact of phonemic awareness activities on subsequent reading is markedly enhanced when letters are part of the program. Hatcher, Hulme, and Ellis (1994) concluded that children in dual-input programs demonstrate more improvement in reading and spelling than those exposed to a solely oral phonemic awareness program. Hammill (2004) concurs, suggesting that a focus on print activities is more beneficial than on any other non print activities. The findings of Bentin and Leshem (1993) suggest that for most children effective synthetic phonics programs are sufficient to evoke phonemic awareness alongside reading progress in beginning readers. An interesting question is whether the programs can do so for older students with significant reading problems. Further, what about the other phonological processes? Does weakness in one or other of them need to be addressed specifically, or are they also amenable to improvement if reading itself can be developed? This research was designed to assess the effect of participating in the Corrective Reading program on phonological processes (i.e., phonemic awareness, phonological recoding in lexical access, and phonological recoding in working memory), word attack, and spelling. Method I am often contacted by schools for advice on problems they may experience in effectively promoting student literacy. In the primary school setting, this most frequently involves students in middle and upper primary grades who appear to have experienced what Jean Chall referred to as the fourth grade slump (Rosenshine, 2002).

For this study, I agreed to assist schools to establish a systematic synthetic phonics approach to address this predictable and regular problem. After receiving research-based information about the role of decoding deficits in the struggles students may have with reading success, a number of schools elected to take up this proposal. I agreed to provide ongoing program advice as needed, and to organise for pre-test and post-test assessment of all the students over the 65-lesson intervention. The participants were 206 (150 male and 56 female) middle and upper primary school students attending five State and four Catholic schools in suburban Melbourne. A larger cohort of students had been referred for assistance by their class teachers because of perceived slow reading progress. The ratio of boys to girls in the larger cohort identified by teachers was similar to the final sex ratio in the study. Each of these students was individually assessed with the Corrective Reading: Decoding program Placement Test to ensure the presence of the program entry skills and the Reading Instruction, Reading Difficulties 31 absence of the program outcome skills. The final 206 participants comprised both the experimental (134 students) and the wait-list control group (72 students). The two groups constituted those referred students falling within the skill band suitable for inclusion in the Corrective Reading: Decoding program. The experimental group consisted of students from those schools that had sufficient numbers of suitable students to form a group (about 10 students), and adequate school arrangements (e.g., staff) to enable the group(s) to proceed. Some schools had identified more students than they could manage at the one time. They elected for these students to delay participation in the intervention until the first group concluded the program. These latter students comprised the wait-list control list. They were receiving the regular grade-level English or reading program while the experimental group students were withdrawn for about 50 minutes—ideally five times per week. Hence the contrast was between two distinct interventions—the schools’ English/reading programs and the Corrective Reading program. There was no systematic allocation process that might be expected to produce different experimental/control group characteristics, and thus compromise the conclusions through selection bias. For example, there was no decision to intervene with the most delayed students first.

When a school had both an intervention and a wait-list group, selection into intervention was based upon administrative criteria, such as being from the same grade. Additionally, the comparison groups were drawn from the same set of schools participating in the reading program; thus, there was less chance that socio-economic or other differences might confound the interpretation of results. The control group cluster may be described as non equivalent (Cook & Campbell, 1979) as the students were not randomly assigned to their respective groups, but were from convenience samples. More than 50% of the students were from areas considered disadvantaged. The low mean index (995) corresponds to the 25th percentile, indicating that the study areas have a high proportion of low-income families (Castles, 1994). The age of participants varied from 7.8 years to 13.4 years (M59.7 years, SD 1.2 years), and the program period varied from 5to10months(M57months) to complete the 60–65 lessons. Such variation in lesson frequency was not ideal, but reflects the reality of school timetabling. There were 15 drop-outs whose scores were not included. Pre-testing and post-testing were performed largely by me, with some individual testing performed by postgraduate students who had been trained in the administration of the chosen tests. The pre-tests and post-tests for both groups were seven months apart. The program presenters were qualified primary reading teachers who had received at least minimal training in presenting the Decoding program. Measures A wide variety of tasks have been used to measure the construct of phonemic awareness. The Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA) (Torgesen & Bryant, 32 K. Hempenstall 1994) measures phoneme segmentation, one of the most relevant phonological awareness tasks to reading (Nation & Hulme, 1997). The test manual notes that the TOPA meets the requirements for technical adequacy according to standards of the American Psychological Association (1985, cited in Torgesen & Bryant, 1994).

Construct: Phonological Recoding in Lexical Access

Many studies have noted the higher error rate, and slower naming speed of disabled readers confronted with continuous lists of numbers, letters, pictured objects, and colours (Share, 1995). The difficulty is independent of semantic abilities—remaining evident when skilled and less skilled readers are matched on receptive vocabulary (Jorm, Share, Matthews, & Maclean, 1986). Nor does it appear that the speed and error rates are due to visual perceptual processes, but rather to greater difficulty in establishing phonological representations (Share, 1995). The theoretical link between naming tasks and reading involves the requirement of retrieving the name for a stimulus presented in visual format. In practice, it has been the speed with which the task is completed that correlates most highly with both word recognition and comprehension (Wolf, 1991). A continuous picture naming test was developed for this study to provide a simple test of rapid naming—one directly relevant to reading. The skill has been assessed in a number of forms, but usually involves naming of known items: letters, numbers, colours, pictures, and objects. This test is a variant of the Rapid Automatised Naming test (Denckla & Rudel, 1976). It has been argued that letter naming is the naming skill most salient to reading, which is unsurprising given that it directly involves an element of the reading process, and is accepted as a strong predictor of future reading success in beginning readers. However, it was not assumed that all students were firm in their letter–sound knowledge, and likely that a number of the students would fall into this category. Additionally, using picture naming rather than letter naming avoids any reciprocal effects of reading ability upon letter naming (Johnston & Kirby, 2006). The Picture Naming Test in this study uses black and white line drawings of everyday objects and events. The test comprised 60 pictures in 3 pages, and students were allowed one minute to name as many as they could. Reliability figures (Hempenstall, 1995) were obtained by using a test–retest protocol with an interval of 2 weeks, involving a class of 28 students from a primary school involved in the study. The composite Year 3–4 class was tested individually in the identical format to the subsequent study. The ages of students ranged from 7.07 to 10.2 years. The Pearson correlation was .77.

Construct: Phonological Recoding in Working Memory

Working memory may not be a major limiting factor in skilled reading because most words are recognised instantly, and comprehension occurs at the time of the word’s fixation (Crowder & Wagner, 1992). For unskilled and novice readers, however, shortcomings in verbal working memory are likely to be exposed in the blending task, and in retaining the meaning of a sentence during its progressive decoding (Share, 1995). Disabled readers typically struggle to retain in working memory verbal material presented orally or visually (see Wagner & Torgesen [1987] for a review). Such short-term memory problems for verbal material have been evidenced in a variety of memory tasks including digits, letters, groups of words or sentences, and in objects and nameable pictures (Share & Stanovich, 1995). The performance of these tasks requires the capacity to store information represented in a phonological code. The deficit appears specific to phonological representation, as in visuo-spatial tasks there is no similar deficit (Share, 1995). Thus, the relationship between memory span and reading is well established correlationally, but there is little evidence to support a direct causal role from memory to reading. Hulme and Roodenrys (1995) provide data to support the idea that short-term memory is merely a marker for other phonological deficits (especially, the quality of phonological representations). Further, short-term memory impairment has been noted prior to school commencement, and hence cannot be explained as merely a consequence of slow reading progress; although interestingly, the ability may be amenable to improvement as reading skill develops (Ellis, 1990 ; Goldstein, 1976, cited in Share, 1995). Pre- and post-testing of Digit Span may detect any such effects occurring during the intervention. The measure chosen for phonological recoding in working memory was the Digit Span subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Third Edition (Wechsler, 1991). This subtest is recognised as having well-established reliability and validity (Sattler, 1992). Construct: Decoding The Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests—Revised (Woodcock, 1987) is a comprehensive reading assessment tool frequently used in educational settings. The Word Attack subtest requires the student to decipher nonsense words. A correct response precludes the possibility of having used other than a phonological recoding strategy, or reading by analogy with similar real words. Validity and reliability are well regarded (Olson, Forsberg, Wise, & Rack, 1994). This subtest has been used in a number of studies to assess phonological recoding (e.g., Alexander, Anderson, Heilman, Voeller, & Torgesen, 1991; Bowers, 1995; Bowers & Swanson, 1991; Bowey, Cain, & Ryan, 1992). The test is used here because it measures the degree to which students transfer phonemic awareness to the reading task. It also correlates strongly with word recognition and reading comprehension (Elbro, Nielsen, & Petersen, 1994; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Tanzman, 1994), and thus can arguably provide a proxy for general reading progress.

Spelling has been considered at least partly a phonologically-based skill (Plaza, 2003), and its correlation with phonemic awareness has been reported as about .6 (Shankweiler, Lundquist, Dreyer, & Dickinson, 1996; Stage & Wagner, 1992). Westwood (2005) also reports a correlation between spelling ability and reading achievement of around .89 to .92 from about age 8 years. There have been a number of approaches used to assess spelling. A dictated word list approach was adopted because students are familiar with such a format, for ease of assessment in a group setting, and because it is a generally accepted format in educational research (Moats, 1994). The Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills (Brigance, 1992) spelling subtest is primarily a criterion referenced instrument of this type. It is based on words used at the various grade levels in five or more of nine published spelling programs. It contains 10 words per year-level. The test has limitations. For example, there have been no published reliability figures. Test–retest reliability was determined (Hempenstall, 1995) in a class of 28 students in one of the primary schools involved in the study. The composite Year 3 4 class was tested in a group format, using blank sheets of paper to cover their work in order to preclude collaboration. The ages of students ranged from 7.07 to 10.2 years. Pearson correlation was calculated at .97 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 6.1, 1995).

The Corrective Reading Program

The Corrective Reading program is a remedial reading program designed for students in late Year 3 and above. It comprises two strands: Decoding and Comprehension, and within these strands are a number of levels. The Decoding strand was the focus of this study; the four levels (A, B1, B2, C) correspond to the students’ decoding capacity, as assessed with a placement test. The Corrective Reading program has been evaluated on many occasions, though its effects on phonological processes have not previously been a focus. Most analyses have emphasised word recognition and reading comprehension as outcome variables, and results for a wide range of poor readers have been strong (Grossen, 1998). Selection The placement test is administered prior to the program and consists of several passages of prose, the rate and accuracy of reading determining the program level for any given student. The placement test also ensures that student groups are relatively homogeneous in their decoding ability, and that they are neither over-challenged by the level of difficulty of the program, nor already competent at that level. The wait list group provided the source of the non-equivalent control group.

There are two major features evident in the Corrective Reading program. They are the emphasis on decoding skills (phonics) and the Direct Instruction approach to teaching the phonics content. It includes work on both isolated words and connected sentences, but its major emphasis is at the level of word structure. It is made clear to students that the decoding of novel words involves careful word analysis rather than partial cue or contextual guessing. Students are continually prompted to take account of all letters in a word, and become sensitised to common (and often problematic) letter groupings, for example, those beginning with combinations st, bl, sl, fl, pl, sw, cl, tr, dr; or ending with nt, nd, st, ts, mp, ps, cks, ls, ms, th, er, ing, ers, y. The sentences provided are constructed in a manner that allows few clues for contextual guessing, but provides ample opportunities to practise what has been learned in the teacher-presented word-attack segment of the lesson. In this study, groups comprised about 10 students. Lessons are scripted, and use choral responses prompted by teacher signals. Teacher monitoring of responses helps determine the amount of repetition deemed necessary for mastery. Lessons typically range from 45 minutes to one hour, dependent on teacher lesson pacing. Program design specifies an optimum schedule of five lessons each week. This level of intensity has been found important for students with reading problems, as they tend to have difficulty retaining new skills and knowledge. There is strong emphasis on massed practice for mastery, and spaced practice for retention. If the lesson frequency is too low, retention may be jeopardised—leading to a general progress deceleration (Torgesen, 2003). The Level A program focuses attention on word structure through reviewing letter–sound correspondence, and regular rhyming, blending and segmenting activities. It relates these phonemic awareness activities to the written word by initially emphasising regularly spelled words decomposable by using these skills.

When this phonic approach is accepted by students as a viable (even valuable) strategy, common irregular words are introduced. In the program authors’ view, this sequence reduces the jettisoning of the generative decoding strategies that may occur when irregular words are initially encountered at the high rate common in authentic literature. Engelmann, Hanner, and Johnson (1999) describe the range of skills taught in Decoding A: letter/sound identification; sounding-out (segmenting) orally presented words, and then saying them fast (blending); decoding words of varying degrees of irregularity; reading whole words the fast way; reading short groups of words; sentence reading; spelling. Related skills such as matching letters, and common letter groupings (such as ing), word completion (for example, rhyming), and symbol scanning are included on the student worksheets. The sentence-reading exercises provide practice in reading words within a context. They are designed to retrain students in how to read words in sentences; achieved partly through ensuring contextual strategies will be unproductive, and through immediate correction of all decoding errors.

The next level of the Corrective Reading program builds on the curriculum presented in Level A. The typical Decoding B lesson is divided into four major parts. In word-attack skills, students practise pronouncing words, identifying the sounds of letters or letter combinations, and reading isolated words composed of sounds and sound combinations that have been learned by the students. In group story-reading, students take turns reading aloud from their storybook, while those who are not reading follow along. The stories are divided into parts, and when the group reads a story part within the error limit, the teacher presents specified comprehension questions for that part. In individual reading checkouts, assigned pairs of students read two passages, the first of which is from the lesson just read by the group, whereas the second is from the preceding lesson. Each member of the pair first reads the passage from the current story, then a timed passage from the preceding lesson. Points for this passage are earned if the student reads it within a specified rate and error criterion. Workbook activities conclude the lesson. The tasks are integrated with the activities in the other sections to provide additional practice opportunities. In this study, 85 students participated in Level A and 49 in Level B of the program. Results Descriptive Statistics Tables1 and 2 provide the raw and transformed data used for all analyses. Reading Disability Criterion It has been argued that the major deficit facing the disabled reader is a difficulty in decoding single words, and that the primary basis for this difficulty is phonological in nature (Torgesen & Hudson, 2006). It has also been recognised that a pseudoword decoding test is an appropriate tool for discerning such a difficulty (Elbro, Nielsen, & Petersen, 1994; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Share & Stanovich, 1995; Stanovich, 1988). On the Word Attack sub-test of the Woodcock Tests of Reading Mastery (1987), the average score of the combined cohort is at the 5th percentile, an average delay of 2.8 years. This represents a score between 1.5 and 2 standard deviations from the mean, sufficient in most definitions for a diagnosis of reading disability (Felton, 1992; Lovett & Steinbach, 1997; Lovett et al., 1994; Lyon & Moats, 1997; Newby, Recht, & Caldwell, 1993; Prior, Sanson, Smart, & Oberklaid, 1995; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Vellutino et al., 1996). Multivariate Analyses A single-factor between-subjects multivariate analysis of covariance (mancova) was performed to indicate whether there was any difference between the experimental and control groups on the combined post-test scores for the five main dependent measures.Thefivecorrespondingpre-testscoresservedascovariates.Aninitialtest revealed a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of slopes, F(25, 707.32)52.33, p,.001, so subsequent analysis required fitting separate slopes for Table1. Experimental vs. control group: mean raw scores n Age TOPA Word Attack PNT Digit Span Spelling Control 72 Pretest Range 83–153 5–20 0–29 6–54 4–17 5–39 M 115.72 14.57 11.38 33.43 9.28 17.85 SD 14.77 4.49 6.77 9.03 2.22 6.46 Posttest Range 90–160 6–20 0–28 14–52 5–15 4–34 M 122.61 15.28 12.31 34.57 9.57 19.53 SD 14.76 4.36 6.96 8.57 1.84 6.33 Experimental 134 Pretest Range 92–161 1–20 0–31 12–53 3–15 1–31 M 115.27 12.84 10.16 33.03 9.34 15.47 SD 13.26 3.90 6.45 7.64 2.08 5.58 Post test Range 97–167 6–20 0–41 9–55 2–18 7–41 M 122.24 17.04 19.54 37.39 10.31 20.99 SD 12.83 3.47 8.18 8.01 2.28 5.75 Table2.

Experimental vs control group: mean power transformed scores n Word Attack Digit Span Spelling Control 72 Pretest Minimum 1.00 0.06 2.72 Maximum 2.49 0.26 9.76 M 1.90 0.12 5.91 SD 0.31 0.03 1.37 Post test Minimum 1.00 0.07 2.37 Maximum 2.47 0.21 8.97 M 1.94 0.12 6.26 SD 0.30 0.02 1.33 Experimental 134 Pretest Minimum 1.00 0.07 1.00 Maximum 2.53 0.35 8.47 M 1.83 0.12 5.40 SD 0.34 0.03 1.28 Post test Minimum 1.00 0.06 3.35 Maximum 2.72 0.18 10.07 M 2.20 0.11 6.58 SD 0.30 0.02 1.12 Reading Instruction, Reading Difficulties  38 K. Hempenstall each level of the treatment group factor. This analysis revealed that there was a significant multivariate relationship between the combined pre-test scores and the combined post-test scores for both the experimental group, Wilks’ l5.19, F(25, 707.32)516.13, p,.001, and the control group, Wilks’ l5.16, F (25, 707.32)518.08, p,.001. However, with the pre-test results partialled out separately for the two groups, there was a significant overall difference favouring the treatment over the control group, Wilks’ l5.89, F(5, 190)54.75, p,.001. Results for the combined variables were also analysed using a two-way mixed multivariate analysis of variance (manova). The within-subjects factor was time (pre vs. post); the between-subjects factor was group (experimental vs. control). A significant main effect was found for group, Wilks’ l5.94, F(5, 200)52.59, p5.027, power50.79, and for time, Wilks’ l5.40, F(5, 200)560.55, p,.001, power51.00, and for the group-by-time interaction, Wilks’ l5.60, F (5, 200)526.85, p,.001, power51.00. Follow-up testing of the interaction using simple main effects found a significant difference between the experimental and control groups at pre-test, Wilks’ l5.94, F (5, 200)52.61, p5.026, multivariate effect size5.06, power5.80 and at post-test, Wilks’ l5.84, F (5, 200)57.54, p,.001, multivariate effect size5.16, power51.00. Further, a significant pre- to post-test difference was found for the control group, Wilks’ l5.72, F (5, 67)55.22, p,.001, multivariate effect size5.28, power5.98, and for the experimental group, Wilks’ l5.22, F (5, 129)593.78, p,.001, multivariate effect size5.78, power51.00, and the magnitude of effect was substantially larger for the experimental group. The multivariate effect size (12l) can be considered large when it exceeds 0.15 (Cohen, 1988). Univariate Analyses This series of outcomes involved univariate analyses of the pre-test and post-test data, and also included the effect size d. Under the Cohen (1988) convention, 0.2 constitutes a small effect size, 0.5 a medium effect size, and 0.8 a large effect size. Slavin (1990) argued that an effect size above 0.25 should be considered educationally significant. Assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were tested for all data used in analyses of covariance and analyses of variance, and data transformations were performed when necessary.

Analyses were performed on the total sample of 206 students. The overall finding was that educationally significant change occurred in each of the measured variables, the size of the program effect varying from medium in the case of Digit Span, and Picture Naming, to large in Word Attack, TOPA, and Spelling. Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA) Results for TOPA were analysed using a single-factor between-subject analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with pre-test scores serving as the covariate and post-test Reading Instruction, Reading Difficulties 39 scores as the dependent variable. An initial test revealed a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of slopes, F(1, 202)514.15, p,.001, so subsequent analysis required fitting separate slopes for each level of the experimental group factor. This analysis revealed that pre-test scores covaried significantly with post-test scores for both the control, F(1, 202)5127.84, p,.001, and experimental groups, F(1, 202)557.69, p,.001. With the pre-test results partialled out separately for the two groups, there was a significant overall difference between the experimental and control groups, F(1, 202)531.73, p,.001. Results for TOPA were also analysed using a two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA). The within-subjects factor was time (pre vs. post); the between-subjects factor was group (experimental vs. control). No significant main effect was found for group, F(1, 204)50.00, p5.98, but a significant main effect was found for time, F(1, 204)5172.29, p,.001, power51.00, and the group-by-time interaction, F(1, 204)553.75, p,.001, power51.00, which is illustrated in Figure1. Follow-up testing of the interaction using simple main effects found a significant difference between the experimental and control groups at pre-test, F(1, 204)58.23, p5.005, d520.48, and at post-test, F(1, 204)510.04, p5.002, power51.00, d50.53. Further, no significant pre- to post-test difference was found for the control, F(1, 204)53.41, p5.066, d50.18, power50.451, but a significant pre- to post-test difference was found for the experimental groups, F(1, 204)5222.63, p,.001, d51.29, power51.00, and the magnitude of effect was large for the experimental group. Figure 1. Interaction (+Standard Error) between experimental and control groups at pre- and post-test for TOPA 40 K. Hempenstall Word Attack were analysed using a single-factor between-subject analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with transformed pre-test scores serving as the covariate and transformed post-test scores as the dependent variable. An initial test revealed a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of slopes, F(1, 202)511.28, p5.001, so subsequent analysis required fitting separate slopes for each level of the experimental group factor. This analysis revealed that pre-test scores covaried significantly with post-test scores for both the control, F(1, 202)5101.96, p,.001, and experimental groups, F(1, 202)585.88, p,.001. With the pre-test results partialled out separately for the two groups, there was a significant overall difference between the experimental and control groups, F(1, 202)523.55, p,.001. Results for the power transformed scores for Word Attack were also analysed using a two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA). The within-subjects factor was time (pre vs. post); the between-subjects factor was group (experimental vs. control). A significant main effect was found for group, F(1, 204)54.79, p5.030, power50.58, and for time, F(1, 204)5196.06, p,.001, power51.00, and the group-by-time interaction, F(1, 204)573.49, p,.001, power51.00, which is illustrated in Figure2. Follow-up testing of the interaction using simple main effects found a non-significant difference between the experimental and control groups at pre-test, F(1, 204)52.01, p5.158, d520.20, power5.29, but a significant difference at post-test, F(1, 204)533.03, p,.001, power51.00, d51.00. Further, no significant pre- to post-test difference was found for the control, F(1, 204)51.86, p5.174, power5.27, d50.15, but a significant pre- to post-test difference was found for the experimental groups, Figure 2. Interaction (+ SE) between experimental and control group at pre- and post-test for Word Attack Reading Instruction, Reading Difficulties 41 F(1, 204)5267.69, p,.001, power51.00, d51.34., and the magnitude of effect was large for the experimental group. Picture Naming Test Results for the Picture Naming Test were analysed using a single-factor between subject analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with pre-test scores serving as the covariate and post-test scores as the dependent variable. An initial test revealed no violation of the assumption of homogeneity of slopes, F(1, 202)52.27, p5.134. With the pre test results partialled out there was a significant overall difference between the experimental and control groups F(1, 203)510.48, p5.001. Results for the Picture Naming Test were also analysed using a two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA). The within-subjects factor was time (pre vs. post); the between-subjects factor was group (experimental vs. control). No significant main effect was found for group, F(1, 204)50.92, p5.337, power50.17, but a significant main effect was found for time, F(1, 204)547.49, p,.001, power51.00, and the group-by-time interaction, F(1, 204)510.11, p5.002, power5.88, which is illustrated in Figure3.

Follow-up testing of the interaction using simple main effects found no significant difference between the experimental and control groups at pre test, F(1, 204)50.11, p5.737, power51.00, d520.06, but a significant difference at post-test, F(1, 204)54.22, p5.041, power5.53, d50.39. Further, no significant pre to post-test difference was found for the control group, F(1, 204)52.28, p5.133, power5.32, d50.15, but a significant pre- to post-test difference was found for the Figure 3. Interaction (+ SE) between experimental and control group at pre- and post-test for Picture Naming Test 42 K. Hempenstall experimental group, F(1, 204)555.31, p,.001, power51.00, d50.57, and the magnitude of effect was medium for the experimental group. Digit Span Results for Digit Span were analysed using a single-factor between-subject analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with transformed pre-test scores serving as the covariate and transformed post-test scores as the dependent variable. An initial test revealed no violation of the assumption of homogeneity of slopes, F(1, 202)50.25, p5.621. With the pre-test results partialled out there was a significant overall difference between the experimental and control groups, F(1, 203)57.92, p5.005. Results for power transformed scores for Digit Span were also analysed using a two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA). The within-subjects factor was time (pre vs. post); the between-subjects factor was group (experimental vs. control). No significant main effect was found for group, F(1, 204)51.5, p5.222, power5.23, but a significant main effect was found for time, F(1, 204)528.71, p,.001, power51.00, and not for the group-by-time interaction, F(1, 204)53.68, p5.056, power5.48, which is illustrated in Figure4. Follow-up testing of the interaction using simple main effects found no significant difference between the experimental and control groups at pre-test, F(1, 204)50.00, p5.947, power5.03, d50.03, but found a significant difference at post-test, F(1, 204)56.08, p5.015, power50.69, d50.38. Further, no significant pre- to post-test difference was found for the control, F(1, 204)52.62, p5.107, power5.36, d50.16, but a significant difference was found Figure 4. Interaction (+ SE) between experimental and control group at pre- and post-test for Digit Span Reading Instruction, Reading Difficulties 43 for the experimental group, F(1, 204)529.77, p,.001, power51.00, d50.48, with a medium effect size for the experimental group. Brigance Spelling Results for Brigance Spelling were analysed using a single-factor between-subject analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with transformed pre-test scores serving as the covariate and transformed post-test scores as the dependent variable. An initial test revealed a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of slopes, F(1, 202)55.37, p5.021, so subsequent analysis required fitting separate slopes for each level of the experimental group factor. This analysis revealed that pre-test scores covaried significantly with post-test scores for both the control, F(1, 202)5126.58, p,.001, and experimental groups, F(1, 202)5112.42, p,.001.

With the pre-test results partialled out separately for the two groups, there was a significant overall difference between the experimental and control groups, F(1, 202)512.26, p5.001. Results for the power transformed Spelling scores were also analysed using a two way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA). The within-subjects factor was time (pre vs. post); the between-subjects factor was group (experimental vs. control). No significant main effect was found for group, F(1, 204)50.30, p5.58, power5.038, but a significant main effect was found for time, F(1, 204)5188.89, p,.001, power51.00, and the group-by-time interaction, F(1, 204)536.89, p,.001, power51.00, which is illustrated in Figure5. Follow-up testing of the interaction using simple main effects found a significant difference between the experimental and control groups at pre-test, F(1, 204)57.03, p5.009, power5.75, d520.42, but Figure 5. Interaction (+ SE) between experimental and control group at pre- and post-test for Brigance Spelling not at post-test, F(1, 204)53.32, p5.07, power5.44, d50.25. Further, significant pre- to post-test differences were found for both the control, F(1, 204)510.41, p5.001, power5.89, d50.27, and experimental groups, F(1, 204)5215.38, p,.001, power51.00, d50.99; however. the magnitude of effect was large for the experimental group. Is Success in the Corrective Reading Program Predicted by Any of the Pre test Scores? In addition to investigating the relationship among the phonological processes, another issue of interest was the potential of pre-test scores to predict which students would make good progress, and which would not. In prediction of gains in Word Attack for the experimental group, Table3 indicates that program membership was by far the strongest. Whilst Word Attack and Spelling pre-test scores were significant predictors, their combined contribution is less than 7%—small in comparison with that of Program (almost 30%). The initial questions were:

Did participation in the Corrective Reading program increase phonemic awareness, phonological recoding (word attack) skills, and other phonological processes (naming, working memory)? Did the Corrective Reading program effects generalise to spelling? The results presented in the above sets of analyses indicated a clear pattern of statistically and educationally significant increases represented in the post-test scores for the experimental group. The effects varied from large (TOPA, Word Attack, Spelling) to moderate (Digit Span and Picture Naming). Discussion In this study of 206 disabled readers from several Melbourne primary schools, the Corrective Reading: Decoding program was implemented for 134 students, while 72 students on a wait-list provided a control. The program has a systematic, explicit phonics emphasis, with attention to letter–sound correspondences, and to the Table 3. Summary of stepwise regression analysis for program and pre-test scores predicting word attack gains scores (n5206). Constant in the final equation. Variables not in the final equation phonemic awareness skills of segmenting and blending. Pre-test and post-test of phonological processes, word attack, and spelling indicated statistically significant and educationally important changes in all variables for the experimental group. All the students had received reading instruction in their schools prior to participating in the Corrective Reading program. Their failure to make adequate progress can be construed as arising from individual weaknesses, or from a failure of the schools’ reading programs to elicit appropriate progress, or from some combination of the two.

The general model of reading in this study places word level processes at the centre of reading disability, and phonological processes as the major underlying abilities causal to reading development (Ehri, 1995). The outcomes of the study indicate that these skills can be developed, even in students who have had prior opportunity, but have been unable to do so in the context of earlier instruction. That these phonological processes develop simultaneously with advances in word attack suggests that such skills remain important even for older students. That the developmentally earlier (phonetic decoding) stage should not be ignored has been emphasised by Share (1995), Share and Stanovich (1995), and by Shankweiler, Lundquist, Dreyer, and Dickinson (1996). This finding conflicts with the popular view that any phonic emphasis should be discontinued before Year 3, replaced by a new emphasis on orthographic processing and/or comprehension strategies. Regression analyses were performed on the experimental group at post-test to add information about the relationship between the variables, and to consider whether pre-test variables were predictive of outcome for the experimental group. In analysing word attack gains, it was clear that the presence or absence of the program was the most powerful predictor by far. The results indicate that discernible and educationally significant change in word attack becomes evident within a relatively short period of time, approximately 50 hours over 7 months. These changes in word attack do not appear to be reliant on high levels of pre-existing phonological skills. For example, low picture naming speed at entry was not predictive of poor progress. It is likely that the environmental contribution of a carefully structured phonics program has sufficient influence to overcome any resistance to progress that may be associated with low initial naming speed. Nor was pre-existing phonemic awareness predictive of gains. This finding is consistent with that of Hogan, Catts, and Little (2005) who noted the predictive ability of phonemic awareness on word attack at Grade 2 but not at Grade 4, because the two variables become so highly correlated by that time. Another interpretation in this current study is that phonemic awareness has a reciprocal relationship with decoding, a view supported by previous research (Adams, 1990; Bowey & Francis, 1991; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987).

Thus, systematic instruction in decoding can also boost phonemic awareness skill, at least for older students. This finding was also extended to beginning readers by Share and Blum (2005). Perfetti, Beck, Bell, and Hughes (1987) noted that when structured code emphasis teaching was not provided, then initial levels of variables such as naming speed were predictive of reading progress. They also argued that, when effective, phonically based teaching occurred, the former levels of such variables were no longer predictive of progress. In fact, the effects of the intervention were to increase the level of phonological skills in the areas of naming speed and phonological recoding in working memory in addition to that of phonemic awareness. Their findings, replicated here, are consistent with both the reciprocal causation view and with the pre-eminence of phonological representation. The most common interpretation of such findings is that emphasis on the structure of words increases the quality or accessibility of phonological representations, and such change is represented in improved performance on the phonological variables. If, as they relate to reading, naming and working memory are reflective of an underlying variable (representation), there may be little value in attempting to influence these two variables through direct training of them. In the case of phonological recoding in working memory, an improvement following reading gains was noted by Wadsworth, DeFries, Fulker, Olson, and Pennington (1995) in their study involving the genetic analysis of twins. For phonological recoding in lexical access, Deeney, Wolf, and Goldberg O’Rourke (2001) noted how emphases on phonology, automaticity, and fluency (as seen in the Decoding program) enhance the reading of those with naming speed deficits.

An interpretation of the strong effect size for spelling is that students may have begun to perceive some logical structure behind spelling, rather than viewing it as an arbitrary and capricious system. Perhaps, the emphasis on word structure, especially the importance of each letter and its position in a word, may lead to a process analogous to Share’s (1995) assertion of a self-teaching mechanism in reading. Davidson and Jenkins (1994) view the relationship of phonemic awareness and spelling as bi-directional, and these results are supportive of at least one of these directions. Burt and Butterworth (1996) assert a direct effect from phonological skills to spelling through the mnemonic enhancement of working memory, and an indirect effect through the benefits to spelling of enforced attention to letter sequence. It may also be that improved segmenting (a result of clearer phonological representations?) allows for more accurate conversion to spellings of the sounds in words. Stage and Wagner (1992) asserted that older students make less use of phonological processes in spelling than do young students, instead relying more on orthographic representations. It may be that this latter assertion refers only to older, skilled readers, and hence is really an assertion about stage rather than age.

Study Limitations

The group contrast in this study was between two distinct interventions—the schools’ regular English program and the reading program. The reading program could be considered more motivating, and the improvement may have been partly based upon novelty. Alternatively, it could be argued that being withdrawn from class for a remedial program may be deflating to student motivation. In any case, Reading Instruction, Reading Difficulties 47 studies such as by Branwhite (1983) that extend over periods of a year and more continue to display strong effects—making the novelty explanation unlikely. Statistical regression is a threat to internal validity, and there were some minor pre-test differences in that the intervention group had slightly lower scores than the control group on Phonemic Awareness, Word Attack, and Spelling, though not on the other two variables. These differences were partialled out in the analysis, though there remains the possibility that some unknown variable could account for the larger post-test improvement of the intervention group. Whatever that variable might be, it did not influence the reading placement test that judged the two groups to be homogeneous with respect to their reading instruction needs.

In those schools in which there were both control and experimental groups the decision about which group received the treatment first was not based on problem severity. In other words, one would not expect regression toward the population mean to occur differentially across the groups. As the experimental and control groups were in a variety of schools (State and Catholic) it seems unlikely that any extraneous events over the period of the program (historical threats to internal validity) could coincidentally affect only the experimental group. Any effects on students of the test or testing procedure should have been equally distributed across both groups. These include student effects such as being sensitised by the pre-test, practice effects, and negative reactions to post-testing. Issues of selection may jeopardise group comparability. For example, it is conceivable that schools prepared to provide a special reading program differ in important aspects from schools that are either unable to or choose not to do so. These school qualities may be efficacious in enhancing reading development but not obvious until the program’s commencement, and the subsequent student progress falsely attributed to program effect. However, the control group comprised wait-list students, and was drawn from the same schools as those in the experimental group. The students were markedly delayed in their literacy development (one to two standard deviations). Their improvement was significant, but they continue to require instruction in more advanced reading techniques, and in fluency and spelling. However, their learning trajectory was altered, and the risk of the further decline predicted by the Matthew Effects (Stanovich, 1986) was arguably somewhat diminished. It is known that phonological process acuity is a strong predictor of reading success. What is not clear is whether these processes need to be directly addressed in order to assist reading development. The results of this study suggest that a focus on the task rather than the learner continues to be the best option for improving the achievement of those who currently struggle.

Further, it points to the potential of systematic synthetic phonics programs to reduce the incidence of reading difficulties at the earliest instructional stage. The findings of this study are also consistent with the proposition by Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Alexander, and Conway (1997) that remedial phonics programs for older students with a basic level of letter–sound 48 K. Hempenstall mastery and phonemic awareness (as were most students) may not require dedicated phonemic awareness programs It is apparent from research that early intervention (pre-school, Prep/ Kindergarten, Year One) holds the greatest hope for reducing the deleterious effects of serious reading failure currently believed to impede up to 30% of all our students (Harrison, 2002; Livingstone, 2006; Louden, et al., 2000; Marks & Ainley, 1997). However, there is probably another group (perhaps another 10–20%) whose progress becomes increasingly constrained by limited literacy the further they progress through secondary school. It is possible to enhance the prospects for both of these existing groups by intervening during their late primary and secondary schooling, and social justice requires us to provide for those students whom our system has failed. Intervention for these students is more difficult, but significant gains are achievable, and older students should not be ignored simply because early intervention is easier to implement and promote. So the sobering message here is that if children don’t have the right experiences during these sensitive periods for the development of a variety of skills, including many cognitive and language capacities, that’s a burden that those kids are going to carry; the sensitive period is over, and it’s going to be harder for them. Their architecture is not as well developed in their brain as it would have been if they had had the right experiences during the sensitive period. That’s the sobering message. But there’s also a hopeful message there, which is unlike a critical period where it’s too late. The sensitive period says: It’s not too late to kind of try to remediate that later. And you can develop good, healthy, normal competencies in many areas, even if your earlier wiring was somewhat faulty. But it’s harder. It costs more in energy costs to the brain. The brain has to work at adapting to earlier circuits that were not laid down the way they should have been. And from a society’s point of view, it costs more in terms of more expensive programming, more specialized help. (Shonkoff, 2007, p. 13).”

References

Adams, G., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on Direct Instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Alexander, A. W., Anderson, H. G., Heilman, P. C., Voeller, K. K. S., & Torgesen, J. K. (1991). Phonological awareness training and remediation of analytic decoding deficits in a group of severe dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 193–206.

American Federation of Teachers. (1997). Building on the best: Learning from what works. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from http://www.aft.org/Edissues/whatworks/index.htm.

American Institutes for Research. (1999). An educators’ guide to schoolwide reform. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from www.aasa.org/Reform/index.htm.

American Institutes for Research. (2005). CSRQ Center Report on Elementary School Comprehensive School Reform Models. Retrieved February 12, 2005, from http://www.csrq.org/reports.asp. Reading Instruction, Reading Difficulties 49

American Institutes for Research. (2006). CSRQ Center Report on Elementary School Comprehensive School Reform Models (Updated). Retrieved December 11, 2006, from http://www.csrq.org/ documents/CSRQCenterCombinedReport_Web11-03-06.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (1993, October). Final Report of the Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures. New York: American Psychological Association, Division of Clinical Psychologists (Division 12).

Bentin, S., & Leshem, H. (1993). On the interaction between phonological awareness and reading acquisition: It’s a two-way street. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 125–148.

Borman, G. (2007). Taking reform to scale. Wisconsin Center for Educational Research. Retrieved February 4, 2007, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/.

Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2002). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Report No.59. Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR), US Department of Education. Retrieved February 12, 2003, from http://www.csos.jhu.edu./crespar/techReports/ report59.pdf.

Bowers, P. G. (1995). Tracing symbol naming speeds unique contributions to reading disabilities over time. Reading and Writing, 7, 189–216. Bowers, P. G., & Swanson, L. B. (1991). Naming speed deficits in reading disability. Multiple measures of a singular process. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51, 195–219.

Bowey, J. A., Cain, M. T., & Ryan, S. M. (1992). A reading-level design study of phonological skills underlying fourth-grade children’s word reading difficulties. Child Development, 63, 999–1011.

Bowey, J. A., & Francis, J. (1991). Phonological analysis as a function of age and exposure to reading instruction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 91–121.

Branwhite, A. B. (1983). Boosting reading skills by direct instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 291–298.

Brigance, A. H. (1992). Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills. Melbourne, Australia: Hawker Brownlow. Burt, J. S., &

Butterworth, P. (1996). Spelling in adults: Orthographic transparency, learning new letter string and reading accuracy. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 8(1), 3–43.

Carnine, D. (1995). Trustworthiness, usability, and accessibility of educational research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 251–258.

Castles, I. (1994). SEIFA: Socio-economic indexes for areas. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Printer.

Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2002). Bringing evidence driven progress to education: A recommended strategy for the U.S. Department of Education.

Council for Excellence in Government’s Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. Retrieved December 12, 2002, from http://www.excelgov.org/displayContent.asp?Keyword5prppcEvidence.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi experimentation. Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Council for Exceptional Children. (1999). Focussing on direct instruction. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from http://dldcec.org/alerts/alerts_2.html.

Crowder, R., & Wagner, R. (1992). The psychology of reading: An introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Curriculum Review Panel. (2004). Review of comprehensive programs. Oregon Reading First Center. Retrieved January16, 2005, from http://reading.uoregon.edu/curricula/core_report_ amended_3-04.pdf.

Davidson, M., & Jenkins, J. R. (1994). Effects of phonemic processes on word reading and spelling. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 148–157.

Deeney, T., Wolf, M., & Goldberg O’Rourke, A. (2001). ‘I like to take my own sweet time’: Case study of a child with naming-speed deficits and reading disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 35, 145–155.

Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. (1976). Rapid automatised naming (RAN): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471–479.

Department for Education and Employment. (1998). The National Literacy Strategy: Framework for teaching. London: Standards and Effectiveness Unit.

Department of Education, Employment, and Training. (2001). Successful interventions literacy research project. Retrieved March 30, 2007, from http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/ public/curricman/middleyear/research/successfulinterventions.doc.

Department of Education, Science, and Training. (2005). Teaching reading: Report and recommendations. National Inquiry into the Teaching of Reading. Australia: Melbourne.

Department of Education, Science, and Training. (2007). Parents’ attitudes to schooling. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/ rdonlyres/311AA3E6-412E-4FA4-AC01-541F37070529/16736/ ParentsAttitudestoSchoolingreporMay073.rtf.

Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of Research in Reading, 18(2), 116–125.

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250–287.

Elbro, C., Nielsen, I., & Petersen, D. K. (1994). Dyslexia in adults. Evidence for deficits in non word reading and in the phonological representation of lexical items. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 205–226.

Ellis, N. C. (1990). Reading, phonological processing and STM: Interactive tributaries of development. Journal of Research in Reading, 13, 107–122.

Engelmann, S. (2004). The Dalmatian and its spots. Editorial Projects in Education, 23(20), 34–35, 48. Retrieved February 3, 2004, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ew_printstory.cfm?slug5 20engelmann.h23.

Engelmann, S., Becker, W. C., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1988). The Direct Instruction Follow Through Model: Design and outcomes. Education and Treatment of Children, 11(4), 303–317.

Engelmann, S., & Bruner, E. C. (1984). Reading Mastery fast cycle I, II. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Engelmann, S., & Bruner, E. C. (1988). Reading Mastery. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Engelmann, S., Hanner, S., & Johnson, G. (1999). Corrective Reading—Series Guide. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw Hill.

Felton, R. H. (1992). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 212–229.

Grossen, B. (Ed.) (1996). What was that project follow through? [Special issue] Effective School Practices, 15(1), 1–85. Grossen, B. (1998). The research base for Corrective Reading, SRA. Blacklick, OH: Science Research Associates.

Grossen, B. (2004). Success of a Direct Instruction model at a secondary level school with high risk students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 161–178.

Hammill, D. (2004). What we know about correlates of reading. Exceptional Children, 70, 453–469.

Harris, R. E., Marchand-Martella, N. E., & Martella, R. C. (2000). Effects of a peer-delivered Corrective Reading program. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10(1), 21–36.

Harrison, B. (2002, April). Do we have a literacy crisis? Reading Reform Foundation, 48. Retrieved April 11, 2003, from http://www.rrf.org.uk/do%20we%20have%20a%20literacy%20crisis.htm.

Reading Instruction, Reading Difficulties 51

Hatcher, P., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. (1994). Ameliorating reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41–57.

Hempenstall, K. (1995). The Picture Naming Test. Unpublished manuscript. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

Hempenstall, K. (1996). The gulf between educational research and policy: The example of Direct Instruction and Whole Language. Behavior Change, 13, 33–46.

Hempenstall, K. (2001). Some issues in phonics instruction. EducationNews.Org. Retrieved May 3, 2005, from http://www.ednews.org/articles/528/1/Some-issues-in-phonics-instruction-Implicit and-explicit-phonics-instruction/Page1.html.

Hempenstall, K. (2003). The three-cueing system: Trojan horse? Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(3), 15–23.

Hempenstall, K. (2006). What does evidence-based practice in education mean? Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(2), 83–92.

Hoad, K-A., Munro, J., Pearn, C., Rowe, K. S., & Rowe, K. J. (2005). Working Out What Works (WOWW)Training and Resource Manual: A teacher professional development program designed to support teachers to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for students with learning difficulties in Years 4, 5 and 6. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training; and Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Hogan, T. P., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2005). The relationship between phonological awareness and reading: Implications for the assessment of phonological awareness. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(4), 285–293.

Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160. Hulme, C., & Roodenrys, S. (1995). Practitioner review: Verbal working memory development and its disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 373–398.

Johnston, R. S., & Watson, J. E. (2004). Accelerating the development of reading, spelling and phonemic awareness skills in initial readers. Reading and Writing, 17, 327–357.

Johnston, T., & Kirby, J. (2006). The contribution of naming speed to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 19(4), 339–361.

Jorm, A. F., Share, D., Matthews, R., & Maclean, R. (1986). Behaviour problems in specific reading retarded and general reading backward children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 27(1), 33–43.

Livingstone, T. (2006, 14 October). Rating the system. The Courier Mail, p. 53.

Louden, W., Chan, L. K. S., Elkins, J., Greaves, D., House, H., & Milton, M. et al. (2000). Mapping the territory—Primary students with learning difficulties: Literacy and numeracy. (Vols. 1 3). Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L., De Luca, T., Lacerenza, L., Benson, N. J., & Brackstone, D. (1994). Treating the core deficit of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer of learning after phonologically- and strategy-based reading training programs. Developmental Psychology, 30, 805–822.

Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L., Lacerenza, L., Frijters, J. C., Steinbach, K. A., & De Palma, M. (2000). Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: Combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 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, 189–209.

Lyon, G. R. (1998). Overview of reading and literacy initiatives. Statement to Committee on Labor and HumanResources. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/ pubs/jeffords.htm.

Lyon, G. R., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 578–588.

Malmgren, K. W., & Leone, P. E. (2000). Effects of a short-term auxiliary reading program on the reading skills of incarcerated youth. Education & Treatment of Children, 23(3), 239–247.

Marks, G. N., & Ainley, J. (1997). Reading comprehension and numeracy among junior secondary school students in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

McCluskey, N. (2003). Best bets: Education curricula that work. The Center for Education Reform. Retrieved July 18, 2003, from http://www.edreform.com/pubs/bestbets.pdf.

Moats, L. C. (1994). Assessment of spelling in learning disabilities research. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 333–350). Baltimore, MD: P. H. Brookes.

Nation, K., & Hulme, C. (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentation, predicts early reading and spelling skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(2), 154–167.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org.

Newby, R. F., Recht, D. R., & Caldwell, J. (1993). Validation of a clinical method for the diagnosis of two subtypes of dyslexia. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 11, 72–83.

Office of Management and Budget. (2007). Program assessment: Reading First State Grants. Retrieved May 11, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10003321. 2006.html.

Office of the Victorian Auditor General. (2003). Improving literacy standards in government schools. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_par/Literacy_Report. pdf.

Olson, R., Forsberg, H., Wise, B., & Rack, J. (1994). Measurement of word recognition, orthographic, and phonological skills. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 243–278). Baltimore, MD: P.H. Brookes.

Oregon Reading First. (2004). Consumer’s guide to evaluating supplemental and intervention reading programs Grades K–3: A critical elements analysis. Retrieved January 11, 2006, from http:// oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/downloads/corrective_rdg_levela.pdf.

Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L. C., & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first grade children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283–319.

Plaza, M. (2003). The role of naming speed, phonological processing and morphological/syntactic skill in the reading and spelling performance of second-grade children. Current Psychology Letters. Special Issue on Language Disorders and Reading Acquisition. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from http://cpl.revues.org/document88.html.

Primary National Strategy. (2006). Primary framework for literacy and mathematics. London: Department of Education and Skills. Retrieved 26 October, 2006, from http://www. standards.dfes.gov.uk/primaryframeworks/.

Prior, M., Sanson, A., Smart, D., & Oberklaid, F. (1995). Reading disability in an Australian community sample. Australian Journal of Psychology, 47(1), 32–37.

Purdie, N., & Ellis, L. (2005). A review of the empirical evidence identifying effective interventions and teaching practices for students with learning difficulties in Years 4, 5 and 6. A report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Reynolds, M., & Wheldall, K. (2007). Reading Recovery 20 years down the track: Looking forward, looking back. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(2), 199–223.

Reading Instruction, Reading Difficulties 53

Rosenshine, B. (2002). Helping students from low-income homes read at grade level. Journal for Students Placed at Risk, 7. Retrieved March 19, 2003, from http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/rosenshi/ Helping%20at-risk%20readers.htm.

Sackett, D., McRosenberg, W., Muir Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence-Based Medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312, 71–2. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://cebm.jr2.ox.ac.uk/ebmisisnt.html#coredef.

Sattler, J. M. (1992). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler. Schacter, J. (1999). Reading programs that work: A review of programs for pre-kindergarten to 4th grade. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from http://www.mff.org/edtech/publication.taf?_ function5detail&Content_uid15279.

Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L. G., & Dickinson, C. C. (1996). Reading and spelling difficulties in high school students: Causes and consequences. Reading and Writing, 8, 267–294

Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.

Share, D. L., & Blum, P. (2005). Syllable splitting in literate and preliterate Hebrew speakers: Onsets and rimes or bodies and codas? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(2), 182–202.

Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. Issues in Education, 1, 1–57.

Shaughnessy, M. F. (2007). An interview with G. Reid Lyon: About Reading First. EducationNews.Org. Retrieved June 20, from http://www.ednews.org/articles/13053/1/ An-Interview-with-G-Reid-Lyon-About-Reading-First/Page1.html.

Shonkoff, J. P. (2007). The neuroscience of nurturing neurons. Children of the Code. Retrieved March 1, 2007, from http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/shonkoff.htm.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Slavin, R. E. (2003). A reader’s guide to scientifically based research. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 12–16. Retrieved December 16, 2003, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/ 200302/slavin.html. Slavin, R. E. (2004). Education research can and must address ‘What Works’ questions. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 27–28.

Slavin, R. E. (2007). Statement of Robert E. Slavin, Director, Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education. Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Activities. Hearings on Implementation of No Child Left Behind. March 14, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://www.ednews.org/articles/ 8996/1/Statement-of-Robert-E-Slavin-Director-Center-for-Data-Driven-Reform-in-Education/ Page1.html.

Smith, S. A. (2004). What is Corrective Reading? Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/PDF/ corrective_reading_final.pdf.

Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Report of the National Research Council. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http:// www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/reading/.

Stage, S. A., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Development of young children’ phonological and orthographic knowledge as revealed by their spellings. Developmental Psychology, 28, 287–296.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.

Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590–604.

Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Constructivism in reading education. Journal of Special Education, 28, 259–274.

Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 24–53.

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. [Computer Software] (1995). Chicago: SPSS.

Stone, J. E. (1996, April 23). Developmentalism: An obscure but pervasive restriction on educational improvement. Education Policy Analysis Archives. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/epaa.

Texas, Office of the Governor. (1996). The Texas Reading Initiative: Mobilizing Resources for Literacy. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://www.governor.state.tx.us/_private/old/ Reading/overview.html.

Torgesen, J. K. (2003). Using science, energy, patience, consistency, and leadership to reduce the number of children left behind in reading. Barksdale Reading Institute, Florida. Retrieved May 3, 2004, from http://www.fcrr.org/staffpresentations/Joe/NA/mississippi_03.ppt.

Torgesen, J. K., & Bryant, B. (1994). Test of Phonological Awareness: Examiner’s Manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Torgesen, J. K., & Hudson, R. F. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues for struggling readers. In S. J. Samuels, & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 130–158). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Torgesen, J., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C., Alexander, A., & Conway, T. (1997). Preventative and remedial interventions for children with severe reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 8, 51–61.

Trezek, B. J., & Malmgren, K. W. (2005). The efficacy of utilizing a phonics treatment package with middle school deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3, 257–271.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., & Chen, R. et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S. (1994). Component of reading ability: Issues and problems in operationalizing word identification, phonological coding, and orthographic coding. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 279–332). Baltimore, MD: P.H. Brookes.

Wadsworth, S., DeFries, J., Fulker, D., Olson, R., & Pennington, B. (1995). Reading performance and verbal short-term memory: A twin study of reciprocal causation. Intelligence, 20, 145–167.

Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.

Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Westwood, P. S. (2005). Spelling: Approaches to teaching and assessment (2nd ed.). Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: ACER Press.

White, W. A. T. (1988). A meta-analysis of the effects of direct instruction in special education. Education & Treatment of Children, 11, 364–374.

Wolf, M. (1991). Naming speed and reading. The contribution of the cognitive neurosciences. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 123–141.

Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock Tests of Reading Mastery—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. View publication stats

Now let’s find very recent research - to see how my old work fits these days!

Evidence and Research Based Intervention’s Role in the Fight for American Literacy(2024)

“The acquisition of reading skills is a critical component of early education in the United States, beginning with the introduction of pre-literacy skills to children as young as pre-school age. Students are tasked with developing the ability to decode and comprehend text across various subject areas. However, national reading data indicates that a significant portion of young learners are not meeting proficiency standards. While the precise variables influencing reading development remain uncertain, there are discernible contributing factors at play. For example, some instructional approaches diverge from established best practices supported by extensive research. Furthermore, discrepancies in teacher training programs, variations in curriculum choices, and the adoption of a range of pedagogical philosophies in reading instruction all appear to contribute to the overarching challenges in students' reading proficiency. Transitioning towards a more methodical approach, based on evidence and research, is recommended. By aligning instruction with the five pillars of reading established by the National Reading Panel in 2000, selecting curriculum grounded in empirical evidence and implementing applied behavior analytic teaching methodologies educational institutions can refine their instructional strategies to foster meaningful improvements in student outcomes.”

Lascano, J.M. (2024). Evidence and Research Based Intervention’s Role in the Fight for American Literacy. Alliant International University ProQuest Dissertations & Theses,   31330744.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reading Strategies to Improve Reading Skills of Disabled Students (2024)

“The considerable body of research showed that students with disability (SWD) have severe difficulties in at least one component of reading, no matter the type of disability. As a natural result of this fact, the reading skills of SWD lag behind their typically developing peers. However, the situation experienced by SWD is not a destiny, and the reading success of SWD can be substantially improved through the use of evidence-based practices. To date, some independent research institutions and research groups have examined research studies aimed at enhancing the reading skills of SWD and identified various evidence-based reading strategies related to the five fundamental components of reading. Phonemic awareness training and explicit instruction, systematic and explicit phonics instruction, dialogic reading, mnemonics, listening passage preview + repeated readings, self-regulated strategy development, and story mapping are among these evidence-based strategies.”

Cure, G. (2024). Reading Strategies to Improve Reading Skills of Disabled Students. In: Bennett, G., Goodall, E. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Disability. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40858-8_32-1

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fluency Interventions for Elementary Students with Reading Difficulties: A Synthesis of Research from 2000–2019 (2020)

“Oral reading fluency (ORF) deficits are a hallmark of reading difficulties. The impact of fluency struggles extends beyond word-level difficulties to include deficits in reading comprehension. Sixteen empirical studies conducted in 2000–2019 that examined ORF interventions among elementary students identified as having reading difficulties were reviewed to identify the characteristics (e.g., instructional variables, group size, type of interventionist) of effective ORF interventions and their impact on English oral reading fluency and reading comprehension outcomes. The systematic review revealed that interventions reported centered around repeated reading procedures (86.5%). Across the 16 studies, outcomes for oral reading fluency varied widely and most focused on speed and rate aspects rather than prosody. Effect sizes for rate and accuracy measures ranged from negligible to large (i.e., 0.01 to 1.18) and three studies found large effects for prosody outcomes. Effect sizes for reading comprehension ranged between non-significant and large significant effects. Findings support the use of repeated reading of text to build up ORF of students with reading difficulties. Interventions that were found to be most effective were those that were conducted one-on-one with a trained model of fluent word reading and accuracy. Findings also point to three gaps in our understanding: (1) the efficacy of interventions other than repeated reading, (2) effects of ORF interventions on prosody outcomes, and (3) sustainability of outcomes.”

Hudson, A., Koh, P. W., Moore, K. A., & Binks-Cantrell, E. (2020). Fluency Interventions for Elementary Students with Reading Difficulties: A Synthesis of Research from 2000–2019. Education Sciences, 10(3), 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10030052

Empowering Schools to Implement Effective Research-Based Reading Remediation Delivers Long-Lasting Improvements to Children’s Reading Trajectories (2023)

“There is a wide gap between what research evidence identifies as effective reading intervention and what is currently offered in schools. This effectiveness study reports the results of a long-term research/school system partnership that is implementing reading intervention for children with reading difficulties in Canadian community schools. In Study 1, growth-curve analyses revealed significant long-term shifts in the reading trajectories of children (n = 731) from Kindergarten to Grade 5 as a function of receiving the Empower™ Reading: Decoding and Spelling intervention. Long-term outcomes were higher in children who received intervention in Grade 2 than in Grade 3, supporting the benefit of earlier intervention. In Study 2, we compare reading outcomes before and after children participated in school system-led intervention (Empower™ Reading, n = 341) to results from previously reported researcher-led intervention and business-as-usual controls. Children in both school system-led and researcher-led interventions showed greater improvement than controls on standardized measures of decoding and reading comprehension. Among school system participants, greater gains were seen for those with stronger reading skills at pre-test. Findings demonstrate successful school system implementation of research-originated and validated reading intervention. Researcher/school system partnerships may be integral in closing the research–practice gap.”

Panda, E. J., Woehrle, T., Frijters, J. C., Moules, R., Zolis, S., Edwards, E., Steinbach, K. A., De Palma, M., & Lovett, M. W. (2023). Empowering Schools to Implement Effective Research-Based Reading Remediation Delivers Long-Lasting Improvements to Children’s Reading Trajectories. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 57(6), 350-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194231215016 (Original work published 2024)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Persistent Reading Deficiencies in Early Education (2025)

“This qualitative case study investigated early reading teachers’ perceptions of the instructional practices they use to identify early elementary student reading proficiency, including unique challenges they face when addressing the development of early reading skills. The researcher investigated eight first and second grade teacher classrooms during the 2023–2024 school year through collective interviews, observations, and related school data. The researcher performed a qualitative analysis of the collected data to reveal varying themes that support recommendations to reduce persistent reading problems among early elementary students. Using purposeful sampling to select licensed, experienced participants, the insights of eight early elementary reading teachers and one reading specialist were collected. The researcher then utilized semistructured interviews and classroom observations to further investigate teacher perceptions of varying classroom instructional practices, strengths, and challenges associated with identifying early struggling readers.”

Reed, William Steven, "Persistent Reading Deficiencies in Early Education" (2025). Digital Commons @ ACU, Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 850. https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/etd/850

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Corrective Reading as a Supplementary Curriculum for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (2012)

“Reading deficits among students with emotional and behavioral disorders (E/BD) are well documented. One approach to addressing these deficits has been providing students with intensive and explicit reading instruction. In this study, 31 students with E/BD and reading deficits in self-contained settings were provided with 8 weeks of Corrective Reading plus Language! instruction following a 4-week baseline phase with Language! instruction only. Standardized Reading Fluency, Comprehension, Word Attack, and Letter-Word Identification subtests and general reading achievement results yielded statistically significant reading growth. Weekly oral reading fluency rates grew at a rate of 1.592 words per week during the baseline phase and 3.563 words per week during the intervention phase. Reading achievement gains were consistent across settings (self-contained classrooms and self-contained schools) and the Corrective Reading intervention was perceived as effective and beneficial to teachers and students. Limitations addressed include brief duration of intervention and relatively small sample size. Increasing the length of the intervention and number of participants are presented as future directions for research.”

McDaniel, S. C., Houchins, D. E., & Terry, N. P. (2012). Corrective Reading as a Supplementary Curriculum for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21(4), 240-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426611433506 (Original work published 2013)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Effects of a repeated reading intervention delivered online to upper elementary students (2024)

“Repeated reading is an intervention with strong evidence for improving students’ oral reading fluency. However, little research has examined the use of this intervention outside of traditional school contexts. School closures due to COVID-19 forced schools and teacher preparation programs to create new approaches to evidence-based reading interventions that could be delivered online. This study examined the effects of a repeated reading fluency intervention delivered synchronously online. A single-case repeated acquisition design examined the intervention’s effects on three upper elementary students’ correct word reading fluency, defined as the number of words read correctly per minute. Visual analysis indicated repeated readings had a positive impact on all students’ reading fluency. Future research should examine whether this intervention can improve students’ comprehension when delivered online.”

Romig, J.E. and Jetton, A., 2024. Effects of a repeated reading intervention delivered online to upper elementary students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 39(2), pp.163-173.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Repeated Reading Interventions for Students with Learning Disabilities: Status of the Evidence (2009)

“For students with or at risk for learning disabilities, developing fluency with reading connected texts remains a formidable challenge. In response, teachers often use repeated reading practices designed to provide students with multiple exposures to the same words. This study examined research focused on determining the efficacy of repeated reading approaches for improving reading fluency for students with or at risk for learning disabilities. Studies employed experimental/quasi-experimental and single-subject research designs. Results suggest that repeated reading is not supported by rigorous research as defined by the quality indicators used and, therefore, is not an evidence-based practice based on those criteria for students with and at risk for learning disabilities. Implications for future research and for practice are discussed.”

Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baker, S. K., Doabler, C., & Apichatabutra, C. (2009). Repeated Reading Interventions for Students with Learning Disabilities: Status of the Evidence. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 263-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500301

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dynamic assessment of word learning as a predictor of response to vocabulary intervention. (2025)

“Participants were 46 preschool children in classrooms randomly assigned to complete the Story Friends intervention in two cluster-randomized efficacy trials. Children were administered a static measure of vocabulary knowledge and a dynamic assessment of explicit word learning prior to intervention. Vocabulary learning in response to intervention was assessed using a curriculum-based definitional task.

Results

Both the static and dynamic measures were significant predictors of vocabulary learning in response to intervention. The dynamic assessment alone predicted 25 % of variance in vocabulary learning; the static and dynamic measures in combination predicted 42 %. In the responsivity analysis, the dynamic measure provided the best accuracy for a single measure (76 %), but the most accurate classification was provided by a combination of static and dynamic measures (79. The static measure accurately identified 93 % of poor responders, whereas the dynamic measure accurately identified 88 %.

Conclusions

In this study, both static and dynamic measures predicted preschool children's response to vocabulary intervention and provided a mostly accurate classification of good and poor responders. Additional research can inform the use of dynamic assessment to predict response to intervention and to match children with intense interventions.”

Kelley, E.S., Peters-Sanders, L., Sanders, H., Madsen, K., Seven, Y. and Goldstein, H., 2025. Dynamic assessment of word learning as a predictor of response to vocabulary intervention. Journal of Communication Disorders, 113, p.106478.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Effect of Performance Feedback on the Implementation Fidelity of Narrative Mediated Learning Sessions by School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists, Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. (2025)

“The purpose of this study was to examine how well students' response to a morphological vocabulary intervention can be predicted before the start of the intervention from traditional static assessments and to determine whether a dynamic assessment with graduated prompts improves the prediction.

Method

A planned secondary analysis of a randomized trial of a morphological vocabulary intervention for fifth-grade students with limited vocabulary was conducted. Response to this intervention was examined for 111 participants based on their development in definitions of morphologically transparent words from pretest to posttest. Traditional static measures of vocabulary, knowledge of morphology, and morphological analysis as well as a dynamic assessment of morphological analysis were evaluated as predictors of students' response to intervention.

Results

The static pretest measures predicted more than half of the overall variance in students' response to intervention and provided a good classification of students with subsequent poor or good response to intervention. The single best static predictor was the static assessment of morphological analysis. Furthermore, the dynamic assessment added significantly to the prediction of the overall variance in students' response to intervention and to the correct early classification of students as poor or good responders.

Conclusions

The results suggest that an acceptable level of prediction of students' response to morphological vocabulary intervention can be obtained by means of a couple of static morphological measures. This study also provides evidence for the added predictive value of a dynamic assessment of morphological analysis.”

Wendy R. Meyer, Maria D. Resendiz, Elizabeth D. Peña, (2025). The Effect of Performance Feedback on the Implementation Fidelity of Narrative Mediated Learning Sessions by School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists, Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 10.1044/2025_LSHSS-24-00065, 56, 3, (598-616), (2025).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, the issue for me is - how has this new research changed over the years.

________

Beyond phonemic awareness: What educational role for other phonological processes? KERRY HEMPENSTALL

Kerry Hempenstall. (2004) Beyond phonemic awareness: What educational role for other phonological processes? Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities 9(1). DOI:10.1080/19404150409546748 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233936509

ABSTRACT

A great deal of recent interest in finding ways of enhancing literacy outcomes across educational systems has been fuelled by demands for increasing accountability. Techniques and programs are being investigated intensively, both by governments through expert committees and through the research community. The findings of the National Reading Panel have resonated strongly and the intervention foci recommended have enjoyed unprecedented emphasis in reading program development. The strong emphasis on phonemic awareness as a precursor to the alphabetic principle appears to have been accepted as a fundamental element in beginning reading programs. There are other phonological processes that have been less stringently explored, such as rapid naming and working memory. They, too, may have educational implications, and their potential is explored in this paper.

Education is frequently criticised for remaining insufficiently attentive to the results of scientific research into teaching and learning (Carnine, 1995, 2000; Hempenstall, 1996; National Research Council, 2002: Stanovich & Stanovich, 2003). A defence, raised by some in the profession, has been that it is not immediately evident how the results of experimental studies can be transposed successfully to the classroom (Fister & Kemp, 1993). Besides, the argument continues, there are rarely definitive answers. For every study that points one way is another indicating the opposite. In recent years, several high status committees have been established in the literacy field by the National Research Council (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), and by the USA Congress (National Reading Panel, 2000). Partly driven by parent pressure, governments are seeking accountability from the purveyors of education for the student outcomes. The resultant reports have had a dramatic and controversial effect on the direction of literacy instruction. For example, the Report of the National Reading Panel emphasised the early direct teaching of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension – not emphases strongly evident during the period dominated by the Whole Language movement (Hempenstall, 1996). Most of the areas now featured in these reports as critical for beginning reading instruction have been nominated recently by literacy experts as the “hottest” topics for 2003 (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2002).

One such area is phonemic awareness – sensitivity to the sound structure of the words we use in speech (Hempenstall, 1997). Its significance both as a predictor of reading success and as a causal element in reading development has been recognised in the empirical literature for some time (Adams, 1990; Badian, 1993; Cornwall, 1992; Crowder & Wagner, 1992; Felton & Brown, 1990; Torgesen, 1993; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987, Wagner, Torgesen, Laughon, Simmons, & Rashotte, 1993; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994). Marilyn Adams, arguably the most influential researcher over the past twenty years, wrote “To my mind, the discovery and documentation of the importance of phonemic awareness ... is the single most powerful advance in the science and pedagogy of reading this century” (Adams, 1991, p. 392). The phonological basis of our spoken language enables the production and recognition of an enormous Vol.9 No. 1 March 2004 number of words through a process of the combination of a few meaningless segments known as consonants and vowels (Liberman, 1997). Similarly, the alphabetic nature of our written language provides a staggering generativity from a relatively small number of symbols can be produced an extraordinary number of words. This efficiency is only possible because of the language’s phonological underpinnings, and it must be appreciated by every successful beginning reader. Phonemic awareness is a fundamental component of the reader’s comprehension of the alphabetic principle. Recent years have seen a plethora of articles, books and curricula designed to assist teachers to implement the practices emanating from the empirical research on phonemic awareness. However, the impact at the classroom level has only become widespread since their support in the Report of the National Reading Panel (2000) and the strong recommendation in the No Child Left Behind Act, 2001 (US Department of Education, 2002). In Britain, the National Literacy Strategy (1998) mandated phonemic awareness (and phonics) instruction to all primary schools as a crucial element in reading instruction. So, phonemic awareness has become mainstream. Indeed, a recent Google web search produced more than 47,000 hits. However, there are also other phonological processes what are educators to make of them?

Phonemic awareness is only one member of a class of phonological processing skills, important in learning to read, that involve the sound-structure of oral language. A second skill implicated in reading progress is speed of lexical retrieval, also known as phonological recoding in lexical access, and less formally, as naming speed. It is usually assessed through tasks that measure the speed with which one can name familiar stimuli, such as colours, letters, numbers or objects grouped together - usually on paper. The task is not one of knowledge assessment – the individual must be able to name the stimuli already. It is a speed test, and is theoretically relevant to reading because it indicates how readily children can gain access to their stores of sounds, sound-sequences, and word meanings (Bowers & Swanson, 1991; Cornwall, 1992; Davis & Spring, 1990). Initial interest was sparked by studies employing the Rapid Automatized Naming test (Denckla & Rudel, 1974, 1976). They noted a correlation between the extent and stability of any naming deficit and the degree of a reading disability. They had discovered a relationship that had the potential to increase knowledge of the fundamentals of the reading process. Until recently, the seminal research of Denckla and Rudel did not provoke the degree of interest in the educational fraternity that the phonemic awareness research had done, perhaps because it was not clear what the implications might be for the classroom intervention. That deficits in such the area of naming speed might present a separate obstacle to reading progress (beyond that resulting from phonological insensitivity) is based partly upon the similarity between the processes involved in the naming tasks and those involved in reading. Both naming speed and sight word reading depend on automatic, rapid symbol retrieval, and Wolf (1991) and Wolf and Bowers (1999) have established a connection between naming speed for letters/numbers and fluent word recognition. Thus, here is a link of apparent significance.

WHAT IS INVOLVED IN SPEED OF NAMING?

Wolf et al. (2000) consider naming speed to be the culmination of basic perceptual, attentional, articulatory, and lexical-retrieval processes integrated with sophisticated cognitive and linguistic processes. They consider basic processing speed to be a central influence on the efficiency of each of these lower and higher order processes. When reading, one must employ these basic processes to convert print into one of two forms. The first entails a phonological representation constructed through reading-out-loud or through sub-vocalization. The decoding process allows appropriate selection of the word’s meaning through access to the phonologically coded lexicon, the brain’s store of meanings that has been developed initially through oral language experience. In the second option, a visual representation of the printed word enables direct access to the lexicon. This faster system represents the most common strategy employed by skilled readers, but is developed only if the earlier phonologically-based system has been practised sufficiently to enable routine automatic recognition of most words (Adams, 1990). An analogy might be the difference in the recognition speed of a rare stamp among a page of mundane stamps by a novice and an experienced philatelist. The novice must laboriously pore over the stamps, systematically absorbing each feature before accepting or rejecting it. To the expert, the rare stamp appears to leap into visual prominence as the discrimination process proceeds without conscious attention or effort.

The critical question involves how a student attains this orthographic stage, and the role of the phonological decoding stage in its attainment (Compton, 2002). It is common in the earliest stages of reading for a student to be partially reliant upon a non alphabetic visual strategy to identify words. Thus dog may be remembered because of its “tail”, and look by virtue of its “eyes”. However, the student needs to find a unique visual cue for each new word - a strategy doomed to failure as the vocabulary requirements become overwhelming, particularly later in primary school (Freebody & Byrne, 1988; Tunmer & Hoover, 1993). This primitive visual dominant strategy does not take advantage of the alphabetic principle, and should not be confused with the sophisticated orthographic processing mentioned above. Unfortunately, the teaching technique of basing instruction largely on word frequency rather than word construction (as in initially emphasising memorisation of the 100/200 most common words) may inadvertently promote this moribund strategy (Gaskins, Ehri, Cress, O’Hara, & Donnelly, 1996), especially among struggling students. Another symptom of such processing can be observed when a student correctly reads a word in singular form, but is nonplussed when confronted by its plural. The use of such strategies is associated not only with difficulties in reading, but also with negative reading-related self perceptions, as early as in Year 1 (Chapman & Tunmer, 2003). Beginning readers are better served by the sounding-out option rather than by neglecting it in the erroneous anticipation of better progress through attention to alternative (contextual) cues or through a visual memorisation strategy (Compton, 2002; Hempenstall, 2002a; National Reading Panel, 2000). The strategy does require that strong letter-sound associations have been formed, and can be rapidly and effortlessly recalled. Students with slow naming speed may also be slow in identifying the sound of each letter in a written word. If so, they may be unable to maintain the sounds sufficiently long for blending into a known word to occur, and for the consequent gradual establishment of orthographic representations. Without such formation, subsequent reading fluency will be drastically compromised, as thereby will be comprehension (Bowers, Sunseth, & Golden, 1999; Manis, Doi, & Bhadha, 2000). Additionally, their comprehension of that which they have read may be compromised by the extended time taken to complete the sentence.

There has been some debate about the relationship between phonemic awareness and naming speed. Whereas Wagner and Torgesen (1987) considered them both a reflection of a unitary phonological process, other research has suggested that each of phonemic awareness and naming speed contributed uniquely to reading development (Badian, 1993; Blachman, 1984; Bowers, 1995; Cornwall, 1992; Felton & Brown, 1990; McBride-Chang & Manis, 1996; Manis et al., 2000; Wolf, Bowers, & Biddle, 2000). Studies by Torgesen, Wagner and colleagues (Torgesen et al., 1994; Wagner et al., 1993; Wagner et al., 1994) employed multiple measures across a range of phonological processing tasks in their longitudinal and cross-sectional studies. Multiple measures of each construct allow latent variables (representing the common variance among the measures) that are purer, through reduced task specific variance and error variance. Their confirmatory factor analysis revealed five distinct but correlated phonological processing abilities. There were two components of phonemic awareness (phonological analysis and phonological synthesis), phonetic recoding in working memory, and two components of phonological recoding in lexical access. The two barely correlated abilities comprising phonological recoding in lexical access arose from the type of naming speed tasks employed. The ability involved depended upon whether the presentation was in a serial-trial format or isolated-trial format, that is, whether response-time was to digits (or letters) flashed serially onto a screen, or the time required to name each of a group of digits (or letters) presented together on a card. The relative significance of the two abilities remains unclear; however, their overall results are consistent with other findings highlighting, at the least, a predictive capacity of naming speed tasks for later reading ability (Al Otaiba, 2001; Bowers, 1995; Bowers & Swanson, 1991; Catts, 1991; Cornwall, 1992; Davis & Spring, 1990; Felton, 1992; Speece, Mills, Ritchey, & Hillman, 2003; Tunmer & Hoover, 1993). For example, the Bowers (1995) study reported that naming speed displayed a strong predictive relationship with reading, and thus could become a useful component of an early identification screening battery. Speece et al. demonstrated how a letter-fluency task in kindergarten was able to reduce the number of false positive cases of predicted problems that occur when solely phonemic awareness screening was performed. Al Otaiba (2001) found that slow letter naming and poor phonological memory were each child characteristics predictive of unresponsiveness to intervention, and hence useful elements in determining the level of support needed by different students at a very early stage of their education. Given the now well-recognised importance of catching children before they fall (Torgesen, 1998), efforts to predict future membership of the cohort of low progress readers before they have experienced failure has become a major area of investigation. Any variable that can assist in prediction is worthy of further investigation.

The identification of those students at greatest risk during their first school year would enable existing and future high quality interventions to be appropriately and accurately targeted, conceivably enabling three out of four of the currently failing 20-30% of students to achieve reading success (Australian Government House of Representatives Enquiry, 1993; Lyon, 2000, cited in Landauer, 2000; Marks & Ainley, 1997). It is common in the earliest stages of reading for a student to be partially reliant upon a non-alphabetic visual strategy to identify words. Thus dog may be remembered because of its “tail”, and look by virtue of its “eyes”. A CAUSAL ROLE FOR SPEED OF NAMING? The interest in naming speed was further piqued through suggestions that it may have causal as well as predictive implications, just as phonemic awareness has been demonstrated to do. Wimmer, Mayringer, and Landerl (2000) found that early slowness in naming was related to subsequently under developed reading fluency. A further study (Wimmer & Mayringer, 2002) noted that slow naming speed alone (assessed at the commencement of schooling) was associated with subsequent dysfluency in reading, though not with spelling problems. They also noted that students’ spelling weakness followed simultaneous deficits in more than one phonological process. However, these studies did not employ a design capable of demonstrating a causal link. The suggestion of cumulative effects on reading, resulting from phonological weaknesses, has been investigated by Bowers and Wolf (Bowers & Wolf, 1993a; Wolf & Bowers, 1999). They proposed a Double-Deficit hypothesis to account for a role of naming speed deficits, either solely or in concert with phonemic awareness, in hindering reading progress. They consider that these two phonological processes (naming and awareness) are independent, and propose that the two may be responsible for discernibly different symptoms.

Some students have difficulty only in phonemic awareness, some only in naming-speed, whereas a third group may display a double-deficit. This third group is considered to comprise the most instructionally resistant students (Wolf et al., 2000), because they are left with fewer compensatory resources than the former groups. In the study by Stage, Abbott, Jenkins, and Berninger (2003) this prediction was clearly supported. All three groups are likely to display comprehension deficits (Bowers & Wolf, 1993b). In Bowers’ (1995) study, the double-deficit group was the most impaired on reading fluency and accuracy in both word and nonsense word reading. A similar finding for second grade students was observed by Manis et al. (2000) and also in a large study by Lovett, Steinbach, and Frijters (2000). Additionally, written expression was identified by Lovett et al. as an area of concern for the double-deficit group. However, when intensive phonologically-based instruction was implemented, even the Double Deficit students made progress commensurate with their less disabled single deficit peers. Without such carefully planned intervention, they tend to be the most severely disabled readers, and their difficulties are not relieved by maturation (Lovett et al., 2000; Wiig, Zureich, & Chan, 2000). Wagner et al. (1997) reported that any influence of naming speed might be age-limited. They argued that rapid naming was a valuable contributor to reading up to about third grade, but not beyond. That finding could be due to the greater importance assigned to comprehension, rather than decoding, in assessed reading progress from about fourth grade.

Lovett and Steinbach (1997) argued that phonological intervention should remain the intervention of choice at least up until sixth grade. Several studies (McCray, Vaughn, & Neal, 2001; Shankweiler, Lundquist, Dreyer, & Dickinson, 1996; Shaywitz et al., 1999) extended the influence of phonological processes through adolescence, while still others note that unresolved phonological deficits remain evident in adulthood, and should therefore remain an intervention focus (Greenberg, 1998; Greenberg, Ehri, & Perin, 1997). The relative contributions of naming speed and phonemic awareness to various aspects of reading was investigated by Pennington, Cardoso Martins, Green, and Lefly (2001). They noted that the contribution of naming was significant, but moderate when compared with that of phonemic awareness. Further, the effect was mostly evident in relation to fluency; whereas, the effects of phonemic awareness were directed towards facility with decoding. The question of a causal role for naming speed remains open, as the traditional means of establishing causality, through experimental rather than correlational studies, have not been definitively explored. Whether rapid naming capacity is directly amenable to treatment is unclear (Lovett et al., 2000). Though it is an intuitively attractive notion, simply because naming speed deficits appear to compromise reading progress does not necessarily imply that one can improve reading by, for example, providing lots of practice at naming various items quickly. Analogously, knowledge of letter names is highly predictive of future reading progress, yet an emphasis on teaching letter names (as opposed to letter sounds) to students at risk has not been shown to be of benefit to the target students’ reading progress. Letter name knowledge is most likely only a marker, indicative of a range of helpful literacy experiences that a child with such letter name knowledge has experienced. Learning letter names at school, while helpful, does not replicate all the additional experiences that may comprise the real determinants of a student’s progress. Additionally, a focus on “underlying process variables” (Blachman, 1994) in attempts to resolve reading difficulties has not been very fruitful in the past (Arter & Jenkins, 1979). Some researchers have argued that rapid naming may not be amenable to intervention (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994).

Even in studies of successful phonologically based intervention, during which students with a double deficit make excellent progress in reading, naming speed may remain low (Miller & Felton, 2001). Others, however, have noted naming speed increases. In a small study involving both good and poor readers, teaching phonemic awareness skills effectively to all the third grade children simultaneously improved their naming ability (Rubin, Rotella, Schwartz, & Bernstein, 1991). Though this study has no direct implications for improved reading, it does support the view of Wagner, Torgesen and colleagues (Torgesen, 1998; Torgesen et al., 1994; Wagner et al., 1993; Wagner et al., 1994) that the five phonological processing variables are related. Some subsequent phonologically-based intervention studies have noted similar naming speed improvements (Hempenstall, 2002b), and this broader issue of obliquely addressing naming speed deficits is considered later. Might there be an even deeper, generalised, extra-phonological cause that hinders those phonological processes, such as phonemic awareness and rapid naming? It is intuitively attractive (in a reductionist sense) to hypothesise a subservience of several reading related features, such as naming speed, to speed of general underlying processing. So, the search for an understanding of general processing speed has attracted interest from researchers (Tallal, 2000). For example, in describing the rationale for a relatively new program known as Fast ForWord (Scientific Learning Corporation, 1996), Tallal asserts that some children display difficulties in the processing of any rapidly changing sequential information. In this view, phonological problems are the outward manifestation of an underlying problem (temporal perception) that will also affect other processes, such as in the visual domain. To ameliorate this problem for reading-affected students, she employed acoustically modified (slowed) speech, believing that such speech signal manipulations will ultimately enable the brain to be reconfigured for more rapid processing.

The intended outcome is that students will process temporal aspects of speech (such as sound order, gaps between sounds, speech rhythm) more effectively, thereby improving speech perception and language comprehension. The approach is controversial and the results equivocal. Breznitz and Share (2002) raise doubts about the replicability and interpretations made in the supportive research. In reviewing a number of studies on Fast ForWord, Gillam, Frome Loeb, and Friel-Patti (2001) concluded that the reported language improvements for participants were similar to those noted in other more traditional language intervention programs. However, changes in temporal processing did not appear to be an outcome of the program’s intensive application. Further, in their longitudinal study, Share, Jorm, Maclean and Mathews (2002) found that any auditory temporal deficits noted among reading disabled students should not be assigned causal status, a view offered support in an investigation by Chiappe, Stringer, Siegel, and Stanovich (2002). In the Chiappe et al. study, reading-disabled adults did not differ in temporal processing from their normal-reading age peers. When compared with reading-level matched children, they displayed the typical phonological and pseudo-word reading deficits, yet were able to manage the timing tasks more successfully than the children. Finally, they noted that naming speed deficits were not the result of temporal processing deficits – the timing measures contributing nothing to the variance in rapid naming. Perhaps the more appropriate quest may not involve attempts to directly or indirectly improve naming speed per se, but rather, to focus on instruction designed to improve the reading of children who have problems in rapidly accessing phonological information from their mental lexicon.

ANOTHER PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING VARIABLE: WORKING MEMORY

Working memory is a short-term holding system that enables the storage and manipulation of small amounts of information needed to complete a task (Baddeley, 1995). Phonetic recoding in working memory is a phonological ability. The beginning reader has to be able to decode a series of graphemes, and temporarily order them in a sound based store in order to carry out the cognitively expensive task of blending. That capacity is also required to perform blending in a purely oral task. The efficiency with which the storage is performed optimises or diminishes the attentional capacity available for blending and subsequent word pronunciation, word-comprehension, and sentence-comprehension tasks. Gathercole, Willis, and Baddeley (1991) argue that the efficiency of the short-term phonological store is the major determinant of the ease or otherwise of retrieval of a sound sequence from long-term memory. Their study also replicated a previous finding (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989) that phonological memory skills were significantly associated with vocabulary knowledge in reading. In related vein, the Wagner et al. (1994) longitudinal study found that the rate of development of phonological memory paralleled that of vocabulary development in the first three years of schooling. Thus, it appears to have wide-ranging and extended influence on development. Indeed, Shankweiler and his colleagues (Shankweiler et al., 1995) have proposed that phonological processing limitations can subvert higher order language abilities.

As the executive element of working memory relays information through the cognitive system, any lower-order limitations can hinder the growth of syntactic abilities, vocabulary, phonological awareness, reading, and language comprehension. Wagner and Torgesen (1987), in their review of research, argued that the major memory problem for poor readers is in the coding of items phonetically. For these researchers, the deficit is a specific auditory working memory problem not a general one (Smith-Spark, Fisk, Fawcett, & Nicolson, 2003). Whether encoding or retrieval is the issue, the view that phonetic recoding in working memory is an important element of early reading success has been strongly supported (Catts, 1991; Felton, 1992; Hurford et al., 1993; Lindamood, Bell, & Lindamood, 1992; Shapiro, Nix, & Foster, 1990; Shaywitz, 2003; Webster & Plante, 1992). The studies of Wagner, Torgesen and colleagues (Wagner et al., 1993; Wagner et al., 1994; Torgesen et al., 1994) used digit span (oral and visual), sentence memory, and a distractor memory task to assess this ability. In contrast, Gathercole et al. (1991) suggest that non-word repetition may be a purer measure of working memory, as it avoids the possibility of using lexical and semantic cues to assist recall. Indeed, the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999) employs both in their composite working memory score. As with phonological coding in lexical access (naming speed), it is not yet apparent how, if at all, weaknesses in this area might be addressed directly. Wagner and colleagues concluded that attempts to improve this skill through memory training or mnemonic strategies have not been fruitful, and are unlikely ever to be so. They raised the interesting possibility that phonetic As with phonological coding in lexical access (naming speed), it is not yet apparent how, if at all, weaknesses in this area might be addressed directly. recoding in working memory may improve in concert with general reading skill improvement. Their longitudinal study (Wagner et al., 1994) failed to find such a trend, although some reading intervention studies (Bowey, 1996; Hempenstall, 2002b) noted such an outcome. Wagner et al. reported that the rates of development across the phonological processing abilities were somewhat uneven over the first three years of schooling, phonological memory being the slowest of them. There was considerable stability across all the variables over the three years - lending support to the view that the phonological processes are causal to beginning reading, and not ephemeral individual differences soon submerged under the effects of schooling. This is not to argue that reading itself plays no role in enhancing phonological processing only that it is not a unidirectional role (Wagner et al., 1993). There has been a concern expressed about attempting direct intervention in working memory. It relates to the possibility that assessed problems with working memory represent a domain-general rather than reading specific deficit, and hence are independent of the reading problem (Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2001). The other two phonological abilities (those most strongly related to later reading skill) can be considered as special cases of phonemic awareness. They are phonological analysis (or segmentation), and phonological synthesis (or blending). In an explicit phonics approach, the processes of blending (“What word do these sounds make when we put them together mmm-aaa-nnn?”), and segmenting (“Sound out this word for me”) are directly taught. It is of little value knowing what are the building blocks of our language’s structure if one does not know how to put those blocks together appropriately to allow the commencement of written communication, or know how to separate the blocks to enable decoding of a letter grouping.

It has been argued (Torgesen et al., 1992; Yopp, 1992) that synthesis develops earlier than analytic skills. Solomons (1992) and Caravolas and Bruck (1993) consider segmentation quite difficult for children younger than 5 or 6 years, and Bryen and Gerber (1987) suggest that only by age 6 years can 70% of children succeed in phonemic segmentation tasks. Certainly in the Torgesen et al. comparison of two phonemic awareness training programs, blending skills (“What word is this: /k/ /a/ /t/?”) were more readily taught to first year students than were segmentation skills (“Which of these three words begins the same as cat?”). Their intervention study highlighted the need to teach both skills given that promotion of decoding is the objective. A further feature of most successful reading programs is their emphasis on directly teaching both blending and segmenting skills within the context of letters (Gustafson, Samuelsson, & Ronnberg, 2000; Spector, 1995). The importance of segmenting and blending as a major instructional focus is made clear in the Ehri et al. (2001) summary of the National Reading Panel’s reading research meta-analysis. Similar findings emanate from the Scottish Clackmannanshire study (Watson & Johnston, 1998). The Dixon, Stuart, and Masterson (2002) study noted that the capacity to develop detailed orthographic representations (a hallmark of skilled reading) was strongly dependent on students’ first developing strong segmentation skills.

PHONOLOGICAL REPRESENTATIONS

Perfetti (1991, 1992), supported by Elbro (1996), has argued that low scores on tests of phonological processing reflect problems with the clarity of the representation of spoken words in the reader’s lexicon. This has become known as the phonological distinctness model. When representations of words are unstable (or stable but ill-defined), matching a stimulus word with the correct phonemically stored counterpart is likely to be a slow and error prone process as the child rejects competing phonemically similar, but semantically nonsensical, responses. In normal circumstances, children’s accumulating experience with words leads the representations to become increasingly segmented finer grained. Initially, the words are stored as undetailed, single-unit representations requiring storage space for each. Experience enables a more economical storage in which words sharing the same sound part can be partly assembled from the shared re-usable components. Gradually, the child becomes more analytic, refining the phonological representation from that of whole words to intraword parts, such as syllables and eventually, phonemes. A slightly different interpretation of the effect is described by Metsala and Walley (1998) within the lexical restructuring model, although the differences may not have instructional consequences. These phonological representations of the written word are acquired through phonemic mappings to letters but some degree of awareness that words are constructed of manipulable, meaningless speech segments is a prerequisite. If the level of awareness remains shallow and does not penetrate down to the smallest segment, the phoneme, then the representations will not be precisely delineated.

Liberman (1997) argued for the presence of a specialised phonological module in which the clarity of phonological representations determines a child’s ability to comprehend and apply the alphabetic it is not the temporal order of the tonal stimuli that presents the difficulty, but rather a problem in discriminating between highly similar auditory stimuli. See Eden and Moats (2002) for a review of this topical area. principle. In Liberman’s view an unconscious phonetic module acts upon articulatory gestures rather than upon acoustics. In this perspective, it is the articulatory feedback from the formation and production of sounds, rather than a sensitivity to the sonic value of the sounds themselves that builds links between words and their constituent phonemes. An alternative explanation - that poor performance on phonological tasks is caused by inadequate auditory discrimination of speech sounds has not received strong research support (Cornelissen, Hansen, Bradley, & Stein, 1996; Gibbs, 1996). If these phonological representations, whether purely sounds-based or kinaesthetic, are imprecise then tasks such as phonological recoding in lexical access and phonological recoding in working memory may also present problems for such students, and there is ample evidence that they do (Gang & Siegel, 2002; Rubin et al., 1991). For example, if the phonological representation of “dog” is poorly encoded or unreliable then the association between the spoken name of the animal and its meaning will be vague. A picture of a dog may quickly evoke its meaning but the phonologically assembled label is slowed because other similar labels (e.g., god, dock, bog) may need to be rejected.

Scrolling through a range of possibilities requires more time than accessing a clear uniquely described form, and hence task performance will be slower than for a student with a clear phonological representation. There remains debate whether the fundamental problem resides in the inaccurate initial encoding of speech or whether the phonological representations for words stored in the lexicon lack adequate aural resolution (Brady, 1997). Perhaps the use of modern brain imaging techniques will help shed some light upon conflicting foci on a metalinguistic deficit and its relationship to the phonological module proposed by Liberman (1997) as opposed to a temporal processing deficit in the auditory system, such as that emphasised by Tallal and colleagues (Tallal et al., 1996). Studdert-Kennedy and Mody (1995) and Studdert-Kennedy (2002) argued that the phonological representation explanation better accounts for observed problems than does Tallal’s temporal processing deficits. They consider that for the disabled reader Tasks involving short-term auditory memory may be difficult for some because the orally presented stimuli are not effortlessly and instantly encoded as unique phonological forms, or alternatively because of deficits in phonological rehearsal capacity (Gang & Siegel, 2002). The process of storage and retrieval is then inefficient, reflected in lower performance.

Not every test may be equally able to detect this quality. In digit span forward tests continuous oral or silent rehearsal may partly compensate for a memory deficit. In a digit span reversed test this strategy is unavailable and this test format may better reflect the deleterious effects of phonologically inadequate representations. Lindamood (1994) described “comparator function” as a critical variable in reading skill, one in which (for example, in blending) a stimulus or sequence must be retained in working memory whilst part of it is manipulated. Phoneme deletion (one of the most complex of phonological awareness tasks) also requires just this capacity, at least in non-spellers. Those adept at spelling are able to bypass the phonological demands by first visualising the letters and then mentally subtracting a letter or letter grouping. Another form of assessment requires the repetition of orally presented pseudowords. Such tests either have increasing numbers of syllables, for example, burloogugendaplo (Wagner et al., 1999), or increasing numbers of single syllable pseudowords presented in a stream (Gathercole & Adams, 1993). Ehri (1994) suggests that when alphabetic readers practise reading specific words by phonologically recoding the words, they form access routes for those words into memory. Readers gradually build these access routes by using their knowledge of grapheme-phoneme correspondences to amalgamate letters-in-spellings to phonemes-in-pronunciations of the words. The letters are processed as visual symbols for the phonemes and the sequence of letters is retained in memory as an alphabetic, phonological representation of the word. Empirical support for this view development of sophisticated can be found in the Dixon et al. (2002) study in which phoneme segmentation ability was strongly associated with the construction of accurate orthographic representations. Shaywitz (2003) employs the term ‘neural model’ to describe the inner representation.

Neural models may correspond with printed words to a greater or lesser extent; however, after students have read the word accurately a number of times, their neural model forms an exact correspondence with the printed word. The relatively effortless, automatic, rapid response to text that is the hallmark of skilled reading requires an orthographic lexicon at once comprehensive, and instantly and accurately accessible. Perfetti (1991, 1992) also argued that the development of the orthographic lexicon in reading has its basis in phonological representations, rather than in a visual store of whole words. If one accepts this view, establishing and cementing the connections between word spellings and these phonological representations become crucial instructional elements in orthographic knowledge development. It is therefore unsurprising that spelling has sometimes been used as a proxy for the quality of phonological representations (Perfetti, 1992). Lindamood (1994) also noted that children who have difficulty in appreciating the sound structure of words tend to be poor spellers. Landerl, Frith, and Wimmer (1996) noted that, in normal readers, coactivation of orthographic knowledge occurs in phonological tasks (that is, knowledge of a word’s spelling is used to make judgements about the sounds in a word), whereas for disabled readers this coactivation is much less evident. They argue that there is only a weak link between the phonological and orthographic representations in reading-disabled students such that hearing a word does not evoke its spelling, and seeing a word fails to bring forth its sound segments. An inability to establish such reliable links has dire consequences for skilled reading and spelling, and may be due to the imprecision with which sounds are encoded in the phonological representation store. Elbro et al. (1994) suggest that inadequate phonological representations impede the overcome the limits placed on children’s reading development by problems at the level of phonology. phonemic awareness and further that it is at the individual phoneme level that this failure of differentiation may occur. Perhaps the most refractory to phonemic awareness training and to phonics instruction are those to whom Elbro et al. refer. If that is so, some argue, then specialised and intensive phoneme awareness instruction may be beneficial. For example, in the Lindamood (1969) program considerable emphasis is devoted to kinaesthetic (in addition to auditory) cues to assist the recognition of and discrimination between phonemes. Hence, children are taught lip and tongue positions and how the breath is used - the purpose being to increase the salience of the sonic differentiation. This is a strategy offered theoretical support by Liberman (1997) through the emphasis on the role of articulatory gesture. There may be students who require such specialised intervention, although as yet there is doubt as to how to identify them.

Parsimony suggests that, at least for students beyond beginner age, systematic, synthetic phonics programs should first be attempted (Wagner et al., 1999), with the caveat that close and continuous monitoring of progress occurs. In a large-scale study, a combination of alphabetic instruction combined with phonemic awareness training was more beneficial than either alone (Foorman et al., 2003). Snowling, Goulandis, and Defty (1996) also argue that slowness in reading development of reading disabled students is due to delayed development of clear phonological representations at the beginning reading stage. Others (e.g., Bruck, 1990, 1992; Shankweiler et al., 1996) have noted that delay may be an inappropriate description, as untreated, such problems remain in evidence through to adulthood. In the self-teaching hypothesis described by Share (1995) and Share & Stanovich (1995), rapid, whole word reading (enabled through direct lexical access) develops through the effects of practice, benefits accumulating each time the phonological coding of words occurs. This sequence (of reliable phonological representations allowing phonological decoding, a skill further promoting direct lexical access) provides both an explanation and an intervention focus to This position finds significant support (Apel & Swank, 1999; Ehri, 1995, 1998; Gaskins et al., 1996; Williams, 1991). A study by Monaghan and Ellis (2002) adds weight to the crucial role of clear phonological representations. They noted that forging strong grapheme-phoneme linkages derives from multiple practice opportunities. Strong connections allow effortless translation of written words to meaningful language. The unclear representations hinder the development of these links leading to hesitancy and a failure to appreciate the alphabetic principle. In summary, the theory of phonological representation implies that phonological processes are dependent upon the clarity or accessibility of such representations. If phonological processes improve during an intervention program, is it because of better clarity of representations? Several studies have noted improvements in other phonological processes when phonemic awareness development approaches are adopted.

INTERVENTION STUDIES

Lovett et al. (1994) noted improved phonological processing skills (both speech and print based) in reading disabled children following an intervention program adapted partly from Direct Instruction phonics programs. The improvements were noted in measures of blending, segmenting, reading and spelling. Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, and Fletcher (1997) reported a study that compared such a Direct Instruction model to both an incidental phonics method and a Whole Language approach. The students in the Direct Instruction group demonstrated significantly greater gains in word reading, phonological processing and spelling than did either of the other two groups. Torgesen et al. (1994) studied 244 students from kindergarten through to the second grade, and noted that there were reciprocal effects between letter-sound knowledge and subsequent phonological development of their students. That is, the two areas were mutually supportive. The authors noted the effects of such knowledge were strongest on phonemic awareness, moderate on rapid naming and no discernible effects were observed for phonological memory. The most common interpretation of such findings is that instructional emphasis on the structure of spoken words increases the quality or accessibility of phonological representations, and such change is represented in improved performance on the other phonological variables. If, as they relate to reading, naming and working memory are reflective of an underlying variable (representation), there may be little value in attempting to influence these two variables through direct training of them. If these two phonological processes are simply marker variables for representation, their usefulness is not markedly diminished, as they are likely to play an important role in increasing the precision with which prediction of students at-risk can be achieved (Badian, 1994; Hurford, Schauf, Bunce, Blaich, & Moore, 1994). Already, combinations of tests emphasising phonological processes, given prior to reading instruction, have been at least moderately successful in predicting reading progress (Badian; Hurford et al.; Majsterek & Ellenwood, 1995; Scarborough, 1998; Spector, 1992; Stuart, 1995; Torgesen, 1998).

When phoneme oddity is assessed with such tasks as in the Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA) (Torgesen & Bryant, 1994), the memory load is reduced through the provision of pictures to remind students of each of the four words presented. Nevertheless, in order to note which two words (in the end sound-same subtest) or three words (end-sound-different subtest) share the same final phoneme they must be able to keep the representations active in working memory for sufficient time to note and compare the final phonemes. Hence, it seems likely that phonological working memory plays at least some part in successfully completing the TOPA, and additionally, in the tasks of sequencing and blending is important in decoding unfamiliar words, or pseudo-words (Troia, Roth, & Yeni Komshien, 1996). Swanson and Alexander (1997) in their study of learning disabled readers reported that working memory contributed only 4% to pseudo-word decoding. Brady (1991) pondered whether there is a threshold phonological working memory capacity necessary for success at such tasks. For children who struggle with tasks requiring phonological awareness, blending, and sequencing, and who also perform poorly on short-term memory tasks, the question remains as to the optimum foci for intervention. If it were true that phonological working memory underpins the other tasks, then it could be an intervention target in its own right. During the 1960’s and 1970’s the approach known as the ability training model espoused training memory (along with other presumed underlying processes such as visual perception and motor skills). Despite much research energy expended in this field, results were disappointing (Arter & Jenkins, 1979). Whilst performance on those specifically taught tasks did improve, there was little or no transfer to the reading task.

A salutary lesson was learned during those years. In many classrooms, struggling students were inveigled into time-consuming visual motoric-perceptual activities that proved to be of no value to their literacy progress. The activities also wasted time that could have been productively deployed for directly teaching the students those skills necessary for reading. Educators were misled by those who had confused speculation with empiricism, and correlation with causation. The chimera was overlayed by an aura of sophistication - of the apparent tapping of fundamental psychological processes. Many believed that reading was a natural process, but one that could become blocked in its normal progression. The plumbing analogy allowed for the expectation that a few arcane physical activities would remove the blockage, and the natural flow released (batteries not included). This is a more attractive belief option than one requiring carefully designed curricula, a great deal of instructional time, ample student practice with teacher feedback, and continuous assessment of progress. Educators are as prone to the promise of the latest labour-saving device as are most consumers. Even today, there are many practices, such as brain-based learning, that have been uncritically adopted despite a dearth of evidence supporting their use (Bruer, 1997). On the other hand, when there is evidence that a specific intervention actually causes the desired effects, and there is a theoretical rationale as to why it should do so, one should pay attention. The empirical literature is replete with examples in which the training of phoneme awareness subsequently aided skills crucial for literacy. For example, Gillam and Van Kleeck (1996) reported a study in which pre-school aged children with speech and language disorders improved both in phonemic awareness and phonological working memory following a phonemic awareness training program. Further, they noted that children with poor initial phonological working memory were as responsive to the intervention as were those with better phonological working memory.

These findings provide support for the notion that a better understanding of the structure of words (perhaps producing improved representational clarity) has a positive impact across the range of phonological processes. It also suggests that students with an under developed phonological working memory should not be precluded from participating in phonemic awareness programs or phonics-based instruction. There have been those who have argued for a whole word, visual recognition approach on the faulty assumption that students with limited short-term auditory memory are unable to derive benefit from a sounds-based approach. A study by Gang and Siegel (2002) found that sound-symbol association training with primary school reading-disabled students led to improvements in reading and also in phonological memory, effects similarly evident in normally progressing readers. If one accepts the relatively small direct contribution of phonological recoding in working memory (Swanson & Alexander, 1997) towards developing word attack skills, compared with that of phonemic awareness (Bowey, 1996), then instructional emphasis on directly stimulating phonemic awareness, and thereby the clarity of phonological representation, may present a more productive target than attempting to address working memory directly.

How best and most efficiently stimulate phonemic awareness in all students has been a major question. Some students have no difficulty at all - sometimes arriving at school with such skills already well developed through home-based activities and a ready proclivity. Some, without early experiences but with an ear, quickly discover the logic in spoken and (later) written word construction - whether the rationale is explained or not. Their attention to written word-parts can transfer to word-part exploration in oral language, and you may hear them playing word-construction games, such as Spoonerisms or Pig Latin. Others have their phonological awareness readily stimulated by even the minimal attention to word parts offered in implicit phonics reading programs. Still others have their phonemic awareness stimulated only by the more explicit and systematic phonemic awareness activities often included in synthetic phonics programs (National Reading Panel, 2000). There are also those who argue that phonemic awareness is not, of itself, the important issue. Their assertion is that learning letter sounds and the capacity to blend the sounds associated with those letters, along with learning how to segment written words into their constituent sounds – embodies all the important phonological skills necessary to initiate successful decoding (Watson & Johnston, 1998). Longitudinal studies in Clackmannanshire, Scotland have provided some supporting evidence for this perspective (Johnston & Watson, 2003). Note that the interaction of the teacher and curriculum become of increasing importance to student progress when the student’s contribution to phonemic awareness development is minimal. At the most extreme level are those students who do not bring phonemic awareness to the reading task, and who also appear resistant to developing such awareness even when provided with appropriately designed and presented phonics activities.

It is those students for whom a dedicated phonemic awareness program, carefully structured and systematically presented, may be particularly beneficial as a precursor or concomitant to intensive and probably extended synthetics phonics teaching. Even then, it seems that to features of text; whereas, the occipito-temporal system becomes important in enabling the effortless fluent word recognition in skilled readers. Brain function differences are also evident in orally presented phonological tasks, prior to any contact with print, and eventually imaging may be employed as a means of predicting potential reading problems. Importantly, when the struggling students were taught phonological processing skills (for example, over a 15 two-hour sessions), the brain energy expenditure levels and the locations of relevant brain activities came to resemble those of good readers (Richards et al., 2000). Lyon and Fletcher (2001) reported similar neuro-imaging changes when a 10 year-old student with severe reading disabilities was provided with 60 hours of intensive phonics instruction that also elevated his word-reading ability into the average range. In a case study involving a student with phonemic awareness and rapid naming difficulties, Miller and Felton (2001) noted strong reading gains when they provided instruction in phonemic awareness, decoding and encoding of single syllable and multi-syllabic words, automatic recognition of irregular sight words, and fluency in reading decodable text. Of course, these are also among the foci that are helpful in fomenting early reading growth in all students (National Reading Panel, 2000). A valuable aspect of the Miller and Felton study was the recognition that intervention with an older student (seventh grade) may demand high levels of intensity and extended duration (even up to four years duration) to ensure adequate progress. promote generalisation to the reading task, relating the sounds in spoken words to their letter correspondences is important (Foorman et al., 2003; Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994, 1995; Schneider, Roth, & Ennemoser, 2000). The National Reading Panel’s phonemic awareness research meta analysis (National Reading Panel, 2000) noted that a focus on segmenting and blending phonemes produced stronger effects on students’ subsequent reading progress than did teaching three or more phonemic awareness skills.

In support, a recent large scale intervention study of almost 5000 kindergarten students in high poverty schools noted the advantages for these students when phonemic awareness instruction is carefully integrated with phonics instruction (Foorman et al., 2003). “What seems to matter are activities where phonemes are blended and segmented in speech, then connected explicitly and systematically to graphemes in print, through phonics instruction” (Foorman et al., p. 317). Recent studies employing sophisticated brain imaging tools (e.g., functional magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, proton echo-planar spectroscopic imaging) have added to the knowledge about what actually occurs at the cellular level during successful intervention (Richards et al., 1999, 2000). It has been noted that struggling readers tend to have a significant amount of brain activity in Broca’s area (an area important for speech) and also within the brain’s right hemisphere. This is indicative of using less appropriate brain structures for the task – structures better suited to visualisation tasks. The consequence (Richards et al., 1999) is that the poorer readers may expend four to five times as much energy to complete a reading task when compared to good readers. Facile readers display vigorous activity in both the left temporo parietal and left temporo-occipital areas of the brain (Fletcher et al., 2000). This area enables the association of sounds to words and word parts – the phonological centre. The conversion of print to sound involves the angular gyrus (visual association) linking with the superior temporal gyrus (area for language). Pugh et al. (2002) assert that the temporo-parietal region is initially crucial in integrating the phonological and orthographic Unfortunately, efforts too often are prematurely discontinued for those students in greatest need (Torgesen, 1998).

Progress may be slow and hard earned, but attention to detail in instruction and vastly increased opportunities for practice can make a great difference to the prognosis. The lesson to be learned from assessment of student’s phonological processing is not simply about identifying learner characteristics to account for lack of progress, but rather to assist the discerning of which students demand of us our cutting-edge best interventions and for how long. Are there any implications for students whose phonemic awareness is adequate, and who present with only naming speed deficits? Deeney, Wolf, and Goldberg O’Rourke (2001) recommend a focus on phonology, automaticity, and fluency. Wolf, Miller, and Donnelly (2000) have developed a program known as RAVE-O (Retrieval, Automaticity, Vocabulary Elaboration, Orthography) that attempts to address the needs of second and third grade students identified as having phonological processing deficits, in particular, naming speed. The program emphasises the rapid and integrated use of phonological, orthographic and semantic information about words, thereby evoking sufficient fluency in word recognition to support comprehension. The approach is intended to accompany a phonological analysis program grounding it by tying the phonological analysis to our print conventions. Sound to print is a linkage acknowledged as enabling the strongest gains in reading following phonological programs (Hatcher et al., 1994). Most fluency programs address the issue at the lexical level, through variations of repeated reading activities, wide reading and multiple practice opportunities with text, and these approaches do have research support (Bowers & Newby Clark, 2002; National Reading Panel, 2000). RAVE-O adds to this word level emphasis an additional focus on underlying (sublexical) process skills such as speed of left-to-right visual scanning, letter recognition, orthographic pattern recognition and phoneme identification (Wolf et al., 2000).

Systematically introduced game like activities stress both accuracy and speed in each reading outcome and in each underlying component skill, such as letter and letter-pattern recognition, auditory discrimination of phonemes, lexical retrieval, and vocabulary growth. Within the component skills, orthographic pattern recognition is particularly emphasized through a specially designed computer game called Speed Wizards (Wolf & Goodman, 1996). The RAVE-O program represents one-half of our intervention package, which moves daily from a phonological analysis and blending program based on Lovett’s findings (Lovett et al., 1994) to emphases on automaticity in the underlying processes. The major, theoretically based objective, is to help children more automatically activate phonological, orthographic, and semantic information about words in order to facilitate fluency in word recognition and comprehension. (Deeney et al., 2001, p.147). The embedded beginning reading program is one of the Direct Instruction programs - Reading Mastery I/II Fast Cycle (Engelmann & Bruner, 1988). It is presented for a half hour per day, followed by the RAVE-O activities for a similar period. Early evaluations of the 70 hour program are promising, though additional independent studies are required. The contribution made by the emphasis on process speed, as opposed to that by the word level focus, has yet to established. It is well recognised that reading fluency is a vital element in skilled reading (National Reading Panel, 2000). It appears that fluency in the underpinnings, such as phonological processing, may be also significant. “Fluency as represented by accuracy and rate pervades all levels of processing involved in reading, and that fluency on early foundational skills can be used to predict proficiency on subsequent skills in reading” (Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2001, p. 264).

They may also represent an important intervention focus – in particular for those students resistant to even well designed and targeted instruction (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997). Binder, Haughton, and Bateman (2002) make the general point that expertise involves unhesitatingly accurate performance not simply accuracy alone. In the Precision Teaching model (Binder, 1988; Binder & Watkins, 1990), teachers schedule daily fluency practice (words correct per minute) and assessment across a range of educational skills, with rate targets being constantly updated. They argue that the overarching benefits from attaining fluency include improved retention and subsequent maintenance of knowledge and skills, improved capacity to focus attention on a task for long periods, and superior capacity to apply that which has been learned to future novel situations. In phonological skills, they suggest targets for blending of 10-12 words per minute; for segmenting, 40-50 sounds /min, and making new words through phoneme substitution 15-20 phonemes per minute. In a similar vein, Kaminski and Good (1998) have established student performance standards to assist in the determination of which students may be at-risk through their DIBELS assessment battery (Good, Kaminski, Laimon, & Johnson, 1992). Among the brief tests are the directly phonological assessments - Phoneme Segmentation Fluency and Phoneme Onset Fluency. It is worth noting that phonological fluency measures may relate to naming speed measures, but differ in that naming speed measures provide relatively few items (already known to the student) from a given domain that are repeated over and over, usually in a stimulus sheet (for example, six different letters employed in a 50 letter naming task). By contrast, fluency measures usually include more or less completely the whole domain (for example, all the letters of the alphabet). A fluency focus also differs from the sort of intervention established by Tallal and colleagues (Tallal et al., 1996) that attempts to influence auditory processing speed in a general sense. What are the implications for the education system of these research findings?

The consensus that phonological processes form the cornerstone of initial reading development is well established in the empirical literature, and (in some countries) enshrined in law. However, the impact at the level of the classroom in Australia has not been profound. One can readily gauge the approach to instruction in those schools that provide information to parents such as that below. From X Park Primary School, 2002. It is inappropriate for your child to be directed to ‘sound-out’ words using individual letter sounds, as many words cannot be identified in this manner. When a child gets stuck ask him to have a guess, or look at the picture, add a word that makes sense. Does it ‘look right’? If a mistake makes sense it doesn’t necessarily need to be corrected. The problem at a system level is to determine which students require greater or lesser levels of assistance. Assessment of phonological processes can assist in this decision-making. Phonemic awareness screening of young students has been shown to be predictive of future reading success or failure (Badian, 1994; Hurford et al., 1994; Chapman & Tunmer, 2003), at least when standard classroom reading approaches are employed. Not all students who don’t do well on such tests genuinely require phonemic awareness assistance, but nor are they harmed by it. Besides, the cost of over-inclusiveness is not nearly as serious as that of under inclusiveness. So, provide a phonemic awareness activities program in preschool or kindergarten to all, or at a minimum, to those adjudged as possibly at risk, and be vigilant especially towards those displaying a resistance to skill development. Those few may well require more systematic instruction than that provided by most published phonemic awareness and implicit phonics/balanced reading programs (Snider, 1995). For some design principles, see Chard and Dickson (1999).

CONCLUSION

It is probably too early to make educational decisions based only upon the research into working memory and naming speed, apart from their potential supporting role in screening assessment. For students who don’t progress quickly under the influence of phonemic awareness activities, or for those with a family history of reading problems, or where other environmental or biological risk factors are evident, there may be value in formal assessment of the other phonological processes. Those students with deficits in more than one area may be more resistant to progress than those with one problem area (Bowers & Wolf, 1993). Such knowledge can sensitise educators to be prepared for intensive systematic assistance (rather than a cursory curriculum addition) over a longer period of time with these students (Torgesen et al., 1994). Torgesen and Burgess (1998) argue that selecting the lowest 20% of students on only phonemic awareness and letter-name knowledge in the first year at school is sufficient to feel confident that all at risk students have been identified. Others have argued that those students with only a deficit in naming speed will not be identified by phonemic awareness screening, yet they are likely to present subsequently with reading fluency and comprehension difficulties if early assistance (both phonological and fluency oriented) is not provided (Deeney et al., 2001; Wolf et al., 2002). If there is a common theme throughout the work on phonological processing thus far, it is the centrality of the structure of spoken and written words in the development of literacy for all students. That there may be individual differences in the ease with which children acquire literacy is not new. The research described here, while attempting to locate underlying sources of difficulty, has highlighted the critical role of insistent and well-focussed teaching in precluding and resolving problems in learning to read.

REFERENCES:

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking & learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adams, M. J. (1991). Beginning to read: A critique by literacy professionals and a response by Marilyn Jager Adams. The Reading Teacher, 44, 392.

 Al Otaiba, S. (2001). Children who do not respond to early literacy instruction: A longitudinal study across kindergarten and first grade Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 344-346.

Apel, K. & Swank, L.K. (1999). Second chances: Improving decoding skills in the older student. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 231-243.

Arter, J. A., & Jenkins, J. R. V. (1979). Differential diagnosis prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49, 517-555.

Australian Government House of Representatives Enquiry. (1993). The Literacy Challenge. Canberra: Australian Printing Office.

Baddeley, A. (1995). Working memory. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 755-764). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Badian, N. A. (1993). Phonemic awareness, naming, visual symbol processing, and reading. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 87-100.

Badian, N. A. (1994). Preschool prediction: Orthographic and phonological skills and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 3 25.

Bentin, S., & Leshem, H. (1993). On the interaction between phonological awareness and reading acquisition: It’s a two way street. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 125-148.

Binder, C. (1988). Precision Teaching: Measuring and attaining exemplary academic achievement. Youth Policy Journal, 10(7), 12-15. Retrieved 3/6/2003 from http://www.binder-riha.com/publications.htm

Binder, C., & Watkins, C. L. (1990). Precision teaching and direct instruction: Measurably superior instructional technology in schools. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 3(4), 74-96.

Binder, C., Haughton, E., & Bateman, B. (2002). Fluency: Achieving true mastery in the learning process. Retrieved 3/6/2003 from http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/sped/projects/ose/papers/

Blachman, B. A. (1984). Relationship of and working memory. and working memory. and working memory. and working memory. ability and language analysis skills to kindergarten and first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 610-622.

Blachman, B. A. (1994). What we have learned from longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading, and some unanswered questions: A response to Torgesen, Wagner & Rashotte. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 287-291.

Bowers, P. G. (1995). Tracing symbol naming speed’s unique contributions to reading disabilities over time. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 189-216.

Bowers, P. G., & Swanson, L. B. (1991). Naming speed deficits in reading disability: Multiple measures of a singular process. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51, 195-219.

Bowers, P. G., & Wolf, M. (1993). Theoretical links among naming speed, precise timing mechanisms and orthographic skill in dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5(1), 69-85.

Bowers, P. G., & Wolf, M. (1993a). Theoretical links among naming speed, precise timing mechanisms and orthographic skill in dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 69-85.

Bowers, P. G., & Wolf, M. (1993b, March). A double-deficit hypothesis for developmental reading disorders. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans.

Bowers, P. G., Sunseth, K., & Golden, J. (1999). The route between rapid naming and reading progress. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 31-53.

Bowers, P.G., & Newby-Clark, E. (2002). The role of naming speed within a model of reading acquisition Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 109–126.

Bowey, J. A. (1996). Phonological sensitivity as a proximal contributor to phonological recoding skills in children’s reading. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 113-118.

Bowey, J. A., Cain, M. T., & Ryan, S. M. (1992). A reading level design study of phonological skills underlying Fourth grade children’s word reading difficulties. Child Development, 63, 999-1011.

Brady, S. A. (1991). The role of working memory in reading disability. In S. A. Brady & D. Shankweiler, (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy (pp. 129-152). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Brady, S. A. (1997). Ability to encode phonological representations: An underlying difficulty of poor readers. In Blachman, B. A. (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia. (pp. 21-47).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Breznitz, Z. & Share, D. (2002). Introduction on timing and phonology Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 1–3.

Bruck, M. (1990). Word-recognition skill of adults with childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Developmental Psychology, 26(3), 439-454.

Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awareness deficits. Developmental Psychology, 28, 874-886.

Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher 26(8), 4-16.

Bryen, D. N., & Gerber, A. (1987). Metalinguistic abilities and reading: A focus on phonological awareness. Reading, Writing & Learning Disabilities, 3, 357-367.

Caravolas, M., & Bruck, M. (1993). The effect of oral and written language input on children’s phonological awareness: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 55, 1-30.

Carnine, D. (1995). Trustworthiness, useability, and accessibility of educational research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 251-258.

Carnine, D. (2000). Why education experts resist effective practices (and what it would take to make education more like medicine). Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation. Retrieved 15/5/2001 from http://www.edexcellence.net/library/carnine.html

Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2002). What’s hot, what’s not for 2003. Reading Today, 20(3), 1, 18.

Catts, H. W. (1991). Early identification of reading disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 12(1), 1-16.

Chapman, J. W. & Tunmer, W. E. (2003). Reading difficulties, reading-related self-perceptions, and strategies for overcoming negative self-beliefs. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 5-24.

Chard, D. J., & Dickson, S. V. (1999). Phonological awareness: Instructional and assessment guideline. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 261-270.

Chiappe, P., Stringer, R., Siegel, L. S. & Stanovich, K. E. (2002). Why the timing deficit hypothesis does not explain reading disability in adults. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 73–107.

Compton, D. L. (2002). The relationships among phonological processing, orthographic processing, and lexical development in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 35, 201-210.

Cornelissen, P. L., Hansen, P. C., Bradley, L., Stein, J. F. (1996). Analysis of perceptual confusions between nine sets of consonant-vowel sound in normal and dyslexic adults. Cognition, 59, 275-306.

Cornwall, A. (1992). The relationship of phonological awareness, rapid naming and verbal memory to severe reading and spelling disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 532-538.

Crowder, R. & Wagner, R. (1992). The psychology of reading: An introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Davis, J. M., & Spring, C. (1990). The Digit Naming Speed Test: Its power and incremental validity in identifying children with specific reading disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 15-22.

Deeney, T., Wolf, M., & Goldberg O’Rourke, A. (2001). “I like to take my own sweet time”: Case study of a child with naming-speed deficits and reading disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 145-155.

Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1974). “Rapid automatized naming” of pictured objects, colors, letters, and numbers by normal children. Cortex, 10, 186-202.

Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976). Rapid automatized naming (R.A.N.): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471-479.

Department for Education and Employment. (1998). The National Literacy Strategy: Framework for Teaching. London: Crown.

Dixon, M., Stuart, M., & Masterson, J. (2002) The role of phonological awareness and the development of orthographic representations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 295-316.

Eden, G. F., & Moats, L. (2002) The role of neuroscience in the remediation of students with dyslexia. Nature Neuroscience Supplement, 5, 1080-1084. Retrieved on 3/6/2003 from http://www.nature.com/cgi taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/neuro/journal/v5/n11s/abs/nn946.ht ml

Ehri, L. (1998). Presidential address. In Joanna P. Williams (Ed.), Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 97-114. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ehri, L. C. (1994). Development of the ability to read words: Update. In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed. pp. 323-358). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read. word by sight. Journal of Research in Reading, 18(2), 116 125.

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250- 287.

Elbro, C. (1996). Early linguistic abilities and reading development: A review and a hypothesis about underlying differences in distinctness of phonological representations of lexical items. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 453-85.

Elbro, C., Nielsen, I., & Petersen, D. K. (1994). Dyslexia in adults: Evidence for deficits in non-word reading and in the phonological representation of lexical items. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 205-226.

Engelmann, S., & Bruner, E. C. (1988). Reading Mastery 1/11 Fast Cycle: Teacher’s guide. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Felton, R. H. (1992). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 212-229.

Felton, R. H., & Brown, I. S. (1990). Phonological processes as predictors of specific reading skills in children at risk for reading failure. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 39-59.

Fister, S., & Kemp, K. (1993). Translating research: Classroom application of validated instructional strategies. In R. C. Greaves & P. J. McLaughlin (Eds.), Recent advances in special education and rehabilitation. Boston: Andover Medical.

Fletcher, J. M., Simos, P. G., Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Pugh, K. R., and Papanicolaou, A. C. (2000). Neuroimaging, language, and reading: The interface of brain and environment. A Research Symposium on High Standards in Reading for Students from Diverse Language Groups: Research, Practice & Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved 11/8/2003 from www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/symposia/reading/neuro2.htm l

Foorman, B. R., Chen, D. T., Carlson, C., Moats, L., Francis, D. J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). The necessity of the alphabetic principle to phonemic awareness instruction. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 289-324.

Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 63-71.

Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Carlson, C., Chen, D.T., Moats, L., & Fletcher, J. (2003). The necessity of the alphabetic principle to phonemic awareness instruction. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 289–324.

Freebody, P., & Byrne, B. (1988). Word-reading strategy in elementary school children: Relation to comprehension, reading time, and phonemic awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 441-453.

Gang, M. & Siegel, L. (2002). Sound-symbol learning in children with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 137-157. Gaskins, I. W., Ehri, L. C., Cress, C., O’Hara, C., Donnelly, K. (1996). Procedures for word learning: Making discoveries about words. The Reading Teacher, 50, 312-327. Gathercole, S. E. & Baddeley, A. D. (1989). Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 200-215.

Gathercole, S. E., & Adams, A. M. (1993). Phonological working memory in very young children. Developmental Psychology, 29, 770-778.

Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C., & Baddeley, A. D. (1991). Differentiating phonological memory and awareness of rhyme: Reading and vocabulary development in children. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 387-406.

Gibbs, S. (1996). Categorical speech perception and phonological awareness in the early stages of learning to read. Language & Communication, 16(1), 37-60.

Gillam, R. B., & Van Kleek, A. (1996). Phonological awareness training and short-term working memory: Clinical implication. Topics in Language Disorders, 17(1), 72-81.

Gillam, R. B., Frome Loeb, D., & Friel-Patti, S. (2001). Special forum on Fast ForWord Looking back: A Summary of five exploratory studies of Fast ForWord. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 10, 269–273.

Good, R. H., III, Kaminski, R., Laimon, D., & Johnson, D. S. (1992). Advances in assessment for the primary prevention of early academic problems. The Oregon Conference Monograph, 1992 (pp. 100-109). Eugene: University of Oregon, College of Education.

Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.

Greenberg, D. (1998). Betsy: Lessons learned from working with an adult nonreader. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41, 252-261.

Greenberg, D., Ehri, L. C., & Perin, D. (1997). Are word reading processes the same or different in adult literacy students and third-fifth graders matched for reading level? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 262-275.

Gustafson, S., Samuelsson, S., & Ronnberg, J. (2000). Why do some resist phonological intervention: A Swedish longitudinal study of poor readers in grade 4. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44, 145-162.

Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills. The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41-57.

Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. W. (1995). Helping to overcome early reading failure by combining the teaching of reading and phonological skills. In Elaine Funnell & Morag Stuart (Eds.), Learning to read: Psychology in the classroom. Cambridge, MA.

Hempenstall, K. (1996). The gulf between educational research and policy: The example of Direct Instruction and whole language. Behaviour Change, 13(1), 33-46.

Hempenstall, K. (1997). The role of phonemic awareness in beginning reading: A review. Behaviour Change, 14, 201 14.

Hempenstall, K. (2002a). The three cueing system: Help or hindrance. Direct Instruction News, 2(2), 42-51.

Hempenstall, K. (2002b). Phonological processing and phonics: Towards an understanding of their relationship to each other and to reading development. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7(1), 4-29.

Hurford, D. P., Darrow, L. J., Edwards, T. L., Howerton, C. J., Mote, C. R., Schauf, J. D., & Coffey, P. (1993). An examination of phonemic processing abilities in children during their first grade year. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 167-177.

Hurford, D. P., Schauf, J. D., Bunce, L., Blaich, T., & Moore, K. (1994). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 371-382.

Johnston, R. S., & Watson, J. E. (2003). Accelerating reading and spelling with synthetic phonics: A five year follow up. Edinburgh: Research, Economic and Corporate Strategy (RECS) Unit. Retrieved 11/8/2003 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/ins4-00.asp

Kaminski, R. A. & Good, R. H. III (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford Press.

Landauer, R. (2000). Facing up to infirmities in special ed. The Oregonian, December 2.

Landerl, K., Frith, U., & Wimmer, H. (1996). Intrusion of orthographic knowledge on phoneme awareness: Strong in normal readers, weak in dyslexic readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17(1), 1-14.

Liberman, A. M. (1997). How theories of speech affect research in reading and writing. In B. Blachman (Ed.) Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia. pp.3-19. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lindamood, C., & Lindamood, P. C. (1969). Auditory Discrimination in Depth. USA: Riverside Publishers.

Lindamood, C., Bell, N., & Lindamood, P. C. (1992). Issues in phonological awareness assessment. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 242-259.

Lindamood, P. C. (1994). Issues in researching the link between phonological awareness, learning disabilities, and spelling. In G. R. Lyon, (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 351-374). Baltimore, PH: Brookes Publishing Co.

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, 189-209.

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

Lovett, M. W., Border, S. L., De Luca, T., Lacerenza, L., Benson, N. J., & Brackstone D. (1994). Treating the core deficit of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer of learning after phonologically- and strategy-based reading training programs. Developmental Psychology, 30, 805-822.

Lovett, M. W., Steinbach, K. A., &. Frijters, J. C. (2000). Remediating the core deficits of developmental reading disability: A Double-Deficit perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 334-358.

Lyon, G. R., & Fletcher, J. M. (2001, Summer). Early warning systems. Education Matters, 22-29. Retrieved 3/6/2003 from http://www.edmatters.org/20012/

Majsterek, D. J., & Ellenwood, A. E. (1995). Phonological awareness and beginning reading: Evaluation of a school based screening procedure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 449-456.

Manis, F., Doi, L., & Bhadha, B. (2000). Naming speed, phonological awareness, and orthographic knowledge in second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 325 333.

Mann, V. A. (1993). Phoneme awareness and future reading ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 259-269.

Marks, G. N., & Ainley, J. (1997). Reading comprehension and numeracy among junior secondary school students in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

McBride-Chang, C., & Manis, F. R. (1996). Structural invariance in the associations of naming speed, phonological awareness, and verbal reasoning in good and poor readers: A test of the double deficit hypothesis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 323

McCray, A. D., Vaughn, S., & Neal, L. I. (2001). Not all students learn to read by third grade: Middle school students speak out about their reading disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 35, 17-30.

McDonald, G. W., & Cornwall, A. (1995). The relationship between phonemic awareness and reading and spelling achievement eleven years later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 523-527. Metsala, J. L., &

Walley, A. C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In J. L. Metsala and L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89-120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Miller, L. L., &

Felton, R. H. (2001). “It’s one of them ... I don’t know”: Case study of a student with phonological, rapid naming, and word-finding deficits. Journal of Special Education, 35, 125-133.

Moats, L. C. (1994b). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.

Monaghan, J. & Ellis, A. A. (2002). Age of acquisition and the completeness of phonological representations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 759–788.

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. In R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne (Eds.), Committee on Scientific Principles for Educational Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Pennington, B. F., Cardoso-Martins, C., Green, P. A. & Lefly, D. L. (2001). Comparing the phonological and double deficit hypotheses for developmental dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 707–755.

Perfetti, C. A. (1991). Representations and awareness in the acquisition of reading competence. In L. Rieben, & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 33-44). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.). Reading acquisition. (pp. 145-174). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pugh, K. P., Mencl, W. E., Jenner, A. R., Katz, L., Frost, S. J., Lee, J. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B .A. (2002). Neuroimaging studies of reading development and reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 240-249.

Richards, T. L., Corina, D., Serafini, S., Steury, K., Echelard, D. R., Dager, S. R., Marro, K., Abbott, R. D., Maravilla, K. R., & Berninger, V. W. (2000). The effects of a phonologically-driven treatment for dyslexia on lactate levels as measured by Proton MRSI.

American Journal of Neuroradiology, 21, 916-922. Retrieved 12/2/03 from http://faculty.washington.edu/toddr/dyslexic2.htm

Richards, T. L., Dager, S. R., Corina, D., Serafini, S., Heide, A. C., Steury, K., Strauss, W., Hayes, C. E., Abbott, R. D., Craft, S., Shaw, D., Posse, S., & Berninger, V. W. (1999). Dyslexic children have abnormal brain lactate response to reading-related language tasks. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 20, 1393-1398.

Rubin, H., Rotella, T., Schwartz, L., & Bernstein, S. (1991). The effect of phonological analysis training on naming performance. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3, 1-10.

Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & A. J. Capute (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75-120). Timonium, MD: York Press, Inc.

Schneider, W., Roth, E., & Ennemoser, M. (2000). Training phonological skills and letter knowledge in children at risk for dyslexia: A comparison of three kindergarten intervention programs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 284-295.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (1996). Fast ForWord™ [Computer software]. Berkeley, CA: Author.

Shankweiler, D., Crain, S., Katz, L., Fowler, A. E., Liberman, A. M., Brady, S. A., Thornton, R., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1995). Cognitive profiles of reading disabled children: Comparison of language skills in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Psychological Science, 6(3), 149-156.

Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L. G., & Dickinson, C. C. (1996). Reading and spelling difficulties in high school students: Causes and consequences. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 267-294.

Shapiro, J., Nix, G. W., & Foster, S. F. (1990). Auditory perceptual processing in reading disabled children. Journal of Research in Reading, 13, 123-132.

Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151 218.

Share, D. L., Jorm, A. F., Maclean, R. & Matthews, R. (2002). Temporal processing and reading disability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 151–178. Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. Issues in Education, 1(1), 1-57.

Shaywitz, S. (2003) Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Alfred Knopf. Shaywitz, S. E., Fletcher, J. M., Holahan, J. M., Shneider, A. E., Marchione, K. E., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Pugh, K. R., Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: The Connecticut Longitudinal Study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104, 1351-9.

Smith-Spark, J., Fisk, J., Fawcett, A., & Nicolson, R. (2003). Investigating the central executive in adult dyslexics: Evidence from phonological and visuospatial working memory performance. The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15, 567-587.

Snider, V. E. (1995). A primer on phonemic awareness: What it is, why it’s important, and how to teach it. School Psychology Review, 3, 443-455.

Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Report of the National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved 12/2/03 from http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/reading/

Snowling, M. J., Goulandris, N., & Defty, N. (1996). A longitudinal study of reading development in dyslexic children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 653-669.

Solomons, B. (1992). Phonemic awareness training: An early intervention program. NSW, Australia: Macquarie University.

Spector, J. (1992). Predicting progress in beginning reading: Dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 353-363.

Spector, J. (1995). Phonemic awareness training: Application of principles of direct instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11, 37-51.

Speece, D. L., Mills, C., Ritchey, K. D., & Hillman, E. (2003). Initial evidence that letter fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skill. Journal of Special Education, 36, 223 233.

Stage, S. A., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Development of young children’s phonological and orthographic knowledge as revealed by their spellings. Developmental Psychology, 28, 287-296.

Stage, S. A., Abbott, R. D., Jenkins, J. R., Berninger, V. W. (2003). Predicting response to early reading intervention from verbal IQ, reading-related language abilities, attention ratings, and verbal IQ–word reading discrepancy: Failure to validate discrepancy method. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 24-33.

Stanovich, P. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). How teachers can use scientifically based research to make curricular & instructional decisions. Jessup, MD: The National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved 16/9/2003 from http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/html /stanovich/

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.

Studdert-Kennedy, M. (2002). Deficits in phoneme awareness do not arise from failures in rapid auditory processing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 5–14. Retrieved 11/8/2003 from http://www.linguistics.pomona.edu/thornton/lgcs185c/readi ngs/StuddertKennedy02.pdf

Studdert-Kennedy, M., & Mody, M. (1995). Auditory temporal perception deficits in the reading-impaired: A critical review of the evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 508–514.

Swanson, H. L., & Alexander, J. E. (1997). Cognitive processes as predictors of word recognition and reading comprehension in learning disabled and skilled readers: Revisiting the specificity hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 128-158.

Swanson, H.L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2001). A subgroup analysis of working memory in children with reading disabilities: Domain-general or domain-specific deficiency? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 249-263.

Tallal, P. (2000). Experimental studies of language learning impairments: From research to remediation. In D. V. M. Bishop & L. Leonard (Eds.), Speech and language impairments in children: Causes, characteristics, intervention and outcome (pp. 131–155). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Tallal, P., Miller, S. L., Bedi, G., Byma, G., Wang, X., Nagarajan, S. S., Schreiner, C., Jenkins, W., & Mezenich, M. M. (1996). Language comprehension in language learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech. Science, 271, 81-84.

Torgesen, J. K. (1993). Variations on theory in learning disabilities. In G. R. Lyon, D. B. Gray, J. F. Kavanagh, & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Better understanding of learning disabilities: New views from research and their implications for education and public policies (pp.153-170). Baltimore: Brooks.

Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator, Spring/Summer. Retrieved December 19, 2002 from http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/reading/torgeson_catch them.html

Torgesen, J. K., & Bryant, B. (1994). Test of Phonological Awareness: Examiner’s Manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Torgesen, J. K., & Burgess, S. R. (1998). Consistency of reading-related phonological processes throughout early childhood: Evidence from longitudinal-correlational and instructional studies. In J. Metsala & L. Ehri (Eds.). Word recognition in beginning reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. J., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing & reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276-286.

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

Troia, G. A., Roth, F. P., & Yeni-Komshian, G. H. (1996). Word frequency and age effects in normally developing children’s phonological processing. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 1099-1108.

Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. A. (1993). Phonological recoding skill and beginning reading. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 161-179.

US Department of Education (2002, Jan). No Child Left Behind Act, 2001. Retrieved 12/2/03 from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/

Vandervelden, M. C., & Siegel, L. S. (1996). Phonological recoding and phoneme awareness in early literacy: A developmental approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 854-875.

Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192-212.

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 73-87.

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Laughon, P., Simmons, K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1993). Development of young readers’ phonological processing abilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 83-103.

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., Donahue, J., & Garon, T. (1997). Changing causal relations between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to fluent readers: A five-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 468-479.

Watson, J. E., & Johnston, R. S. (1998). Accelerating reading attainment: The effectiveness of synthetic phonics Interchange, 57. Edinburgh: SOEID. Retrieved 11/8/2003 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/edru/Pdf/ers/interchange_57.pdf.

Webster, P. E., & Plante, A. S. (1992). Effects of phonological impairment on word, syllable and phoneme segmentation and reading. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 176-182.

Wiig, E. H., Zureich, P., & Chan, H. H. (2000). A clinical rationale for assessing rapid automatized naming in children with language disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 359-371. Williams, J. P. (1991). The meaning of a phonics base for reading instruction. In The Orton Dyslexia Society (Eds.), All language and the creation of literacy (pp.57-62).

Wimmer, H., & Mayringer, H. (2002). Dysfluent reading in the absence of spelling difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 272-277.

Wimmer, H., Mayringer, H., & Landerl, K. (2000). The double-deficit hypothesis and difficulties in learning to read a regular orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 668-680.

Wolf, M. (1991). Naming speed and reading: The contribution of the cognitive neurosciences. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 123-141. Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. (1999). The “Double-Deficit Hypothesis” for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 124.

Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (2000). Naming-speed processes and developmental reading disabilities: An introduction to the special issue on the double-deficit hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 322-341.

Wolf, M., Bowers, P., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387-407.

Wolf, M., Miller, L., & Donnelly, K. (2000). Retrieval, automaticity, vocabulary elaboration, orthography (Rave-O): A comprehensive, fluency-based reading intervention program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 375-382.

Wolf, M., O’Rourke, A. G., Gidney, C., Lovett, M., Cirino, P., & Morris R. (2002). The second deficit: An investigation of the independence of phonological and naming-speed deficits in developmental dyslexia Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 43–72.

Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 45, 696-703.

Contemporary Trends in Phonological Awareness Studies (2025)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Rapid automatized naming: What it is, what it is not, and why it matters (2025)

“Rapid automatized naming (RAN) has surged in popularity recently as an important indicator of reading difficulties, including dyslexia. Despite an extensive history of research on RAN, including recent meta-analyses indicating a unique contribution of RAN to reading above and beyond phonemic awareness, questions remain regarding RAN’s relationship to reading. Specific questions exist regarding how PA mediates that relationship and how best to use data from RAN measures to identify risk for reading failure. Through multiple studies, we demonstrate that RAN is not merely subsumed by skills typically assessed when conducting universal screening for reading difficulties (i.e., phonemic segmentation fluency and letter naming fluency), but contributes unique information above and beyond these measures. Additionally, we discuss the process for the development of cut points for risk for Acadience RAN, along with guidance regarding how educators can interpret RAN scores as an indicator of risk for future reading difficulties. The results presented here support the idea that difficulties associated with RAN are not merely reflections of difficulties with other early literacy skills typically assessed during universal screening, but constitute separate and distinct difficulties that may precipitate later reading problems.”

Gray, J.S., Powell-Smith, K.A. Rapid automatized naming: what it is, what it is not, and why it matters. Ann. of Dyslexia 75, 1–18 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-024-00312-z

_______________________________________________________________________________

The relationships between language, working memory and rapid naming in children with mild to moderate hearing loss. (2022)

“The results suggest that the language, verbal working memory, and rapid naming skills of children with MMHL (mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss) are closely related. It is recommended that the relationship between verbal short-term memory, verbal working memory, rapid naming skills, and language skills should be considered in therapeutic and educational settings. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationships between verbal-short-term -working memory, duration of rapid automatized naming, and language skills in children with MMHL.”

Merve İkiz, Esra Yücel, (2022). The relationships between language, working memory and rapid naming in children with mild to moderate hearing loss. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, Volume 158, 111156, ISSN 0165-5876, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2022.111156. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165587622001173

The contribution of orthographic knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming and phonological working memory (2025)

“The present study examined the effects of orthographic knowledge (OK), phonological awareness (PA), rapid automatized naming (RAN), and phonological working memory (PWM) on the reading speed, accuracy, and comprehension of elementary school students. Results from a sample of 176 typically developing children in the second through fourth grades (mean age = 8.9 years) revealed that the correlation between reading and the other variables (PWM, PA, RAN, and OK) was significant. In Persian, which has an abjad writing system and opaque orthography, OK and RAN were the best predictors of reading. The relationship between reading skills and other factors was most evident in the fourth grade. We also found that female students in the fourth grade performed significantly better than male students on reading, RAN and OK. This study highlights of the fact that rapid naming and orthographic processing are more important than phonological processing for predicting reading skills in Persian.”

Mohammadi Najafabadi, F., Soleymani, Z., Zadehlabbaf, F., & Kohansal, A. (2025). The contribution of orthographic knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming and phonological working memory to the reading skills of typically developing children. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2024.2443745

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Impact of phonological awareness intervention combined with transcranial direct current stimulation (2025)

• “Phonological processing difficulties, including reduced phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming and verbal short-term memory are the leading cause of dyslexia.
• Phonological awareness training is beneficial to improve automatized naming and verbal short-term memory abilities in dyslexia.
• Transcranial direct current stimulation is an adjunctive method applied in reading studies to improve performance.
• This study showed the effectiveness of phonological awareness training on rapid automatized naming and verbal short-term memory abilities, but transcranial direct current stimulation did not have an additional effect on this improvement in the present study.
• Because of the limited effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation as adjunctive intervention in the treatment of dyslexia, rehabilitation professionals should use it conservatively.
• Rehabilitation professionals should use phonological awareness training to improve rapid automatized naming and verbal short-term memory instead of separate treatment of these deficits.”

Mirahadi, S. S., Arshi, B., Nitsche, M. A., & Mohamadi, R. (2025). Impact of phonological awareness intervention combined with transcranial direct current stimulation on rapid automatized naming and verbal short term memory in developmental dyslexia: a randomized controlled trial. Disability and Rehabilitation, 1-12.

A New Tele-Rehabilitation Approach in Children with Language and Learning Disorders (2022)

“Executive function deficits are documented in many neurodevelopmental disorders and may contribute to clinical complexity or rehabilitation resilience. The present research was primarily aimed at presenting and evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of a telerehabilitation program used during the pandemic period. MemoRAN (Anastasis), a computerised cognitive training to improve executive control during visual-verbal integration tasks was used in a sample of 42 children (5–11 years old) with specific learning or language disorders. The MemoRAN training was based on exercises of inhibition, cognitive flexibility and updating in working memory for three months, with a frequency of approximately three sessions per week. Afterwards, a comparison between a subgroup of children using Memo-RAN and an active control group, using a tele-rehabilitation program directed on reading was conducted. Effect size analysis in pre-post measurements suggests an average effect of MemoRAN in measurements that require control processes, such as accuracy in dictation, reading, inhibition and working memory testing. Comparison with the active control group and the clinical utility implications of these types of treatment will be discussed.    at the educational and scholastic level, the integration of typical learning activities could be combined with activities on inhibition processes, working memory and rapid automatized naming, to verify if learning is thus more effective and generalised for the children of the first years of primary school and in particular for children with SLD or previous LD.”

Capodieci, A., Romano, M., Castro, E., Di Lieto, M. C., Bonetti, S., Spoglianti, S., & Pecini, C. (2022). Executive Functions and Rapid Automatized Naming: A New Tele-Rehabilitation Approach in Children with Language and Learning Disorders. Children, 9(6), 822. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9060822

tele-rehabilitation; executive function; rapid automatized naming; computerised cognitive training; working memory; learning disabilities; language disorder

____________________________________________________________________________________

Rapid Automatic Naming as a Sight Word Fluency Intervention (2025)

“The importance of reading fluency is cemented in the 5 pillars of reading and in the multiple learning standards which address this misunderstood reading skill. Fluency studies have traditionally focused on upper elementary grades and on oral reading of passages. Furthermore, little is known about the types of dysfluency behaviors that may accompany slow reading speeds, such as hesitations and vocalizations. The purpose of the present study was to place the spotlight on fluency at the sight word level and dysfluency behaviors using a controversial intervention. Rapid Automatic Naming (RAN) is trusted and respected as an assessment with predictive capabilities. Used to predict reading failure and low fluency rates, some would posit another use for RAN. Rapid Automatic Naming practice as an intervention has been suggested by some reading specialists as a way to increase the automaticity of the neurological processes underlying rapid naming and fluency, though not all experts agree and the current research on the topic is inconsistent. The present study puts this idea to the test by providing practice with RAN object naming and determining its efficacy through analysis of sight word fluency scores and dysfluency frequencies. For the participants of the current study, sight word fluency increased over the course of the intervention and insight was gained into frequency of dysfluency behaviors. The current study contributes to the body of knowledge on fluency assessment at the sight word level, dysfluent behaviors in early readers, and the use of rapid automatic naming practice as an intervention strategy.”

Alderson, J. A. (2025). Rapid Automatic Naming as a Sight Word Fluency Intervention (Doctoral dissertation, Piedmont University). Alderson, J. A. (2025). Rapid Automatic Naming as a Sight Word Fluency Intervention (Doctoral dissertation, Piedmont University).

Verbal working memory as emergent from language comprehension and production (2020).

“This article reviews current models of verbal working memory and considers the role of language comprehension and long-term memory in the ability to maintain and order verbal information for short periods of time. While all models of verbal working memory posit some interaction with long-term memory, few have considered the character of these long-term representations or how they might affect performance on verbal working memory tasks. Similarly, few models have considered how comprehension processes and production processes might affect performance in verbal working memory tasks. Modern theories of comprehension emphasize that people learn a vast web of correlated information about the language and the world and must activate that information from long-term memory to cope with the demands of language input. To date, there has been little consideration in theories of verbal working memory for how this rich input from comprehension would affect the nature of temporary memory. There has also been relatively little attention to the degree to which language production processes naturally manage serial order of verbal information. The authors argue for an emergent model of verbal working memory supported by a rich, distributed long-term memory for language. On this view, comprehension processes provide encoding in verbal working memory tasks, and production processes maintenance, serial ordering, and recall. Moreover, the computational capacity to maintain and order information varies with language experience. Implications for theories of working memory, comprehension, and production are considered.”

Schwering, S. C., & MacDonald, M. C. (2020). Verbal working memory as emergent from language comprehension and production. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 14, 68.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Effect of reciprocal teaching on comprehension, attention, rapid naming and working memory (2024).

“This study aims to evaluate word callers attending the fourth grade of primary school in terms of rapid naming, verbal working memory, and attention skills, and to examine the effect of the reciprocal teaching approach on the development of word callers' reading comprehension skills. The study group consisted of 25 word callers and 21 independent readers. Fourth-grade students who are at the independent level in word recognition skills and at the level of frustration in reading comprehension skills are defined as word callers. On the other hand, students who are at the independent level in both word recognition and reading comprehension skills are defined as independent readers. According to the findings, difficulties in rapid naming, verbal working memory and attention skills are common characteristics of word callers. On the other hand, with the reciprocal teaching approach applied for 12 weeks, significant improvements were achieved in the reading comprehension skills of word callers. In this direction, it can be interpreted that the reciprocal teaching approach eliminated the difficulties experienced by word callers.”

Öksüz, H. İ., & Akyol, H. (2024). Effect of reciprocal teaching on comprehension, attention, rapid naming and working memory. Turkish Journal of Education, 13(3), 180-198.

Mediators of working memory and reading (2024)

“Working memory (WM) has been consistently linked to reading. However, the mechanism(s) linking WM to reading remain unclear. WM may indirectly exert an effect onto reading through mediators such as phonemic awareness (PA) and/or rapid automatized naming (RAN). In a sample of children with reading difficulty (n = 117), separate mediation analyses tested direct and indirect (through PA and RAN) effects of WM on untimed word decoding and recognition (i.e., basic reading skills) and timed word decoding and recognition (i.e., reading fluency). WM exerted a direct effect on basic reading skills and reading fluency. For basic reading skills, there was a significant indirect effect of WM on reading through the mediation of PA (but not through RAN). By contrast, for reading fluency, there was a significant indirect effect of WM on reading through the mediation of RAN (but not through PA). Findings reinforce the importance of WM, PA, and RAN for broad reading skills, while offering a mechanistic explanation for why poor PA and/or RAN may differentially lead to reading difficulty.”

Guerin, J. M., Droder, S., Turkelson, L., & Mano, Q. R. (2024). Mediators of working memory and reading in a sample of children with reading difficulty: The roles of phonemic awareness and rapid automatized naming. Dyslexia, 30(3), e1774. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1774