Strategies for Students with Reading Disabilities 1
WHAT ARE EFFECTIVE LITERACY STRATEGIES FOR ELEMENTARY STUDENTS WITH READING DISABILITIES?
As a K-5 Reading Specialist, I teach many students that have difficulty reading. I instruct these students using instructional methods that I have been trained to use through workshops, professional development, and Master’s classes. The interventions help most of my students and I see growth. However, some of my students are not improving and they are not responding to the individual or small group instruction. These students have severe difficulty reading and are waybelow grade level. I need to know what to do to help them. These students are the reason that I ask this question:
What are effective literacy strategies for elementary students with reading disabilities?
Reading Disability
Reading disability is an unexpected discrepancy between achievement and intellect in the reading process. Lovett and Steinbach (1997) define developmental reading disability as “a term used to describe otherwise intelligent and healthy children who unexpectedly fail to acquire reading, spelling, and written language skills.” It is estimated that three to six percent of otherwise normal children have a reading disability (Lovett & Steinbach, 1997). Children with reading disabilities are not struggling readers; they have more severe difficulties than strugglers do. In addition, reading disabled students may or may not have learning disabilities. For children with reading disabilities, current instructional methods have failed to teach them to read.
There are three main types of reading disabilities (Mathes, 2009). Dyslexia is the most widely known. People with this disability have difficulty reading single words and decoding words quickly. Another type of reading disability is associated with poor language comprehension and these people have difficulty with inferences and summaries. The third type of reading disability is people who experience difficulty in both decoding and language comprehension; these people are the most severe (Mathes, 2009).
Effective Literacy Strategies
The researchin this annotated bibliography showed the most effective literacy strategy for younger elementary students with reading disabilities is systematic direct instruction in phonological awareness (Abbott & Berninger, 1999; Lovett, Borden, Lacerenza, Frijters, & Steinbach, 2000; Lovett & Steinbach, 1997; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000; Simos, Fletcher, Sarkari, Billinglsey-Marshall, Denton, & Papanicolaou, 2007; Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Lindamood, Rose, Conway, & Garvan, 1999). The specific phonological awareness program is not as important as the instruction of phonologically-based reading skills (Lovett et al., 2000). There are many concepts that fall under the phonological awareness umbrella. Two of these are phonemic awarenessand phonics. Instruction in phonemic awareness, the manipulation of sounds, is effective for students with reading disabilities (O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000; Schuele & Boudreau, 2008; Torgesen et al., 1999; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997; Torgesen et al. 1999). Also instruction in phonics, the relation between letters and sounds, is also effective(Abbot& Berninger, 1999; Lovett & Steinbach, 1997; Menzies, Mahdavi, & Lewis, 2008; Rankin-Erickson & Pressley, 2000; Simos et al., 2007; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007). One effective sequence for beginning readers is instruction in rhyme, initial sounds, final sounds, blending, and segmenting (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). Another effective strategy is instruction in guided reading (Menzies et al.;Torgeson et al., 1997; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010), which helps to accomplish the ultimate goal of reading for understanding.
Effective strategies for older students with reading disabilities are instruction in syllable patterns (Abbott & Berninger, 1999) and morphology (Goodwin & Ahn, 2010). These students do not have to wait until they have mastered phonological awareness before they can be instructed in the next step. If the concept is developmentally appropriate, it is acceptable to combine steps, especially combining phonological awareness with syllable and morpheme patterns. It is not effective to teach nonsense words, rather teach real words and patterns (Abbott & Berninger, 1999). Before beginning instruction, determine the student’s area of need and instruct from that point (Menzies, et al., 2008). Start with the simple and move to more complex skills. Begin intervention as soon as the problem is recognized (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007).
An effective comprehension strategy for students with reading disabilities is the use of Rainbow Dots to help students get a clear understanding of the text. A colored dot is placed on the text where the student used the strategy. The four steps are visualization, summarization, inferences, and making connections. Additional dots and steps can be used for questioning, rereading, and using context clues (Moore & Lo, 2008).
Vocabulary instruction in the classroom needs to be reinforced for reading disabled students. Many opportunities need to be provided for the students to experience the targeted words in the context of the story and outside the context of the story. Activities to engage the student and allow them to interact with the vocabulary words are also effective (Pullen, Tuckwiller, Konold, Maynard, & Coyne, 2010).
Additional Important Factors for Students with Reading Disabilities
Although the instructor may not be a strategy, she is still an important part of the equation for reading success in students with reading disabilities. For effective outcomes, the instructor needs to be experienced, educated, and trained in the instructional method or program (Torgesen, et al., 2001). The teacher needs to provide a motivating supportive environment for the reading disabled student (Rankin-Erickson & Pressley, 2000). Small group remediation is beneficial (Lovett, et al., 2000; Lovett & Steinbach, 1997; Menzies, et al. 2008; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000; Rankin-Erickson & Pressley, 2000; Simos, et al., 2007) and needs to be at the student’s instructional level (Menzies, et al., 2008; Simos, et al., 2007). Ample time needs to be given to practice the skills that have been learned (Rankin-Erickson & Pressley, 2000). The end goal of instruction for students with reading disabilities is to read text for meaning and understanding.
Annotated Bibliography
Menzies, H. M., Mahdavi, J. N., Lewis, J. L. (2008). Early intervention in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 29 (2), 67-77.
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect that early intervention had on the occurrence of reading difficulties in students. An urban school in Southern California was chosen for the study and 42 first graders participated. The school was considered at-risk with 78% on free or reduced lunch, 26% were English Language Learners, and 28% of parents did not graduate from high school. This school also had a high transfer rate because the school district included three shelters for homeless women and women with substance abuse problems. Besides the first grade teachers, there were four paraprofessionals, a special education teacher, and a literacy coach. For the study, three new techniques were implemented: progress monitoring, low student-teacher ratio, and a differentiated phonics instruction. DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) was used to determine instructional level and as an on going assessment. Progress monitoring was administered weekly to track students’ phonological awareness and their understanding of the alphabetic principle. Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) was also used to assess student fluency, decoding, and comprehension. This test was given every twelve weeks. Small instructional groups were formed using the data from DIBELS and DRA. A teacher or paraprofessional led each small group for 45 minutes daily. After the students were grouped by similar skills, the assessments were used to decide what type of instruction was needed. One instructional area was phonemic awareness, another decoding and fluency, and the third was guided reading techniques. At the end of one year, 90% of the first graders were on or above grade level and 75% of the remaining students were eligible for special education. The study was limited to one school and it was not determined, which of the three new techniques was the most effective. A follow up study could be administered to see if the students were able to maintain their gains made in first grade.
Effective strategies to minimize the occurrence of reading disabilities are instruction in phonics, decoding, fluency, and guided reading. Using an assessment that pinpoints the areas of need is essential; then the instructional methods can be directed at the specific problem. Progress monitoring shows the teacher when instruction needs to be changed and when progress is being made. Teaching in small groups, where instruction is differentiated, is also effective.
Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L., Lacerenza, L., Frijters, J. C., & Steinbach, K. A. (2000). Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: Combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (2), 263-283.
The researchers of this study wanted to determine if phonological based remediation or a combination of phonological and metacognitive approaches had the best outcomes for children with reading disabilities. Also if there was a sequence of instruction that produced better results. Eighty-five children ages six to thirteen participated in this study in Toronto, Canada. All of these English speaking students were referred because of their severe reading disabilities. Each student was in the lower to average range of intelligence. The students were divided into five groups for one hour a day of remediation until 70 hours were completed. The student teacher ratio was 3:1 and the sessions were in laboratory classrooms. One group had 35 hours of direct instruction in phonological analysis and blending, then 35 hours of instruction in word identification strategies. Group two had 35 hours of instruction in word identification and then 35 hours of phonological analysis and blending. Group three had 70 hours of phonological analysis and blending. Group four had 70 hours of instruction in word identification. Finally, group five, the control group, had 35 hours of study skills then 35 hours of instruction in math. All the participants were assessed five times: once at the beginning of the study, three times during the study, and once at the end. Groups one through four resulted in significant growth in word identification accuracy and decoding skills. This suggests that effective remediation can happen in more than one sequence and using different strategies. A combination of the two programs, groups one and two, showed the most growth in nonword reading, letter-sound, and word recognition. The best combination of phonological awareness instruction was phonological analysis and blending followed by instruction in word identification. This study found that systematic instruction in phonological awareness could improve phonological reading skills in reading disabled children throughout the elementary grades. It also found that the strategies taught transferred over to reading.
Neither the specific phonological awareness program nor the sequence of combining programs is as important as the systematic direct instruction of phonologically–based reading skills. Remediation in phonological awareness can be beneficial for the elementary students with reading disabilities. Effective strategies for these children are instruction in phonological analysis, blending, and word identification. The four word identification strategies are instruction in word identification-by-analogy, affixes, seeking familiar parts of unfamiliar words, and vowel pronunciation.
Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36 (4), 541-561.
This synthesis looked at eighteen studies, which were published between 1995 and 2005, concerning research on early reading interventions. All the studies were extensive with 100 or more sessions. The researchers questioned the effectiveness of the implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI). Specifically they looked at early identification, targeted intervention for at-risk students, ongoing progress monitoring, and tiers of research based interventions. In the RTI model, they looked at the types of intervention, the amount of time, who taught the intervention, and if the instruction was individualized. The studies with the highest effects taught both phonics instruction and text reading, which included decodable or leveled text. The phonics instruction included either letter-sound correspondence with word blending or word patterns. Some of the studies incorporated spelling within the phonics instruction. The interventions in this synthesis ranged from five months to two and a half years of instruction, but there was not a significant difference in growth compared with the length of the intervention. This does not mean that students in the longer interventions did not make more progress, just that the effect size was not significantly larger. The group size was also evaluated in this synthesis. The best outcome for student growth was one-on-one tutoring. Some studies had groups ranging from two to eight students. The three studies that had the largest groups, six to eight students, reported the lowest effects. Beginning interventions in first grade had higher effects than interventions that began in second or third grade. This research found that there was no sizeable difference between well defined, standardized lessons and lessons organized by the teacher based on individual need. In fourteen of the eighteen studies, the interventions were led by school personnel for all or part of the intervention. Each of the personnel was given specific training that included feedback on the instruction. This synthesis suggested that those that make the decisions concerning the implementation of the RTI have research to help make the best choices for intervention.
The effective strategies for children with reading disabilities are instruction in phonics and text reading. The phonics instruction needs to include letter-sound correspondence with word blending or word patterns, and spelling. The best grouping is one-on-one instruction, but the next best range is two to five students. For the best outcomes, intervention needs to begin in the first grade if possible before students face the reading difficulties of second or third grade.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1997). Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1 (3), 217-234.
This article looked at the instruction for children with severe reading disabilities in two different ways. First, the researchers evaluated three studies and presented a hierarchy of instructional goals to improve reading. Second, the result of a two and a half year study was evaluated to determine the effect of three different instructional methods. For the hierarchy, the researchers examined Lovette, Borden, Deluca, Lacerenza, Benson, and Brackstone’s (1994) study. This study found that students with reading disabilities made greater gains in phonetic reading skills with an instructional method that directly taught these skills rather than another method that did not teach the skills explicitly. Torgesen, Wagner, and Rashotte point out that the actual growth in phonetic reading skill was small and the gains in phonetic reading skill did not transfer to real-word reading ability. The next study by Wise and Olson (1995) showed that following instruction students with reading disabilities made improvements in phonetic reading skills, but these skills did not transfer to real-word reading ability either. They did not make growth in their reading vocabulary. The third study by Brown and Felton (1990), showed that instruction in a phonic and linguistic approach were stronger on all reading measures than the context approach (general classroom reading instruction). Neither of the groups in this study improved in reading comprehension. Looking at all three studies, reading disabled students were improving in the skills taught, but they were not making the ultimate goal of reading text for meaning. According to the article, the results of these studies point to the need for a hierarchy of instructional goals. It is not enough to say that an intervention is beneficial for students with reading disabilities, if they are not able to read with understanding at the developmentally appropriate time. The participants of Torgesen, Wagner, and Rashotte’s study were 138 kindergarten students. They were chosen based on their low scores in letter-naming and phonological awareness. The students were placed into four groups: phonological awareness, embedded phonics, regular classroom support, and no intervention. The children received 20 minutes of one-on-one tutoring four days a week for two and a half years during the school year. Two sessions were led by certified teachers and two by paraprofessionals who used the teachers’ plans to support the prior lessons. The phonological awareness group used Lindamood’s, Auditory Discrimination in Depth Program, which instructed in phonemic awareness and developing phonemic decoding skills. These students also read text. The embedded phonics group received instruction in recognizing whole words, letter-sound correspondence in context of words, and writing the words in sentences. When they had a small vocabulary of words, they began reading from a basal series. Students in the regular classroom support group received individual tutoring in skills that were taught in the regular classroom reading programs. The results showed that the phonological awareness group was significantly stronger in phonetic reading skills than all the other groups. Even though this group made strong growth, they did not grow in real-word reading. Because of these results and the results of the earlier three studies, these researchers state that the effectiveness of research outcomes should be evaluated by the growth of phonetic reading skills that lead to accurate and fluent reading.