sign in sign up
<<
Home , Balanced literacy, Decodable text, Independent reading, Literacy, Literacy (journal)

TCXXXX10.1177/0040059917750160Council for Exceptional ChildrenTEACHING Exceptional Children 750160research-article2017

Structured

Structured Literacy and Typical

–11. 2018 The Author(s). DOI: 10.1177/0040059917750160 Literacy Practices Understanding Differences to Create Instructional Opportunities

Louise Spear-Swerling TEACHING Exceptional Children , Vol. XX, No. X, pp. 1 ­ Isabelle Rowe is an elementary-level services as a with a learning Key Features special who is disability in the area of . beginning her second year of teaching. Although Ms. Rowe had had good Explicit means that important skills and A third grader named Curtis was preservice preparation with considerable concepts are taught clearly and directly recently placed on her caseload after exposure to evidence-based instruction by the teacher; are not being identified with at the for students with reading difficulties, expected to infer them simply from end of Grade 2. In preparation for her experience with specific intervention exposure or incidental learning (Archer working with him, Ms. Rowe read his programs for students with dyslexia & Hughes, 2011). Systematic and file. She knew that difficulties with was limited. Ms. Rowe was determined sequential means that skills and , decoding, and to find the details of Curtis’s previous concepts are taught in a logical order, are central to dyslexia, and as interventions, so that she could use that with important prerequisite skills she anticipated, Curtis did have a information to help design more taught first (Torgesen, 2006). For history of these kinds of problems. As a effective special education instruction. example, before expect beginning third grader, Curtis should be She also did some reading on evidence- students to decode two-syllable words, able to decode most one-syllable and based interventions for students with they teach decoding of common one- two-syllable phonetically regular words; dyslexia. As part of her research, she syllable word patterns as well as how he also should be starting to read more repeatedly encountered the term to divide two-syllable words to complex types of texts, such as structured literacy (SL), so she decided facilitate decoding them. The , written at an early-third-grade that she needed to find out more about sequential nature of SL means that level. However, assessments in Curtis’s those instructional approaches. teachers require students to practice file showed that he had difficulty only what they have been explicitly decoding many one-syllable word SL approaches are often taught. Again, before teachers expect patterns, such as unfamiliar silent e recommended for students with students to practice decoding specific words (e.g., tame, stripe), but his dyslexia and other poor decoders (e.g., word patterns (e.g., short- ability to read common sight words was International Dyslexia Association, words with digraphs) relatively good. He also had poor 2017). These approaches are well in reading text, or to recognize specific spelling skills, and because he often supported by research evidence (e.g., irregular words in text, they directly omitted sounds in words or substituted Brady, 2011; Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & teach those skills in isolation first. SL other sounds that did not belong, Ms. Barnes, 2007; Foorman et al., 2016; approaches also build in cumulative Rowe often could not even recognize the , 2000). practice and ongoing review of intended word in Curtis’s misspellings. Examples of SL approaches include the previously learned skills, so that Ms. Rowe was not surprised to Wilson Reading (Wilson, 1988), students retain these skills and develop discover that Curtis had an excellent Orton-Gillingham (Gillingham & automaticity. oral and good listening Stillman, 2014), the Lindamood An additional feature of SL, and of comprehension, because she knew that Sequencing Program explicit teaching approaches in general such strengths are found in many (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998), and (Archer & Hughes, 2011), is a high degree students with dyslexia. However, when (e.g., Carnine, of teacher–student interaction, with she reviewed his history, she was Silbert, Kame’enui, & Tarver, 2009). considerable spent in direct somewhat puzzled to see that Curtis Although these programs vary in some teaching. In these approaches, was perceived as doing well in reading ways, they all share several key instruction requires frequent responses as a kindergartner and throughout first features. from students, and the teacher provides grade. He was not identified as needing immediate feedback with clear intervention until the beginning of Key Features of Structured correction as needed. The teacher Grade 2. Literacy Approaches provides step-by-step demonstrations of Ms. Rowe’s school uses a multitiered- Key features of SL approaches include skills and leads students in guided systems-of-support model, with (a) explicit, systematic, and sequential practice. Explicit instruction also uses universal screening and tiered teaching of literacy at multiple levels— nonexamples as well as examples. For interventions as part of the general , letter–sound relationships, instance, if teachers want students to education system. Unfortunately, syllable patterns, , learn the vowel-r (VR) syllable pattern although Curtis had received tiered vocabulary, sentence structure, (words that have a vowel followed by an interventions throughout Grade 2, he paragraph structure, and text structure; r, which changes the vowel sound), they had not made good in those (b) cumulative practice and ongoing present both VR words (e.g., barn, short, interventions. Because of his review; (c) a high level of student– urn) and non-VR words (e.g., trip, rag, inadequate response to tiered teacher interaction; (d) the use of brush) for students to distinguish from interventions, he was referred for a carefully chosen examples and each other. Examples and nonexamples comprehensive evaluation for special nonexamples; (e) decodable text; and would be carefully chosen to ensure that education. He was found eligible for (f) prompt, corrective feedback. students learn the concept being taught,

2 Council for Exceptional Children in this case, that the r in a VR syllable an intrinsic learning problem in those of these types of programs was not must come immediately after the vowel, areas. likely to benefit Curtis. She went to her not before it. Many commercial programs school principal, Ms. Watkins, and In the early stages of instruction, exemplify SL and research has asked to participate in professional when students’ decoding skills are generally focused more on effective development in an SL approach. Ms. relatively limited, most SL approaches features of instruction than on Rowe pointed out that this professional have students read decodable texts, comparing specific commercial development would enable her to help those constrained mostly to the specific programs. For example, Kilpatrick both Curtis and other students in her phonics patterns that students have (2015) reviewed evidence suggesting class more effectively. Luckily, Ms. been taught (e.g., consonant-vowel- that SL programs that emphasize Watkins had the funds for Ms. Rowe’s consonant words with a, i, and o). Just development of phonemic awareness to professional development and approved as when students read words in an advanced level (e.g., programs that the request. isolation, SL teachers would provide train students to manipulate, delete, prompt corrective feedback to students’ and substitute phonemes rather than Typical Literacy Practices (TLP) decoding errors during oral text only to blend and segment phonemes) Just as the SL approaches described reading. Table 1 provides some may be more effective than other SL previously vary from each other in some examples of the kinds of explicit programs in helping poor decoders ways, so, too, does the TLP commonly instructional activities that are common attain automatic . In used in schools. Examples of these in SL programs. any case, all SL programs have marked non-SL literacy approaches include differences from the type of reading (e.g., Burkins & Croft, instruction that is common in Tier 1 Fit for Students with Dyslexia 2010), Reader’s Workshop (e.g., Calkins, general education instruction and, 2000), , Four Blocks SL is especially well suited to students often, even in tiered interventions Literacy (Cunningham, Hall, & Sigmon, with dyslexia because it directly (Moats, 2017). 1999), (Clay, 1994), addresses their core weaknesses in and the Leveled Literacy Intervention phonological skills, decoding, and In her on SL, Ms. Rowe found (Fountas & Pinnell, 2009). TLP do not spelling (Moats, 2017). Although most studies showing that SL interventions include most of the key features of SL. students with dyslexia do not have core clearly improve the reading achievement Table 2 summarizes some important weaknesses in higher levels of literacy, of students with dyslexia (e.g., Simos differences between SL and the ways that such as vocabulary, text et al., 2002; Torgesen et al., 2001). She literacy skills are more commonly taught. comprehension, and broad also visited a special education class in TLP for Reading SL is especially well suited to students with dyslexia In TLP for general education, classroom time focused on partner because it directly addresses their core weaknesses activities and is in phonological skills, decoding, and spelling. often prioritized over classroom time spent in direct interaction with a teacher. Although some phonemic aspects of written expression (Fletcher a neighboring district in which an SL awareness and phonics skills are often et al., 2007), their weaknesses in program was being used. Student data taught in TLP, they are not generally phonological skills, decoding, and showed significant benefits to students’ emphasized even in or spelling often have secondary negative reading skills after implementation of Grade 1. For example, in one popular effects on these higher-level areas. For the program. Ms. Rowe’s reading, as approach to Tier 1 literacy instruction example, inaccurate or nonautomatic well as her observations of the class, (Cunningham et al., 1999), “word decoding may affect students’ reading convinced her that SL differed in work” is just one of four components comprehension, resulting in poor fundamental ways from the Tier 1 of the program; in another popular comprehension of text that students literacy instruction at her own school. approach (Fountas & Pinnell, 2017), it would easily understand if it were read Moreover, even the tiered interventions is one of eight. Also, in TLP, phonemic aloud to them. Likewise, poor or that Curtis had previously received did awareness and phonics are rarely effortful spelling can inhibit students’ not generally use SL activities, such as taught in highly explicit, systematic ability to translate a strong knowledge the ones shown in Table 1 or described ways with attention to important base about a topic into their written in research studies. Although Curtis’s prerequisite skills, use of examples and expression. Explicit teaching of higher tiered interventions had all addressed nonexamples, and ongoing review. levels of literacy may therefore benefit phonics to some extent, they did so in In TLP, beginning readers would students with dyslexia (as well as other ways very different from SL. It was usually read predictable or leveled texts students) even when they do not have evident to Ms. Rowe that continued use that do not control for different phonics

TEACHING Exceptional Children | Mon/Mon 2018 3 Table 1. Examples of SL Activities for Different Levels and Components of Literacy

Literacy Some area Specific skill Sample activity prerequisites

Phonemic Phoneme •• Teacher models how to orally blend four- to five-phoneme words, Students can awareness blending, beginning with easier-to-blend words that have continuous sounds orally blend words with (e.g., /s/, /m/, /f/), rather than harder-to-blend stop (e.g., words of two or four to five /g/, /t/, /b/). three phonemes phonemes •• Teacher provides guided practice with multiple examples of four- to (e.g., in, fan, (e.g., smash) five-phoneme words. mop, tub). •• Students respond orally and teacher provides immediate corrective feedback and modeling as needed.

Phonics Decoding of •• Teacher explains the pattern of these words (they end in a vowel- Students can silent-e (SE) consonant-e pattern) and that the first vowel is long, with the final e recognize and words silent. decode short- •• Teacher provides multiple examples of words that contain the SE vowel (closed) pattern (stone, tape, shine, use) and that do not contain the SE pattern syllables; (tree, noise, prince, beet); teacher is careful to avoid common irregular students know words (done, have, some). long-vowel •• Teacher provides guided practice with a sorting task on additional, sounds (i.e., unfamiliar words, where students sort SE and not-SE words into two vowel says its groups. name). •• For the SE words only, students give the vowel sound of each word, then decode it.

Irregular Learning to •• Teacher models a multisensory tracing activity with the word what. Students can words read irregular •• Students are taught to trace over each letter of the word while identify letter words that saying its name (not its sound); then they say the entire word (e.g., names. are common for what, teacher models “w–h–a–t, what”); then students cover the in texts that word and try to write it from memory. students are •• If students make mistakes, they repeat the tracing process. reading (e.g., •• If they do not make mistakes, they put the word aside for continued what, of, have) review later.

Vocabulary Learning the •• Teacher explains the meaning of the word beverage in student- Students meanings of friendly language (“A beverage is a drink”). understand unfamiliar •• Teacher provides examples of beverages (milk, soda, juice) and not- the meaning of words that are beverages (cake, ice cream, gasoline). words used in important to •• Teacher asks students to classify whether certain additional items the teacher’s the literacy are beverages or not (spaghetti, tea, coffee, shampoo). explanation and curriculum in examples of (e.g., beverage) beverages and not-beverages.

Syntax Learning •• Teacher presents examples of short “kernel sentences” that can be Students can to combine combined into a longer, grammatically correct sentence (e.g., The car is read and write short, choppy red. The car sped quickly down the road.). simple sentences; sentences •• Teacher models good examples of how to combine the sentences students have into longer, (e.g., The red car sped quickly down the road.). sufficient oral grammatically •• Teacher also discusses grammatically incorrect or awkward language ability correct examples of combinations (e.g., The car is red the car sped quickly to recognize sentences down the road). sentences •• Students do guided practice with additional examples of kernel that sound sentences to combine. grammatically •• Students eventually apply what they have learned in editing their correct/incorrect own . (most of the time).

Paragraphs Learning to •• Using an appropriate sample paragraph, teacher highlights examples Students have recognize of one class of signal words, those signaling cause and effect (e.g., the background “signal because, so, as a result, consequently, therefore). knowledge, words” that •• Teacher explains how attention to these words can improve vocabulary, tie together students’ ability to understand what they are reading, with repeated and other the ideas in reference to the sample paragraph. comprehension a paragraph •• Students are given other paragraphs in which to highlight and skills to (e.g., therefore, explain the signal words, with teacher feedback. understand next, for •• Students eventually apply their understanding of signal words the paragraphs example, in to add clarity to their writing as well as improve their reading being used in the summary) comprehension. activity.

4 Council for Exceptional Children Table 2. Examples of Some Different Instructional Emphases in SL as Compared to TLP

Structured literacy (SL) Typical literacy practices (TLP)

Phonics skills are taught explicitly and systematically, with Phonics skills are usually taught but not emphasized, prerequisite skills taught first. For beginning readers, these even for beginners. Teaching is often not highly explicit or skills receive considerable initial emphasis. systematic. Prerequisite skills may not be taught first.

Phonics approach is synthetic (parts to whole). Students Phonics approach may be synthetic, but is often analytic learn sounds for common letters and letter patterns (e.g., sh, (whole to parts) or decoding by analogy (e.g., “word -ck) and how to blend them (phoneme blending). families”).

Beginning readers usually read decodable texts (texts largely Beginning readers usually read leveled and predictable texts controlled to specific phonics patterns that have been (texts in which words are predictable based on sentence explicitly taught) that facilitate learning to apply phonics structure, repetition, or pictures) that do not easily lend skills in reading texts. themselves to application of phonics skills.

Oral text reading with a teacher is included in lessons. Partner reading and independent reading may be emphasized more than oral text reading with a teacher.

When students read text orally, they are encouraged to When students read text orally, some errors may be look carefully at printed words and apply decoding skills to overlooked, especially if they do not greatly alter meaning. unfamiliar words. Teacher feedback to errors may emphasize sentence context or pictures rather than consistent application of decoding skills.

Spelling skills are taught explicitly and systematically Spelling is often not taught in an explicit or systematic with prerequisite skills taught first and with instruction manner. Students may learn word lists in which words in common spelling rules (e.g., rules for adding endings). exemplify no particular phonics pattern or spelling rule. Spelling instruction reinforces and extends what students Spelling program may be completely distinct from decoding learn in decoding. program with different words in the two programs.

Higher levels of literacy are explicitly and systematically Some higher levels of literacy may be explicitly taught but taught (e.g., sentence structure, paragraphs, discourse), usually not systematically and not with strong attention to including prerequisite skills. prerequisite skills.

word patterns and therefore are teaching when students cannot decode high-frequency but structurally varied challenging to decode. These types of a word. Rather, the emphasis is words with few shared patterns or texts are common even in interventions frequently on using meaning in rules (e.g., Cunningham et al., 1999). (e.g., Clay, 1994; Fountas & Pinnell, conjunction with print cues and having For instance, under the letter f, a first- 2009). Especially for struggling students “problem-solve” with teacher grade word wall might include high- decoders, such texts often lend guidance (e.g., Burkins & Croft, 2010). frequency words like for, from, find, food, friend, family, four, and fly, which mixes phonetically irregular In TLP, beginning readers would usually read words with regular words from a wide range of phonics patterns. Useful predictable or leveled texts that do not control for spelling generalizations, such as rules different phonics word patterns and therefore are for adding endings or when to use –ck challenging to decode. to spell /k/ (at the end of a one- syllable word, immediately following a short-vowel sound, e.g., back, stick, themselves more to guessing at words TLP for Spelling block), are rarely taught systematically. based on pictures and sentence context In fact, rather than integrating spelling than to application of decoding skills. TLP for spelling also tend to lack the and decoding instruction so that each Teacher feedback to oral reading errors explicit, systematic, sequential reinforces the other, spelling instruction often does not emphasize application approach characteristic of SL programs. may use a completely different program of decoding skills and does not include Students may learn to spell words from and a different set of words than does immediate correction and explicit “word walls” that present phonics instruction.

TEACHING Exceptional Children | Mon/Mon 2018 5 TLP for Higher-level Literacy approach to reading text, such as proposed that skilled reading is whether they try to self-correct errors associated with using a balance of Some higher levels of language structure or apply decoding skills. They can also semantic, syntactic, and may be sporadically addressed in TLP but help a teacher estimate an appropriate graphophonemic cues rather than close seldom in systematic ways with attention grade level of text to use for attention to all of the letters in printed to important prerequisite skills (Moats, instructional and independent reading words. 2017). Sentence structure () is one (e.g., Morris, 2014). However, there are However, research on students’ important building block of reading multiple ways to score both students’ reading development (Foorman et al., comprehension and written expression oral reading errors and their responses 2016; National Reading Panel, 2000) that is often overlooked (Nelson, 2013). to comprehension questions. These has conclusively disproven the Yet, if students do not understand multiple ways of scoring result in multiple-cuing-systems model. Typical syntactically complex sentences or if they differing estimations of students’ skill. beginning readers, such as those in do not know how to write individual For students with dyslexia or other kindergarten or early Grade 1, may rely sentences that are clear and types of decoding problems, the on context cues to compensate for grammatically correct, this will certainly scoring of oral reading accuracy in limitations in decoding; however, undermine their literacy performance. these kinds of assessments is success in reading as students progress Do some students learn to read and particularly relevant. through the early grades is strongly write well with TLP? Of course. However, associated with the development of TLP, such as the practices described, are accurate, automatic decoding, not with Assessing Errors a poor fit for the needs of many students, the ability to use multiple cuing particularly those with dyslexia. In Table 3 displays examples of some systems. (Using context cues to infer addition, some of the core principles of different types of oral reading errors what a word means as opposed to TLP may affect not only literacy that students may make in reading guessing at words in decoding is a instruction and intervention but also texts, including mispronouncing a different matter; see Spear-Swerling, assessment and early identification of word, substituting a wrong word for 2015, for further discussion.) For at-risk readers. the correct word on the page, inserting example, in a large study of 1,779 words that are not on the page, and fourth-grade students’ oral reading, a Ms. Rowe still was puzzled as to why omitting words. Most testing subset of those participating in the Curtis’s reading difficulties were not authorities agree that 2002 National Assessment of identified in kindergarten or Grade 1 mispronunciations of words due to Educational Progress, researchers because several Tier 1 assessments articulation difficulties, , or non- found that students who read with the showed that he had poor phonemic native accent (examples shown in the fewest word-reading errors on a awareness and decoding skills even in second and third row of the table) grade-level passage demonstrated these grades. She had a sudden insight should not count as errors. On most greater comprehension (Daane, about this issue one day when she was standardized tests of oral reading Campbell, Grigg, Goodman, & Oranje, asked to help some general education accuracy, nearly all other deviations 2005). Whether or not they were colleagues administer oral reading from the print that are not self- contextually appropriate, oral reading inventories (ORIs) to students. The corrected count as errors. errors were negatively associated with ORIs involved a series of graded word In other approaches to scoring comprehension. Students who read at a lists as well as short graded passages, students’ oral reading, only deviations proficient level had, on average, word administered individually, that students from the print that significantly change accuracy from 98% to 100%. Students read aloud to the teacher. Then students the meaning of a text count as errors. who read grade-level material with less were asked a series of comprehension Contextually appropriate substitution than 90% accuracy read, on average, at questions to assess their understanding errors, such as a for the or this for that, a below-basic level. Other research of the passage. In Ms. Rowe’s school, as well as omissions and insertions (e.g., Good & Kaminski, 2011) also the ORIs were weighted heavily in that do not substantially alter meaning, shows that students who meet grade- determining which students should would not be counted as errors. The level benchmarks in reading on receive intervention. However, students’ use of scoring criteria focused only on standardized testing typically read text oral reading in the passages was scored meaning-changing errors is a common not only at a high rate but also with a quite differently from the types of option in many ORIs (Nilsson, 2008) as very high degree of accuracy, especially standardized tests that Ms. Rowe was well as in TLP generally. This approach beyond the earliest grades. accustomed to in special education. to scoring stems from the popularity of Of course, when students are “multiple-cuing-systems” models of reading text, it is never desirable for Assessment of Oral Text Reading reading (Farrall, 2012; Morris, 2014) them to ignore meaning. If students Accuracy in SL and TLP originally associated with the work of struggle to decode a word, after they ORIs can be useful in providing authorities in the reading field, such as have decoded it, they should also qualitative information about students’ Ken Goodman (1976). These models check to make sure that what they

6 Council for Exceptional Children Table 3. Examples of Different Types of Students’ Oral Reading Errors in Text

Count as mistake Type of oral reading error Specific example in SL assessment?

Self-correction Text says, Rob ate a big stack of pancakes with butter. Usually no Student reads, “Rob ate a big stack of pans with butter,” pauses; then, without teacher’s help, he rereads, “Rob ate a big stack of pancakes with butter.”

Mispronunciation clearly due to Text says, Rob ate a big stack of pancakes with butter. Usually no articulation Student known to have difficulties with articulation of /r/ reads, “Wob ate a big stack of pancakes with butter.”

Mispronunciation clearly due to dialect Text says, Rob ate a big stack of pancakes with butter. Usually no or non-native speaker of English Student who speaks nonstandard dialect of English reads, “Rob ate a big stack of pancakes wif butter.”

Mispronunciation not due to Text says, Rob ate a big stack of pancakes with butter. Yes articulation, dialect, or non-native Student reads, “Rob ate a big stack of pankas with butter.” speaker of English

Contextually appropriate substitution Text says, Rob ate a big stack of pancakes with butter. Yes Student reads, “Rob ate the big stack of pancakes with butter.”

Contextually inappropriate substitution Text says, Rob ate a big stack of pancakes with butter. Yes Student reads, “Rob ate a big stick of pancakes with butter.”

Insertion Text says, Rob ate a big stack of pancakes with butter. Yes Student reads, “Rob ate a very big stack of pancakes with butter.”

Omission Text says, Rob ate a big stack of pancakes with butter. Yes Student reads, “Rob ate a stack of pancakes with butter.” (Student omits the word big)

Teacher-provided word Text says, Rob ate a big stack of pancakes with butter. Yes Student reads, “Rob ate a big stack of . . . ,” then pauses on the word pancakes and cannot come up with a response; after several seconds, teacher tells the the word. have read makes sense in the context word-reading errors simply because probably monitoring comprehension of the sentence and fits grammatically. they fit the context. In this approach to when they read, which is very If it does not, they should look at the scoring errors, shown in the far-right important (National Reading Panel, word carefully and apply decoding column of Table 3, only a few 2000). However, if the students need to skills again. The key point is that categories of deviations from print make frequent self-corrections, then students should be encouraged to focus would be ignored, including their reading is not fluent. first on close attention to all of the mispronunciations due to articulation letters in a word and on use of problems, dialect, or non-native accent decoding skills, not guessing at words as well as self-corrections. In Impact of Scoring Choices based on partial letter cues and conjunction with this approach, A close look at Curtis’s Grade 1 oral context. qualitative observations of students’ reading assessments showed that he Findings such as those of Daane errors and attempts at self-corrections made many contextually appropriate et al. (2005) confirm the importance of can be very useful. For example, errors in reading passages, often students’ ability to accurately read the students who recognize when they substituting small common words, words on a page and suggest that have made errors in word reading and such as the for a, or words that fit the teachers should not ignore who attempt to correct them are context or a picture clue but that bore

TEACHING Exceptional Children | Mon/Mon 2018 7 little resemblance to the actual printed Ms. Rowe used decodable texts in strategies (Foorman et al., 2016), word (e.g., blanket for quilt). Ignoring oral reading with Curtis, and he read because this approach will not work these kinds of errors in scoring made more accurately in these than in the for reading advanced types of texts and his text-reading accuracy appear much leveled books in the tiered because accurate reading is a better than it was. In addition, his good interventions. However, he still tended prerequisite for developing . knowledge enabled him to to rely heavily on context cues when In a review of studies on corrective do relatively well on the ORI graded reading texts orally. He continued to feedback in oral reading, Heubusch word lists. make frequent errors on words such as and Lloyd (1998) found that some Furthermore, despite numerous a, the, his, and this, even though types of teacher feedback were more errors in reading words, Curtis Ms. Rowe knew he could certainly read beneficial than others, including performed surprisingly well on these words correctly in isolation. He immediate feedback to errors (rather comprehension questions because also sometimes made errors on other than waiting until the student had many of these questions were passage words that he could decode accurately finished reading) and feedback that independent and did not require in isolation, if he looked carefully at the promoted active student participation. accurate reading of the passage to word, but that he appeared to guess at Considering the goals of instruction answer correctly (Keenan, Betjemann, when reading in text. Given these data, and the characteristics of the learner & Olson, 2008). For example, they Ms. Rowe realized that she needed to also appeared important. For example, included vocabulary questions about allocate more time to oral text reading if the goal is to help students with words whose meanings Curtis already in Curtis’s lessons. decoding weaknesses improve their knew and questions tapping common She also felt that she needed to find ability to decode unfamiliar words, sense or background knowledge. better ways to provide corrective then feedback focused on phonetic Because Curtis seemed to do well on feedback to Curtis when he was reading characteristics of words would be most the ORI, his first-grade teacher text. When he misread a word, she tried helpful. Heubusch and Lloyd thought the difficulties he manifested just telling him the word and having concluded that immediate teacher on other assessments in phonemic him repeat it, but that did not seem to feedback to word reading errors, awareness and out-of-context improve the accuracy of Curtis’s text especially if brief and concise, did not decoding of nonsense words were not reading. He would get the same word necessarily interfere with students’ significant. It was not until he was in wrong in the very next line of text, or he comprehension. Grade 2 and expected to read more would repeat the word without really When a student struggles with difficult texts that his oral reading looking at the print. When Ms. Rowe decoding a word during oral reading difficulties became more apparent and tried asking Curtis questions about or reads a word incorrectly, one useful he was referred for intervention. The letters and letter patterns to help him way to scaffold feedback is outlined in pattern displayed by Curtis is common decode unknown words, it detracted Table 4. This approach to feedback among students with dyslexia as well from Curtis’s comprehension. She was incorporates the research findings as other poor decoders who have good not sure how to address these problems. discussed previously, and it might compensatory abilities in areas such help Ms. Rowe to improve Curtis’s as broad language abilities and text-reading accuracy. First, the vocabulary knowledge (Keenan et al., Providing Feedback to teacher allows a few seconds to see 2008). Students’ Oral Reading Errors whether the student will recognize the in Text error and attempt to self-correct. Curtis responded much better to the SL Research reviewed by the National Attempts to self-correct using intervention that Ms. Rowe used with Reading Panel (2000) supported the decoding skills suggest that the him than he had to his previous tiered use of teacher-guided oral reading of student is monitoring comprehension interventions. Progress-monitoring assessments given when he was at the end of Grade 3 showed that he had It is important to expect students to read text learned to decode many one-syllable accurately during oral reading as well as to provide word patterns (short-vowel words with appropriate feedback when they make errors. consonant blends; words with silent e, vowel r). Although his progress in spelling lagged a bit behind his text in reading instruction. However, it and attending to the print, and decoding progress, he still made good is important to expect students to read therefore, are a positive sign even if gains in spelling. Unfortunately, text accurately during oral reading as the student needs the teacher’s help to however, his progress in oral text- well as to provide appropriate feedback decode successfully. If the student reading accuracy was not nearly as when they make errors. Students does not attempt to self-correct or strong as were his gains in out-of- should not be encouraged to guess at continues to struggle, the teacher uses context word decoding. words instead of applying decoding a pointing cue, pointing directly to the

8 Council for Exceptional Children Table 4. Sequence of Teacher Feedback to Students’ Decoding Errors in Text Reading

• Allow a little bit of wait time to see if the student will try to self-correct the error. Attempts to self-correct are important and should be encouraged even when the student is not successful because they usually indicate that the student is monitoring meaning while reading and is looking carefully at words. • Use pointing cues such as pointing to the part of the word a student has read incorrectly if a student fails to self-correct. Pointing cues focus the student’s attention on the print and tend to be less distracting to comprehension than verbal cues. • Follow up with verbal cues. If pointing cues do not enable the student to decode the word then it is fine to follow up with a verbal cue such as “Remember sh says /sh/.” • Model decoding the word or tell the student the word if necessary. This should be a last resort unless the word is an unfamiliar irregular word or a regular word that is beyond the student’s current decoding skills. Few words should fit these categories if students are placed in appropriate texts for reading instruction. • Ask the student to re-read the sentence to establish fluency and comprehension.

Reprinted with permission. Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk. (2016). Targeting the 2% brief: Instructional considerations for students with dyslexia. Austin, Texas: Author. word read incorrectly (e.g., the for his) comprehension will suffer. Instructional In contrast, SL approaches prioritize or the part of the word read criteria for word accuracy in text reading direct teacher–student interaction incorrectly (e.g., the letters dge if a vary somewhat by reading authority, but because explicit, systematic teaching student read badge as bad). If pointing a minimal criterion for students at requires it. Also, for students with cues do not enable the student to read beginning stages of reading, kindergarten dyslexia and other serious decoding the word successfully, the teacher or Grade 1, is that they should be able to problems, it is difficult for the teacher should follow up with concise verbal decode words without teacher assistance to know during silent independent feedback. For instance, if the student with at least 90% word accuracy for a reading the extent to which students in the previous example continued to text to be appropriate for use in are reading words accurately. struggle with reading the word badge instruction (Morris, 2014). Decodable Therefore, SL programs do not typically even after the teacher’s pointing cues, texts can be especially useful for students allocate significant instructional time to the teacher could follow up with whose decoding skills are very limited. independent reading. feedback, such as “Remember, dge All students should read texts that However, research has documented says /j/.” Telling the student the word provide ample opportunities for them to numerous benefits of independent should be a last resort except for apply the decoding skills they have pleasure reading in the development of words that are phonetically irregular learned. many literacy-related abilities, including or well beyond the student’s current reading fluency, spelling, vocabulary, and level of decoding. If a student is The Role of Independent Reading background knowledge (Mol & Bus, 2011; in SL and TLP placed at an appropriate instructional Spear-Swerling, Brucker, & Alfano, 2010). level, in an appropriate type of text, As shown in Table 2, TLP often A comprehensive review by Mol and Bus few words should be in this category. emphasize students’ silent independent (2011) concluded that independent The final step, after the student has reading as part of classroom pleasure reading was especially successfully decoded the word, is to instruction, even for students in the important for low-achieving readers, have the child reread the sentence earliest grades. There is, in part, a whose basic reading skills were even containing the problematic word to practical reason behind this emphasis more strongly related to print exposure establish fluency and comprehension in that general educators must teach than were those of higher-achieving (Spear-Swerling, 2011). large groups of students. If one readers. Similarly, a review by Kilpatrick subgroup of students is reading (2015) concluded that providing ample Match of Text and Student independently, then the teacher can opportunities for reading connected text Another key issue to consider is the use meet with other small groups of was one of the key elements of of appropriate texts in oral reading, students for differentiated instruction. successful reading interventions. If matched to students’ instructional needs However, the prominence of classroom struggling readers can be motivated to and reading levels. For students with independent reading also stems from read independently for enjoyment, this dyslexia whose problems center on the core principles of TLP, including can be a powerful mechanism for further decoding, the match of the text to their relatively greater emphasis on reading growth. decoding levels is especially important. If comprehension than foundational Students do not necessarily have to there are too many words in a text that a skills, such as decoding, and lesser read highly academic books or books student cannot decode, reading will be emphasis (as compared to SL) on at grade level in order to obtain some frustrating and both fluency and highly explicit, systematic teaching. benefits from independent reading;

TEACHING Exceptional Children | Mon/Mon 2018 9 even reading more basic texts can give and because most students’ reading In sum, SL offers a promising students multiple exposures to problems in these grades center on approach for educators interested in common words that may enhance both decoding (Catts, Compton, Tomblin, & more effective ways to teach students their reading fluency and their spelling. Bridges, 2012). Well into the with dyslexia. If implemented in Tier 1 Of course, students who struggle elementary grades and middle school, instruction and tiered interventions, SL greatly in decoding or who can read many students would be helped by practices may also prevent or only books far below their interest level explicit, systematic teaching of higher ameliorate a wide range of other are not likely to be induced to read for levels of literacy, such as sentence reading difficulties. pleasure. However, once their decoding structure, text structure, and discourse improves to perhaps a second- or structure, in writing as well as reading. ORCID iD third-grade level, more series To ensure that important Louise Spear-Swerling https://orcid. become available that are written prerequisite skills are addressed and org/0000-0003-3568-9031 specifically for struggling older readers. that instruction is systematic as well as With the help of teachers and parents consistent across teachers within a in finding these books, students with a grade, schools should provide general References history of decoding problems can educators with comprehensive, potentially become more interested in research-based core literacy curricula. Archer, A., & Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit reading independently for enjoyment. General educators can differentiate instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford. Ms. Rowe might find Curtis more instruction for high-achieving students, Brady, S. (2011). Efficacy of phonics receptive to independent pleasure such as those who master the teaching for reading outcomes: reading as his skills develop. Attempts alphabetic code or basic writing skills Indications from post-NRP research. to foster his out-of-school reading quickly and with ease. For example, In S. Brady, D. Braze, & C. Fowler could then be a valuable addition to primary-grade students with strong (Eds.), Explaining individual differences his SL intervention. foundational reading skills would likely in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. profit more from instructional time 69–96). New York: Psychology Press. devoted to independent reading than Burkins, J. M., & Croft, M. M. (2010). The Value of Incorporating SL students with significant decoding Preventing misguided reading: New Practices in General Education difficulties, such as Curtis. strategies for guided reading teachers. Newark, DE: International Reading If schools incorporated the kinds of SL At-risk students also can be identified Association. practices outlined in Table 2 as part of earlier if oral reading assessments are Calkins, L. M. (2000). The art of teaching scored with attention to nearly all Tier 1 general education instruction, reading. New York: Pearson. many students could benefit, not just word-reading errors, rather than ignoring Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E., those with disabilities. The highly contextually appropriate errors that & Tarver, S. (2009). Direct instruction explicit teaching characteristic of SL is reveal a pattern of overreliance on reading (5th ed.). New York: Pearson. effective for students at risk in literacy context typically related to weaknesses in Catts, H. W., Compton, D. L., Tomblin, J. for a variety of reasons, such as those decoding. Appropriate teacher feedback B., & Bridges, M. S. (2012). Prevalence from low-income backgrounds or to students’ oral reading errors would and nature of late-emerging poor readers. English learners (Denton et al., 2010; also help ensure that they transfer their Journal of , 104, Rivera, Moughamian, Lesaux, & developing decoding skills to text reading 166–181. doi:10.1037/a0025323 Clay, M. M. (1994). Reading recovery: Francis, 2008). In the primary grades, and have the foundation of accuracy they A guidebook for teachers in training. SL practices involving phonemic need to build fluent reading with Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cunningham, P., Hall, D., & Sigmon, C. (1999). The teacher’s guide to the Four The highly explicit teaching characteristic of SL is Blocks, Grades 1–3. Eugene, OR: Carson Dellosa. effective for students at risk in literacy for a variety Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., of reasons, such as those from low-income Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: backgrounds or English learners. NAEP 2002 Special Study of Oral Reading (NCES 2006-469). Washington, DC: Government Office. Denton, C. A., Nimon, K., Mathes, P. G., awareness, phonics, spelling, and comprehension. Furthermore, the Swanson, E. A., Kethley, C., Kurz, T. B., effectiveness of tiered interventions accurate oral reading of text are & Shih, M. (2010). Effectiveness of a especially crucial to preventing literacy provided as part of the general education supplemental early reading intervention difficulties because these skills form an system would likely be improved if more scaled up in multiple schools. essential foundation for reading interventionists were given the kind of Exceptional Children, 76, 394–416. comprehension (Foorman et al., 2016) SL training provided to Ms. Rowe. doi:10.1177/001440291007600402

10 Council for Exceptional Children Farrall, M. L. (2012). Reading assessment: Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile Linking language, literacy, and R. K. (2008). becomes normal following successful cognition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. tests vary in the skills they assess: remedial training. Neurology, 58, 1203– Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. Differential dependence on decoding 1213. doi:10.1212/WNL.58.8.1203 S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning and oral comprehension. Scientific Spear-Swerling, L. (2011). Phases in reading disabilities: From identification to Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300. words and phonics interventions. In R. intervention. New York: Guilford. doi:10.1080/10888430802132279 O’Connor & P. Vadasy (Eds.), Handbook Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of of reading interventions (pp. 63–87). Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., assessing, preventing, and overcoming New York: Guilford. . . . Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills reading difficulties. Hoboken NJ: Wiley. Spear-Swerling, L. (2015). The power of to support reading for understanding Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, P. (1998). RTI and reading profiles: A blueprint in kindergarten through 3rd grade The Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing for solving reading problems. Baltimore, (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: Program for Reading, Spelling, and MD: Brookes. National Center for Education Evaluation Speech, Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P., & Alfano, and Regional Assistance, Institute of Meadows Center for Preventing Educational M. (2010). Relationships between sixth- Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Risk. (2016). Targeting the 2% Project: graders’ reading comprehension and two Education. Instructional considerations for students different measures of print exposure. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2009). with dyslexia. Austin, TX: Author. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary The Fountas & Pinnell Leveled Literacy Moats, L. C. (2017). Can prevailing Journal, 23, 73–96. doi:10.1007/s11145- Intervention (LLI). Portsmouth, NH: approaches to reading instruction 008-9152-8 Heinemann. accomplish the goals of RTI? Perspectives Torgesen, J. K. (2006). Recent discoveries Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2017). The on Language and Literacy, 43, 15–22. from research on remedial interventions Fountas & Pinnell literacy curriculum: Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read for children with dyslexia. In M. A tool for assessment, planning, and or not to read: A meta-analysis of Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science teaching (Expanded ed.). Portsmouth, print exposure from infancy to early of reading: A handbook (pp. 521–537). NH: Heinemann. adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137, Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. (2014). The 267–296. doi:10.1037/a0021890 Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A., Wagner, R. K., Gillingham manual: Remedial training Morris, D. (2014). Diagnosis and correction Rashotte, C., Voeller, K., & Conway, T. for children with specific disability in of reading problems (2nd ed.). New (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for reading, spelling, and penmanship York, NY: Guilford. children with severe reading disabilities: (8th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Educators National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching Immediate and long-term outcomes from Publishing Service. children to read: An evidence-based two instructional approaches. Journal Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A., with assessment of the scientific research of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58. Cummings, K., Dufour-Martel, C., on reading and its implications doi:10.1177/002221940103400104 Petersen, K., Powell-Smith, K., Stollar, for reading instruction. Washington, DC: Wilson, B. A. (1988). Wilson reading S., & Wallin, J. (2011). DIBELS Next National Institutes of . system. Oxford, MA: Wilson Language assessment manual. Eugene, OR: Nelson, N. W. (2013). Syntax development Training Corporation. Dynamic Measurement Group. Retrieved in the school-age years: Implications for from https://dibels.org/ assessment and instruction. Perspectives Louise Spear-Swerling, Professor, Goodman, K. S. (1976). Reading: A on Language and Literacy, 39, 9–15. Department of Special Education and psycholinguistic guessing game. In Nilsson, N. L. (2008). A critical analysis Reading, Southern Connecticut H. Singer & R. Ruddell (Eds.), of eight informal reading inventories. University, New Haven. Theoretical models and processes of Reading Teacher, 61, 526–536. reading (pp. 497–508). Newark, DE: doi:10.1598/RT.61.7.2 Address correspondence concerning this International Reading Association. Rivera, M. O., Moughamian, A. C., Lesaux, article to Louise Spear-Swerling, Heubusch, J. D., & Lloyd, J. W. (1998). N. K., & Francis, D. J. (2008). Language Department of Special Education and Corrective feedback in oral reading. and reading interventions for English Reading, Southern Connecticut State Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, language learners and University, 501 Crescent St., New Haven, 63–79. doi:10.1023/A:1022864707734 learners with disabilities. Portsmouth, CT 06515 (e-mail: SPEARSWERLL1@ International Dyslexia Association. (2017). NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center southernct.edu). Effective reading instruction for students on Instruction. with dyslexia. Retrieved from https:// Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Bergman, E., TEACHING Exceptional Children, dyslexiaida.org/effective-reading- Breier, J. I., Foorman, B. R., Castillo, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. XX–XX. instruction/ E. M., . . . Papanicolaou, A. C. (2002). Copyright 2018 The Author(s).

TEACHING Exceptional Children | Mon/Mon 2018 11