Brainspring White Paper 2020

WHITE PAPER 2020

Advances in Contemporary Reading Instruction: HOW BRAINSPRING PROGRAMS CREATE SKILLED READERS

Research Division, Center for Research, Assessment, and Treatment Efficacy (CReATE) and Laurel Wagner, Vice President, Brainspring

3 Introduction 5 The Science of Reading 8 Effective Reading Instruction 10 Dyslexia 11 Middle and Secondary School Students with Reading Deficits 12 The Phonics First ® and Structures ® Programs 16 Phonics First ®, Structures ® and Response to Intervention 17 Tier I Core Tier II Intervention Tier III Remediation Advances in Contemporary Reading Instruction: Empirical Support for Phonics First ® and Structures ® 18 HOW BRAINSPRING PROGRAMS 19 Executive Summary CREATE SKILLED READERS 21 About the Author WHITE PAPER 2020 22 Reference List 25 Contact and Media Information

Learning to read, a foundational which has emerged as a national Learning to read is principle for educational success, priority. In the last several decades, not a ‘natural’ process. remains a struggle for many students in legislative efforts and governmental Most children must be the United States. In fact, approximately reviews generated initiatives focused taught to read through a two-thirds of fourth graders do not on improving literacy skills in children. structured and protracted demonstrate grade-level reading The National Reading Panel et al. process in which they are accuracy, fluency, or comprehension (2000; NRP) reviewed 100,000 studies, made aware of the sounds skills (NCES, 2019). Further, the US synthesized effectiveness data from and the symbols that has the lowest rates of adolescent extant reading programs, and ultimately represent them, and then provided a strong scientific consensus learn to apply these skills literacy among English-speaking automatically and attend countries (OECD, 2015). These startling for phonics instruction when teaching to meaning. (L.C. Moats) statistics underscore the imperative children to read. The results of the NRP’s of enhancing reading instruction, efforts informed the research-directed

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 3 educational policy, No Child Left Behind across disciplines, including cognitive (NCLB), which was signed into law in neuropsychology, developmental the early 2000s. NCLB established psychology, educational intervention, and strict guidelines for reading instruction program evaluation research, which has in states and public schools and sought markedly improved our understanding to improve accountability, as well as of the science of reading and effective support the implementation of effective instructional practices, including the use literacy programs in the classroom of structured, sequential, multisensory (e.g., Jorgensen & Hoffmann, 2003; reading programs (NICHD, 2000). No Child Left Behind, 2002). Reading First was mandated by NCLB and In this paper, we will review the science WE WILL: administered by the federal Department of reading and the empirical support ✔ Review science of reading of Education to support the provision of of structured literacy programs for and the empirical support of scientifically sound literacy instruction both children and adolescents. Next, structured literacy programs. in early elementary grades (Gamse we will describe the Phonics First ® ✔ Describe Brainspring’s et al., 2008). Since the early 2000s, and Structures ® supplemental reading supplemental reading tremendous advances have been made programs (developed by Brainspring) programs and how they align and how these programs align with with scientific research. scientific research. We will examine the role of Phonics First ® and Structures ® in ✔ Examine the role of supporting beginning, at-risk, struggling Brainspring’s supplemental and dyslexic/learning disabled students reading programs in in the context of the Response to supporting students in the context of the RTI initiative. Intervention (RTI) initiative. Lastly, we will discuss Brainspring’s state-of-the-art ✔ Discuss Brainspring’s state- research initiative, underway in 2019. of-the-art research initiative.

During the past three decades, of reading proficiency (Castles et al., retrieval of written words (Kilpatrick, 2015; a convergence of evidence has 2019). This principle establishes that Nation & Castles, 2017). Orthographic identified the skills necessary to develop the visual symbols of the writing system mapping follows the acquisition of letter- strong reading abilities (e.g., Hougan, (graphemes) represent the sounds of the sound knowledge and decoding skills 2015; Moats, 1999, 2000; National language (phonemes). Phonics instruction and occurs when children turn unfamiliar Reading Panel et al., 2000). The science is the intentional and purposeful teaching written words into immediately accessible of reading indicates that children develop of letter-sound relationships. sight words (Kilpatrick, 2015). This allows literacy in a series of rough phases, the reader to better focus attention on the first of which involves learning the The next phase in the acquisition of constructing the meaning of the text. alphabetic code (Ehri, 2015). This early reading skills is the transition from Another critical concept that supports phase encompasses knowledge of the mastering the alphabetic code to the the development of word meaning is structure of language, listening skills, knowledge of word meanings, which morphology, defined as the study of phonological awareness (especially support overall reading comprehension. morphemes (the smallest unit of meaning phonemic awareness described as the Children continue to utilize alphabetic in a language). Researchers have found ability to hear and manipulate individual decoding as they learn to read whole that awareness of morphology is critical in phonemes which are the smallest unit of words and understand their meanings. advancing a student’s reading skills both sound), and the alphabetic principle. The Orthographic mapping is the process by for decoding and comprehension (Nagy acquisition of the alphabetic principle is which children develop sight vocabulary, et al., 2006; Soifer, 2005). the critical foundation for the development allowing for immediate and effortless

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 5 Comprehension, a highly complex PHONOLOGIC ORTHOGRAPHIC MORPHOLOGIC endeavor, is the ultimate objective of reading, although many of the underlying linguistic and cognitive processes involved remain poorly understood to date. Researchers have proposed several theoretical models that describe how children learn to read for meaning. x = Stemming from and supported by the D LC RC research of Gough and Tunmer (1986; see Figure 1), and more recently by Catts et al. (2006), the Simple View of Reading model proposes that reading comprehension (RC) is a product of the students’ decoding (D) ability and SEMANTIC SYNTACTIC language comprehension (LC) ability (D x LC = RC). A balance of mastery on Figure 1: From Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. both sides of the equation, decoding and language comprehension, is necessary 2). The rope with repetition to achieve skilled and deep reading consists of lower and practice. comprehension. and upper strands. The Concurrently, the lower strands, termed word-recognition upper strands, termed the language- A more in-depth model, termed the (phonological awareness, decoding, and comprehension strands (background Reading Rope, delineates the essential sight recognition of familiar words), work knowledge, vocabulary, language elements that are critical in the together as the reader becomes accurate, structures , verbal reasoning, and literacy development of reading comprehension fluent, and increasingly automatic knowledge), reinforce one another and skills (Scarborough, 2001, see Figure

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 6 subsequently weave together with the Evidence supports the Reading morphology), which are supported word-recognition strands to produce Rope model. The lower strands of by the most rigorous evidence base a skilled reader. This convergence of the rope include the foundational (Foorman et al., 2016) in the science strands does not happen overnight; processes involved in learning to read of reading literature. The upper strands it requires instruction and practice (e.g., phonological and phonemic of the reading rope include constructs over time. awareness, alphabetic principle, related to language comprehension skills, believed to be supported by the knowledge of linguistic, orthographic, and/or background knowledge. Further, SCARBOROUGH’S vocabulary proficiency, as well as LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION figurative expressions, idioms, grammar, BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE READING ROPE and syntax are theorized to support (facts, concepts, etc.) SCARBOROUGH’S (2001) reading comprehension, although these VOCABULARY (breadth, precision, links, etc.) READING ROPE contributory factors have been less IN C R E LANGUAGE STRUCTURE AS studied in the science of reading (syntax, semantics, etc.) IN GL Y S TR (Oakhill et al., 2014; Foorman et ATE VERBAL REASONING GIC SKILLED (inference, metaphor, etc.) al., 2016). Oakhill et al. (2014) READING LITERACY KNOWLEDGE THE MANY propose that general cognitive (print concepts, genres, etc.) STRANDS factors, such as executive function WOVEN INTO SKILLED skills, also are implicated in READING Fluent execution reading comprehension, with WORD RECOGNITION and coordination of word recognition and working memory receiving the MATIC PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS UTO text comprehension. LY A (syllables, phonemes, etc.) ING AS most attention in the literature on RE NC DECODING I children’s reading development. (alphabetic principle, spelling–sound correspondences)

SIGHT RECOGNITION (of familiar words) Figure 2: From H.S. Scarborough (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.

In summary, deep essential components of literacy such and thorough knowledge of As discussed above, the science as morphology, syntax, vocabulary, and letters, spelling patterns, of reading has been largely comprehension (e.g., Fletcher et al., 2018; and words, and of the established (e.g., Berninger et al., 2006; Gersten et al., 2008; Torgesen, 2004). phonological translations of Ehri, 1991, 1994, 2015; National Reading This instructional emphasis is especially all three, are of inescapable Panel et al., 2000) and has driven critical for at-risk students and those importance to both skillful the development of effective literacy with reading disabilities (i.e., dyslexia). reading and its acquisition. instruction and reading intervention. To Moreover, intervention studies provide the By extension, instruction date, there is general scientific agreement most robust support for the relationship designed to develop about what these effective components between phonological abilities and children’s sensitivity to include (e.g., Archer & Hughes, 2011; reading skills in children (e.g., Blachman spellings and their relations Brady, 2011; Foorman et al., 2016; NRP et al., 2004; Ring et al., 2017), clearly to pronunciations should be et al., 2000; Torgesen, 2004). More documenting improved phonological of paramount importance in specifically, empirical evidence supports awareness, phonological decoding, the development of reading highly explicit, systematic reading and reading skills following instruction skills. This is, of course, instruction, with a focus on foundational in both phonological awareness and precisely what is intended phonological awareness and phonics systematic phonics (i.e., letter-sound of good phonics instruction. skills, such as decoding and spelling, correspondences). (Adams, 1990, p. 416) as well as explicit teaching of other

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 8 The importance of teachers possessing were found to teach all of the scientific development programs provide teachers a strong scientific knowledge base components of reading. with a strong foundation in the structure in how literacy develops cannot be of language, and a research-based underestimated; students’ successful scope and sequence of instruction. acquisition of literacy skills is heavily Future teachers Teachers learning the Phonics First ® dependent on teachers’ training, need the knowledge ® experience, and overall understanding and Structures programs not only learn of the science of reading. The National and skills to understand a curriculum, but they develop a deep Council on Teacher Quality (2006) sound reading strategies understanding of the reading process so examined the content of reading courses for themselves and to be that instructional decisions are always in higher education teaching programs. able to transmit these to grounded in research and effective In an examination of elementary reading their students. (National practice. Teachers and Administrators courses (in a sample of 72 teacher Council on Teacher who have participated in Phonics First ® education programs), results indicated Quality, 2006, p. 19) ® that fewer than 15% of college courses and Structures professional development report that they learned far If educational programs lack the critical more than a curriculum. They learned content needed to train future teachers how to teach children to read (Brainspring comprehensively, then schools must be Research Report, 2014). 15% prepared to provide in-depth professional development to their educators, ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON accompanied by evidence-based TEACHER QUALITY, A ® SAMPLING OF TEACHER published programs. The Phonics First EDUCATION PROGRAMS and Structures ® professional SHOWED FEWER THAN 15% OF COLLEGE COURSES TEACH ALL 85% OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMPONENTS OF READING.

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 9 DYSLEXIA tools 95 years ago (Orton, 1925; Ring et al., 2017; Shaywitz, 1998; Uhry & Clark, must be more explicit, frequent, and 2005). Currently, Orton-Gillingham is Dyslexia is a type of language-based repetitive than what is typically taught the basis of many published reading disorder, defined as a Specific Learning in the average classroom (Torgesen et programs, given its durability and Disability in reading (SLD reading; al., 1994). One of the most frequently extensive research base. Findings have indicated that individuals with dyslexia American Psychiatric Association [APA], used remedial teaching methods can successfully learn to read when 2013), which negatively impacts a child’s targeting reading deficits is the Orton- provided systematic and explicit reading ability to read and spell (e.g., Shaywitz Gillingham (OG) multisensory language instruction, such as that provided in & Shaywitz, 2005). It is postulated to be approach (Gillingham & Stillman, multisensory language or structured the most common neurodevelopmental 1956). The multisensory aspect of the literacy programs (Lyon & Weiser, disorder affecting children. Depending methodology is posited to be critical, 2013; Pennington et al., 2019). In fact, on the definition employed, prevalence given that multisensory instruction is a Shaywitz et al. (2004) found that children rates range from 10 to 25% of the hallmark of brain-based learning. Jensen with dyslexia, who completed a year- population (Pennington et al., 2019; (2008) asserts that using a multisensory long phonologically based intervention, educational approach helps to “wire- Shaywitz, 1998). Word reading difficulties exhibited changes in their neural circuitry together” the circuitry needed for learning. associated with dyslexia are due in part following program participation (i.e., to phonological processing deficits that increased activation in the left inferior lead to slow and inaccurate reading Dr. Samuel T. Orton and colleagues frontal and middle temporal gyri during that, in turn, can limit comprehension recognized that children with dyslexia a letter identification task). These data (Shaywitz et al., 1998; Lyon et al., 2007). would benefit from tutoring with indicate that the brain activity of children In order to have a substantial impact on systematic phonics-based reading with dyslexia appeared more like the the phonological awareness of children instruction (Orton, 1925); thus, Dr. Orton brain activity of skilled readers, following with dyslexia, researchers assert that developed a methodological approach an appropriate intervention. educational training for at-risk children delivering evidence-based instructional

The National Reading Panel et al. not identified as dyslexic until they reading contributes to low levels of (2000) found that phonics instruction is transitioned to upper elementary grades comprehension, and adolescents with best introduced early in kindergarten (or even secondary school) when it is far reading disabilities typically require and first grade. The majority of phonics more difficult to close the achievement interventions that address word-level effectiveness research focuses on gap (e.g., Leach et al., 2003; Vaughn decoding and fluency development as reading improvements gained in & Fletcher, 2012). Surprisingly, isolated well as comprehension (Scammacca et early elementary school grades, and reading comprehension difficulties al., 2013; Vaughn et al., 2010). Structured the available data support the early are not typically responsible for poorly Literacy programs providing instruction to introduction of skills (Hougen, 2014). developed literacy skills in older students struggling adolescent readers must focus Still, there are an estimated six to eight (Catts et al., 2006; Leach et al., 2003). on both the foundational skills of reading million adolescents who struggle with Rather, secondary students with reading (i.e., phonemic awareness, basic phonics, reading in secondary school (e.g., difficulties commonly present with and fluency), as well as the more complex Vaughn et al., 2010). Identified reading similar deficits as younger students, skills such as decoding multisyllabic disabilities such as dyslexia account for such as decoding and fluency, which words and reading with prosody. some of these deficits. It is suggested results in poor reading comprehension. that many middle school students were Difficulty mastering the basic skills of

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 11 language (MSL) approach, (NICHD) and National Reading Panel The based on the Orton- (NRP) conclusions. Brainspring’s Gillingham methodology. dynamic and internationally accredited Brainspring programs are programs are both a diagnostic and a accredited at the Teaching remedial tool. Teachers who participate Level and the Instructor in Brainspring professional development and of Teaching Level by the learn the program elements necessary International Multisensory for delivering quality multisensory, Structured Language code-emphasis reading lessons for Education Council (IMSLEC). critical decoding and encoding skills Programs Brainspring’s professional development. development program is also accredited under the Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading set forth by the IDA (International Dyslexia Association). The IDA provides a comprehensive, research- supported directive of what every teacher needs to know and to demonstrate in their classrooms, whether they are teaching Brainspring developed students with dyslexia, struggling readers, ® Phonics First for elementary or the general student population. Since students in 1991, followed by the creation program inception, Brainspring has of the Structures ® program, for middle offered Orton-Gillingham professional and high school students, in 2005. development and reading programs that Both are structured literacy programs, also adhere to the National Institute of which provide a multisensory structured Child Health and Human Development

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 12 The Phonics First ® and Structures ® acquisition goes far beyond learning a programs provide strong scientific curriculum. School administrators report research-based instruction in the that the knowledge and skills teachers decoding and encoding elements of learn when trained in Phonics First ® and The instructional model employed reading. The scope and sequence of Structures ® provide a strong foundation in Phonics First ® and Structures ® each program teach students skills in that facilitates the understanding incorporates a multisensory approach. phonological awareness and sound- of a multitude of explicit/systematic Multisensory instructional programs symbol relationships, then proceed instructional programs. include the following components: to systematically and explicitly teach students more advanced patterns Engagement of visual, auditory, of spelling-sound relationships. This and kinesthetic-tactile pathways; approach contributes to increased sight A systematic and cumulative word knowledge using orthographic scope and sequence moving mapping, a foundation for proficient from easiest to most difficult reading, and also addresses fluency, elements; morphology (roots and affixes to enhance vocabulary), and comprehension, Explicit teaching of all elements; allowing students to apply decoding skills Diagnostic and prescriptive effectively and comprehend what they are teaching that incorporates reading. continuous assessment;

Teachers who have been trained in Synthetic and analytic teaching of Phonics First ® and Structures ® develop all elements within a component. a deep knowledge base grounded in the science of reading and includes the essential components of the structure of language at all levels. This knowledge

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 13 The Phonics First ® and Structures ® programs incorporate all of these powerful TEACHING instructional elements so that teachers CONTINUUM are able to effectively teach struggling bridging readers, ensuring that these children learn Phonological the requisite skills to become proficient Awareness to phoneme- readers. Phonics grapheme connections Instruction is built on a continuum scope and sequence that systematically and explicitly teaches:

application Bridging of phonological of phonics awareness to phonics, irregular skills/patterns Phoneme-grapheme connections, high-frequency word reading and Application of phonics skills/ patterns (decoding/encoding), spelling rules spelling and patterns for Irregular high-frequency word encoding reading and spelling, Spelling rules and patterns for systematic encoding, syllabication systematically integrated writing Systematic syllabication strategies strategies for for decoding, and decoding and reading skill application Systematically integrated writing and reading skill application.

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 14 The Phonics First ® and Structures ® Orton-Gillingham derived Lesson Plan includes: This approach ensures that skills are systematically taught. Review, introduction of new skills, guided Phonological Awareness supporting reading/spelling practice, and independent practice are 1 development. lesson components that are supported in research on effective teaching. The Phonics First ® and Structures ® programs Three-Part Drill review (visual, auditory, blending) for include instructional models for teaching 2 automaticity and accuracy. new concepts, applying new concepts, learning to decode through syllable types, and learning non-phonetically Multisensory Skill Introduction-Application: Explicit, direct spelled words. Writing and reading teaching of skill; immediate guided and independent comprehension skills are systematically application to reading and spelling (words and sentences); 3 integrated into the program as well. integrating previous and new concepts.

Syllabication: Decoding multisyllable words (building towards 4 fluency) using syllable patterns/types to read unfamiliar words.

Irregular High-Frequency Words: Direct, multisensory instruction with orthographic mapping and ongoing 5 multisensory review of non-phonetic words.

Oral Reading: Applying phonetic and non-phonetic skills to 6 connected-text reading using structured, decodable text.

Response to Intervention (RtI) and Structures ® lies in the fact that provides an alternative to the the required professional development current discrepancy model for identifying provides all teachers with firsthand children with learning disabilities and understanding of the reading process and embraces the belief that teachers can how to effectively reach those students no longer wait for children to fail before who are not performing to their potential. providing intervention support (Bradley et Response to Intervention requires al., 2005). school-wide commitment to supporting all children and their learning, beginning Most importantly, RtI requires that all in kindergarten. Many RtI models utilize teachers, whether regular education or a three-tier model as an essential special education, become experts in component of the process. Brainspring understanding the reading process and programs are modified for use at all three how to prevent and remediate reading tiers of instruction. difficulties. The strength of Phonics First ®

Phonics First ® in Tier I is both a whole Both Phonics First ® and Structures ® are In Tier III, Phonics First ® and Structures ® class core phonics program and a used in Tier II as targeted intervention are powerful remediation programs small-group skill support program. It programs providing focused instruction designed to ensure dyslexic and learning- provides teachers with a Tier I instruction on identified areas of need to address disabled students receive the full scope of component that builds decoding and core curriculum skill gaps in struggling instruction needed to address significant encoding skills within the context of a readers. Students receive instruction in reading deficits. Students receive core reading program. Additionally, it small groups of up to six students with instruction in small groups of up to four provides teachers with the knowledge closely related skill needs. students with closely related skill needs. and tools to continually differentiate their instruction for the whole group and small group lessons.

Phonics First ® and Structures ® are robust Tier II and Tier III programs because they provide the level of intensity of instruction that is required, based on the needs of students, to sufficiently address skill gaps preventing students from becoming skilled readers. Using Brainspring’s Small Group Diagnostic Assessment of Decoding and Encoding, teachers can assess, group students according to their needs, and monitor progress throughout the program. This assessment, coupled with district and state assessments, provides a detailed view of student skill development.

Used in Tiers I and II, these programs also often decrease referrals to special education. Used intensively in Tier III, they can significantly increase reading achievement and may lead to a decreased need for remedial literacy interventions.

Brainspring is committed to students demonstrated literacy In early 2019, Brainspring launched a advancing the knowledge base competencies following participation in methodologically rigorous, randomized through state-of-the-art outcome Brainspring programs. Anecdotal data controlled trial to investigate the evaluations of their reading programs, also indicates that general classroom effectiveness of Phonics First ® compared including the commencement of and special education teachers observed to typical reading curriculums across a a randomized clinical trial of the marked growth in students’ reading broad array of student outcomes (e.g., effectiveness of Phonics First ® in first skills and confidence, following the reading skills, behavioral indicators, graders launched in 2019. To date, implementation of Brainspring programs socioemotional functioning). Four public Brainspring has evaluated Phonics First ® (Brainspring research report, 2014). schools were selected from a large public and Structures ® programs in several school district located in an urban setting. ways. Quasi-experimental research In addition to the evaluation efforts Twenty-eight 1st grade teachers were documented — at a district-wide level — described above, Brainspring has randomly assigned to either (a) participate higher percentages of students meeting partnered with an independent research in comprehensive Phonics First ® training expectations for reading competencies organization (Center for Research, in the summer of 2019 or (b) to an active following the implementation of Assessment, and Treatment Efficacy, waitlist group, where training will occur at Phonics First ® and Structures ® Asheville, NC; CReATE; www.createnc. a later time. Data collection is occurring programming. Additional documentation com) to collect Phonics First ® and at several points throughout the academic indicated that more students successfully Structures ® outcome data in multiple year for the students in both conditions. passed state reading tests and that a academic settings (i.e., whole classroom Reading scores, behavioral outcomes, greater number of special education interventions, small group interventions). and socioemotional functioning will be

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 18 compared across groups. In concert with Executive Summary a team of scientific experts, Brainspring’s research initiative will also include quasi- The last two decades have seen The science of reading has established experimental small group intervention a marked increase in federal that literacy develops through phases, studies, investigating the effectiveness of legislation and funding, as well as with the alphabetic principle defined as the program for struggling and adolescent research initiatives aimed at improving the critical foundation for the development readers (commencing in 2021; data reading deficits in elementary children of reading proficiency. This principle collection underway through 2020 and in the US. Consequently, significant establishes that the visual symbols of the 2021; outcomes available 2021 and 2022). advances have been made in the science writing system (graphemes) represent of reading, the identification of effective the sounds of the language (phonemes). reading instruction, and the growth of Phonics instruction is this intentional supplemental reading programs, such and purposeful teaching of letter-sound as Phonics First ® and Structures ®, relationships. Additional important developed by Brainspring. Since 1991, constructs are orthographic mapping and Brainspring has been positioned as a morphology, which contribute to decoding leader in the field of reading instruction, and reading comprehension skills. The adhering to advances in the science Simple View of Reading and the Reading of reading and effective instructional Rope theoretical models are supported strategies. Ongoing refinement of by empirical evidence and describe the programming based on the expansion of process whereby children learn to read scientific findings is a core component of for meaning. A greater understanding of Brainspring’s mission. the science of reading has informed the development of effective instructional programs and highlighted the importance of comprehensive training for teachers.

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 19 Dyslexia is a type of language-based as focusing on both the foundational skills based on Orton Gillingham methodology disorder, negatively impacting a of reading (i.e., phonemic awareness, and have been successfully employed in child’s ability to read and spell. It is basic phonics, and fluency), as well as Response to Intervention efforts, across postulated to be the most common the more complex skills such as decoding all three tiers. Brainspring has recently neurodevelopmental disorder affecting multisyllabic words and reading with launched a state-of-the-art randomized children. One of the most frequently used prosody. controlled trial of their Phonics First ® remedial teaching methods targeting program in 1st-grade students. Measures reading deficits is the Orton-Gillingham Brainspring developed their accredited of socioemotional functioning and reading (OG) multisensory language approach. Phonics First ® and Structures ® programs skills are being collected several times Orton-Gillingham is the basis of many based on advances in the science of throughout the 2019–2020 academic published reading programs due to solid reading and effective instructional tools. year for all students in the intervention empirical support for the instructional The Phonics First ® and Structures ® (14 classrooms of teachers randomly methodology. While the bulk of research programs provide strong scientific, assigned to Phonics First ® training has focused on understanding and research-based instruction in the in 2019) and the comparison groups remediating weaknesses in early readers, decoding and encoding elements of (14 classrooms of teachers randomly the literature also documents the impact reading. The scope and sequence of assigned to active waitlist condition of dyslexia on secondary students as each program teach students skills in where Phonics First ® training will occur well. Adolescents with reading deficits phonological awareness and sound- at a later time. Follow up research will commonly present with similar symbol relationships, then proceed studies of the Phonics First ® small group language deficits as younger students. to systematically and explicitly teach intervention and the Structures ® program These adolescents display deficits in students more advanced patterns of for adolescent readers will commence basic skills such as poor phonology, spelling-sound relationships contributing in 2021. Results will allow Brainspring weak decoding, and a lack of fluency, to increased sight word knowledge, to better understand programming resulting in poor reading comprehension. a foundation for proficient reading, strengths, as well as factors influencing Understanding the struggling secondary and ultimately to improved reading students’ outcomes across multiple student is critical in the development of comprehension. The programs are domains. important instructional parameters, such structured, sequential, and multisensory,

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 20 Laurel Wagner received a B.A. in Elementary Education from California State University, Northridge. Laurel taught third through sixth grades for Los Angeles Unified School District and has tutored students in reading in grades K–12 and adults. Her teaching experiences About include intervention, ESL, general education, special education and gifted the students.

Laurel joined Brainspring as a Tutor in 1993. Authors Over the years she has held the positions of Director of Tutoring, Master Instructor, Director of Instruction, and is currently the Vice President of Brainspring’s Educator Academy. Using both her background in Dr. Sarah (“Salli”) Lewis is the Director of the Research Division classroom teaching and extensive tutoring for the Center for Research, Assessment, and Treatment Efficacy (CReATE) in of students with reading disabilities, Laurel Asheville, North Carolina. Dr. Lewis is a licensed clinical psychologist, with expertise developed the accredited Phonics First ® in the development, transport, and dissemination of evidence-based treatments. She and Structures ® Orton-Gillingham programs. currently works in varied educational and therapeutic settings and is responsible for Since 2004, Laurel, a Certified Dyslexia the design and implementation of a number of applied clinical research trials. Dr. Lewis Practitioner (CDP), has served on the Board has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals, serves on the editorial board for a of Directors of the International Multisensory number of clinical and research-oriented publications, and has a research appointment Education Council (IMSLEC) which at the University of Arkansas. She provides training, consultation, and professional accredits multisensory language programs presentations within the scientific and treatment community. at the Teaching and Therapy levels.

Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking third graders and a 1-year follow-up. Journal case for the simple view of reading. Journal of and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT of Educational Psychology, 96, 444–461. Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Press. 49, 278–293. Brady, S. (2011). Efficacy of phonics teaching for American Psychiatric Association. (2013). reading outcomes: Indications from post-NRP Ehri, L.C. (1991). Development of the ability to read Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental research. In S. Brady, D. Braze, & C. Fowler words. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/ (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in & P. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading appi.books.9780890425596 reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 69 –96). research: Vol. 2. (pp. 383–417). New York: New York: Psychology Press. Longman. Archer, A., & Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Ehri, L.C. (1994). Development of the ability New York: Guilford. Response to Intervention. Journal of Learning to read words: Update. In R. Ruddell, Disabilities, 38, 485–486. & H. Singer (Eds.). Theoretical models Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Jones, J., Wolf, and processes of reading (pp.323–358). B., Gould, L., Anderson-Youngstrom, Brainspring. (2014). Brainspring Research Report International Reading Association. (Reprinted M., Shimada, S., & Apel,K. (2006). Early [Research report describing Brainspring’s in modified form from R. Barr et al (Eds.), development of language by hand: internal evaluation of programming; available “Handbook of Reading Research: Vol II,” Composing, reading, listening, and speaking by request Brainspring.com]. Longman Publishing Group, 1991) connections; three letter-writing modes; and fast mapping in spelling. Developmental Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2019). Ending Ehri, L.C. (2015). How children learn to read Neuropsychology, 29, 61–92. the reading wars: Reading acquisition from words. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), novice to expert. Psychological Science in the The Oxford Handbook of Reading (pp. Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. Public Interest, 19, 5–51. 293–310). New York: Oxford University Press. M., Francis, D. J., Clonan, S. M., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2004). Effects of Catts, H. W., Adlof, S., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & intensive reading remediation for second and Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A Barnes, M.A. (2018). Learning disabilities:

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 22 From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). reading, spelling and penmanship (5th ed.). L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), New York: Guilford. Cambridge: Educators Publishing Service. Handbook of learning disabilities: Vol. 2. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, Special Education, 7, 6–10. science: What expert teachers of reading B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, should know and be able to do. Washington, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills Hougen, M. (2014). Evidence-based reading D C: American Federation of Teachers. to support reading for understanding in instruction for adolescents, grades kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 6–12 (Document No. IC–13). Retrieved Moats, L.C. (2000). Whole language lives on: The 2016–4008). Washington, DC: National from University of Florida, Collaboration illusion of “balanced” reading instruction. Center for Education Evaluation and Regional for Effective Educator, Development, Washington, DC: Thomas Fordham Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Accountability, and Reform Center website: Foundation. Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/ Retrieved from the NCEE website: http:// innovation-configurations Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. whatworks.ed.gov. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new phonology to literacy outcomes of upper Gamse, B.C., Bloom, H.S., Kemple, J.J., & paradigm of teaching. Corwin Press. elementary and middle-school students. Jacob, R.T. (2008). Reading First Impact Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), Jorgensen, M. A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). History Study: Interim Report (NCEE 2008–4016). 134 –147. of the no child left behind act of 2001 (NCLB). Washington, DC: National Center for San Antonio: Pearson. Education Evaluation and Regional National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2019). National assessment of Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, Kilpatrick, D. (2015). Essentials of assessing, educational progress: The nation’s report U.S. Department of Education. preventing and overcoming reading card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of difficulties. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, Education. J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. W.D. (2008). Assisting students struggling (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2006). What with reading: Response to Intervention and Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 211. education schools aren’t teaching about multi-tier intervention for reading in the reading and what elementary teachers aren’t primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. learning. Washington, DC: Author. 2009–4045). Washington, DC: National A. (2007). Dyslexia and specific reading Center for Education Evaluation and Regional disabilities. In R. Kliegman, R. Behrman, H. National Institute of Child Health and Human Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, Jenson, & B. Stanton (Eds.), Nelson textbook Development (NICHD). (2000). Teaching U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved of pediatrics (18th ed., pp. 125–127). New children to read: An evidence-based from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/ York, NY: Saunders. assessment of the scientific research practiceguides/. literature on reading and its implications Lyon, G. R., & Weiser, B. (2013). The state of the for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. (1956). Remedial science in learning disabilities: Research 00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government training for children with specific disability in impact on the field from 2001 to 2011. In H. Printing Office.

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 23 National Reading Panel (US), National Institute Science to Practice. Guilford Press: New Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2005). Dyslexia of Child Health, Human Development (US), York, NY. (specific reading disability). Biological National Reading Excellence Initiative, Psychiatry, 57, 1301–1309. National Institute for Literacy (US), & United Ring, J., Avrit, K., & Black, J. (2017). Take flight: States Department of Health. (2000). The evolution of an Orton Gillingham-based Soifer, L. H. (2005). Development of oral language Report of the National Reading Panel: curriculum. Annals of Dyslexia, 67, 383–400. and its relationship to literacy. In J. R. Birsh Teaching Children to Read: An evidence- (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language based assessment of the scientific research Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., skills (2nd ed., pp. 43–81). Baltimore, MD: literature on reading and its implications for & Stuebing, K. (2013). A meta-analysis Paul H. Brookes. reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. of interventions for struggling readers Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of National Institute of Child Health and Human (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 369–390. Development, National Institutes of Health. processing and reading. Journal of Learning doi:10.1177/0022219413504995. Disabilities, 27, 276–286. Nation, K., & Castles, A. (2017). Putting the learning in orthographic learning. In K. Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Lessons learned from Cain, D. Compton, & R. Parrila (Eds.), language and literacy to later reading (dis) research on interventions for students who Theories of reading development (pp. abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. have difficulty learning to read. In P. McCardle 147–168). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence Benjamins. research in early literacy (pp. 97–110). New in reading research (pp. 355–382). Paul H York, NY: Guilford Press. Brookes Publishing Co. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat 1425 (2002). Shaywitz, S. (1998). Dyslexia. The New England Uhry, J. K., & Clark, D. B. (2005). Dyslexia: Theory Journal of Medicine, 338, 307–312. and practice of remedial instruction (3rd ed.). Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2014). Baltimore: York Press. Understanding and teaching reading Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Pugh, K. R., comprehension: A handbook. Abingdon, Fulbright, R. K., Constable, R. T., Mencl, W. Vaughn, S., Denton, C., & Fletcher, J. (2010). Oxon, England: Routledge. E., & Gore, J. C. (1998). Functional disruption Why intensive interventions are necessary in the organization of the brain for reading for students with severe reading difficulties. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and in dyslexia. Proceedings of the National Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 432–444. Development (OECD) (2016), PISA 2015 Academy of Sciences of the United States of Results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. (2012). Response to America, 95, 2636–2641. education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. intervention with secondary school students http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Blachman, B. Disabilities, 45(3), 244–256. Orton, S. T. (1925). “Word-blindness” in school A., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarski, children. Archives of Neurology and P., & Gore, J. C. (2004). Development of Psychiatry, 14, 581–615. left occipitotemporal systems for skilled reading in children after a phonologically- Pennington, B., McGrath, L., & Peterson, R. based intervention. Biological Psychiatry, 55, (2019). Diagnosing Learning Disorders: From 926–933.

BRAINSPRING.COM @Brainspring, @OrtonGillingham

844–680–7094 @BrainspringOG

[email protected] @brainspringortongillingham

Brainspring.com/blog Brainspring Orton-Gillingham

Brainspring Brainspring Orton-Gillingham 1409 Allen Drive, Suite F Troy, Michigan 48083