“Cracking the Code” – Phonics Instruction Benefits All Students

“Cracking the Code” – Phonics Instruction Benefits All Students

by | Jun 15, 2020 | Evidence-Based Practices Series, Grade 1, Teaching Reading to Struggling Readers

In researching the topic of teaching reading, I was happy to come across the following statements, from two very respected and credible sources, adamantly vouching for phonics instruction:

“The topic is seemingly simple – phonics.  Do children need instruction in phonics?  Why is there an argument?  The answer is “yes” (Fountas & Pinnelll, 2020, p. 1).

“The question of whether to include phonics instruction has been resolved. The answer is yes”  (International Literacy Association, 2019, p. 2).

If you are like me, you may share your enthusiasm about phonics only with a few trusted colleagues.  I picture us whispering in the back corner of the staff room, passing resources to each other under the table. Well friends, now that Fountas and Pinnell, and the ILA have shouted it from the rooftops, we can too!  Phonics instruction works!  Its the best!  I believe in it, because I have seen it work, really work, and I L-O-O-V-E all of the programs out there that break teaching reading down into minute, sequential steps, that follow beautifully, from one to the next.  It is like music to me.

In 1997, the U.S. Congress asked for a review of research on literacy, with the goal of improving reading and writing achievement (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2008, p. v).  As you may know, in the 80’s and 90’s, whole language instruction was mainly used in schools, and the impact on reading scores was dismal. In fact, “a 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress report found 56% of 4th graders in California read below a basic level after embracing Whole Language” (Betker, presentation, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/)

The resulting report, which recommended systematic phonics instruction, was “influential in helping to guide reading-education policy and practice in the United States” (Lonigan & Shanahan, p. v).  The report is called the “Report of the National Reading Panel:  Teaching Children to Read” (NICHD, 2000).  This report is very widely cited in articles about teaching reading, and has impacted how we teach reading in Canada, as well. After the report was released by the National Reading Panel in 2000, there was a dramatic increase in the use of systematic, explicit phonics instruction, in schools.

However, it is clear to me, and to many teachers who have heard the research conclusions, knowing that something is supported by science does not automatically lead to implementation in a regular classroom.  The information needs to be interpreted in such a way that it is usable and practical. Also, there are important factors to consider, in ensuring that the method is applied in a way that is congruent with the research.  As you can imagine, not all phonics instruction is equal – the sequence that a teacher uses is vitally important:  “[T]his process is not left to accident but goes according to a superbly designed sequence” ( Fountas & Pinnell, 2020, p. 3).

In teaching reading, and incorporating phonics in one’s program, it is important to consider the following questions:

  1. Who is phonics instruction for?  Isn’t it intended only for students who struggle to learn to read? 

According to Fountas & Pinnell (2020), “[E]ven children who “crack the code” early and appear to have noticed letter-sound relationships and figured out how to use them will benefit from systematizing their knowledge and developing effective, efficient ways to use their knowledge, not only of letters and sounds, but also of patterns involving larger chunks of words” (p. 1).  They go on to say that phonics instruction is “even more critical when we consider the large number of English learners in our schools.  It is our responsibility as educators to ensure equity and access to language for all students” (p. 1).  I would argue that the same need for equity exists among students who are first language English speakers, but whose early experiences have not enabled them to develop pre-literacy skills.

“Research has shown the power of this early instruction in phonics for young students’ reading and writing development. Government-funded documents have shown that phonics instruction is helpful for all students, harmful for none, and crucial for some”  International Literacy Association, 2019, p. 2).

2. Is there a “best” way to teach phonics / decoding? 

“[H]ow we translate …research into instructional practice varies widely, resulting in practices that are sometimes ineffective or unbalanced and instructional materials that too often have serious instructional design flaws. Some phonics instruction is random, incomplete, and implicit. Other instruction is overdone and isolated, devoid of the extensive application to authentic reading and writing needed for mastery. Neither is as effective as it needs to be”  (International Literacy Association, 2019, p. 2).

“There is no one best way to teach phonics…That is, there is no single method that has been shown to be the most effective approach” (Cunningham, as cited in Allington, 2013, p. 522). However, some methods certainly are better than others, and some programs are more easily applied and adopted, I would argue. The main point here is that, students do need to learn to decode, and that this is an important part of becoming an effective reader (Allington, 2013, p. 522).

You may have heard the term “the science of reading”.  In the last few decades, an incredible amount of research has been done, that actually looks at what happens in people’s brains, when they learn to read.  In fact, we now know an astronomical amount more about teaching reading than we did only 40 years ago, according to Dr. Kilpatrick (2016, p. 46) a reading researcher and doctor of psychology. The science of reading essentially tells us how the brain changes as it learns to read. This information can help us to know which teaching methods would result in developing a reading brain.

A recent brain research study out of Stanford explained how beginning readers who focus on letter–sound relationships, or phonics, instead of trying to learn whole words, increase activity in the area of the brain best wired for reading.  This has resulted in the conclusion that phonics instruction has a strong impact on students’ early reading growth”  (International Literacy Association, 2019, p. 2, Retreived from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-meeting-challenges-early-literacy-phonics-instruction.pdf).

The Orton-Gillingham approach is one example of how to teach students to read, using systematic, explicit phonics instruction. This approach is recommended for students with Dyslexia, however it has been applied to students of varied abilities, with success. If you are looking for a place to begin, I highly recommend learning as much as you can about this approach.

Some other specific phonics methods that you may be interested in looking into, especially if you are an early years teacher, are the use of word families, and teaching of onset and rimes.  David Kilpatrick recommends the use of word families for Grade 1 students who can identify the first sounds and letters in words, but cannot yet decipher the middle and ending sounds (2016, p. 50). Additionally, colour-coded onset-rime phonics-based intervention has been shown to be effective with struggling readers, and is recommended as an intervention for students at Tier 2 and Tier 3 (Wall, Rafferty, Camizzi, Max & VanBlargan, 2016, p. 8).

What else is there to consider?

Teaching students to read through decoding is only part of phonics instruction. It is important to have students apply their developing phonics skills in writing. Using inventive spelling in kindergarten and first grade is an effective way to reinforce letter-sound correspondence, because children who get the chance to write suddenly become “interested in using those letter-sound relationships to read and write” (Adams, as cited in Allington, 2013, p. 522)

It is important to note that phonics instruction must not stand on its own.  It must be taught “within a comprehensive literacy design that must also include reading high-quality books aloud to children, engaging them in shared reading, interactive read-aloud, small group guided reading instruction, small group book clubs, independent choice reading, and a wide range of writing contexts that support the expansive knowledge of words and how words work”  (Fountas & Pinnell, 2020, p. 1).

“We must design lessons that provide the opportunities for struggling readers to actually read” (p. 526). Often lessons for struggling readers differ from lesson for good readers, in that there is less reading activity and more work on skills in isolation (p. 526).  This limits the volume of reading that these students do.  Additionally, they tend to read less overall, since a person who struggles at something tends to do less of it.  Struggling readers may tend to choose to read less often, as a result of the difficulty they experience in reading.

It is a good idea to have explicit phonics instruction as part of a lesson, but this should be sandwiched between opportunities for the child to read connected text, at a level that they can read with success. It is best to provide an opportunity for the child to apply the phonics skills that they have been taught, in connected text immediately after. (Lourenzo, C., 2019, lecture in course “Diagnostic & Remedial Techniques in ELA, University of Manitoba).

Kilpatrick (2016) explains that we, as teachers, do not need to choose one approach to reading. Kilpatrick explains that each of the traditional approaches (from phonics, to whole words to whole language) is appropriate at specific stages in the process (p. 48).  At the very beginning stages of reading instruction, he asserts that a more phonological approach is appropriate, and as students develop along the reading continuum, whole language or other approaches are suitable.  Once students learn sound-symbol relationships, and are able to decode easily and automatically, using the strategy methods from whole language, would be appropriate and useful.

Most of all, what really matters, is having effective “expert” teachers working with struggling readers, according to Allington (2013, p. 523).

The expertise of the teacher is “the critical factor in the quality of reading lessons” according to research (Allington, 2013, p. 523)

The way to increase the reading abilities in students is to teach their teachers “about reading development and how to facilitate it” (Allington, 2013, p. 523). Allington recommends that each school employ a reading specialist with a graduate degree in literacy, to support teachers to this end. Additionally, he recommends that we move away from having educational assistants work with the students who struggle the most.  Instead, those students should work with teachers who have the most expertise in teaching reading (p. 523).

In order to become good readers, all students need lots and lots of experience reading books that are matched to their reading level, not their grade. This is especially important for struggling readers (Allington, 2013, p. 525).

Self teaching occurs when students are engaged in reading books at their independent reading level (p. 525). For this reason, it is the “volume of reading activity” that is most important in developing strong readers (p. 526).

Allington provides teachers with the following list,that can be used to guide one’s practice.  This list is for teachers to use, to check their lessons against the characteristics of research-based reading lessons (Allington, 2013, p. 528).

  • “Do we expect our struggling readers to read and write more every day than our achieving readers?

 

  • Have we ensured that every intervention for our struggling readers is taught only by our most effective and most expert teachers?

 

  • Have we designed our reading lessons such that struggling readers spend at least two thirds of every lesson engaged in the actual reading of texts?

 

  • Do we ensure that the texts we provide struggling readers across the full school day are texts they can read with at least 98% word recognition accuracy and 90% comprehension?

 

  • Does every struggling reader leave the building each day with at least one book that they can read and that they also want to read?” (Allington, 2013, p. 528)

 

I see this as being so helpful to myself and to the teachers I work with, that I want to paint it on the sky!.  I trust that you will find this as helpful as I have!

Onward we go, in developing our abilities as expert teachers!  It is the teacher, not the method, that makes the difference for struggling readers! (p. 523).  But don’t leave out the phonics!

I would also like to recommend the following two articles, for more information on phonics instruction:

Twelve Compelling Principles from the Research on Effective Phonics Instruction by Fountas & Pinnell, 2020

Literacy Leadership Brief:  Meeting the Challenges of Early Literacy Phonics Instruction by The International Literacy Association, 2019

Thank you for being part of this contemplation on teaching reading.

What questions do you have, with regards to phonics instruction?  What conclusions have you arrived at?

 

 

 

References

Allington, R. (2013).  What Really Matters When Working with Struggling Readers. The Reading Teacher, 66 (7), 520-529.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2020)  Twelve Compelling Principles from the Research on Effective Phonics Instruction.  Heinemann.  Retrieved on June 16, 2020 from https://www.fountasandpinnell.com/resourcelibrary/resource?id=484

The International Literacy Association (2019).  Literacy Leadership Brief:  Meeting the Challenges of Early Literacy Phonics Instruction.  Retrieved on June 16, 2020 from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-meeting-challenges-early-literacy-phonics-instruction.pdf

Kilpatrick, D. (2016). Equipped for Reading Success: A comprehensive, step by step program for developing phoneme awareness and fluent word recognition. Casey & Kirsch Publishers.

National Institute for Literacy (2008). Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. National Centre for Family Literacy.

Wall, C. A., Rafferty, L. A., Camizzi, M. A., Max, C. A., & Van Blargan, D. M. (2015).  Action Research of a Color-Coded, Onset-Rime Decoding Intervention:  Examining the effects with first grade students identified as at risk.  Preventing School Failure:  An Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60 (1), 1-9.

Fred Penner Taught Me Phonological Awareness

Fred Penner Taught Me Phonological Awareness

by | Jun 3, 2020 | Evidence-Based Practices Series, Grade 1, Teaching Reading to Struggling Readers

I have been reading Dr. Kilpatrick’s book, Equipped for Reading Success (2016), which was very enthusiastically recommended to me by two colleagues. This book is about teaching reading through developing phonological awareness in students. Phonological awareness is the understanding that spoken language is composed of smaller units such as phrases, words, syllables, and phonemes (sounds).“Children need to be able to distinguish sounds so that they can attach them to letters” when learning to read and spell (Fountas & Pinnell, 2009, p. 174).

 

Kilpatrick explains that each of the traditional approaches (from phonics, to whole words to whole language) is appropriate at specific stages in the process of learning to read (p. 48). At the very beginning stages of reading instruction, he asserts that a more phonological approach is appropriate, and as students develop along the reading continuum, whole language or other approaches become suitable.

 

In fact, the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) Report (2008) states that “children’s early Phonological Awareness –that is, their ability to distinguish among sounds within auditory language–[is] an important predictor of later literacy achievement” (Lonigan & Shanahan, p. viii).

 

Many of the songs that you remember from your childhood likely targeted various phonological awareness skills. My favorite one was The A – Z Name Game by Sharon Lois and Bram.   I learned rhyming through singing, “Lori-Anne, Lori-Anne, banana, fanna, fo – Fori-Anne, Me, mi, mo, Mori-Anne, Lori-Anne!” Rhyming and word play in poems, books and songs, train students to distinguish the sounds in words. Some of these silly songs actually teach children complex phonemic awareness skills.

 

Developing phonological awareness comes before phonics instruction.  Being able to hear the individual sounds in words is the first step in learning to read and spell.  Next, students are taught to connect those sounds to letters.  When letters become part of the instruction, it is no long phonological awareness that is being taught, but phonics.  When kindergarten teachers and day care educators read books that have rhyming phrases in them, or sing songs in which different sounds are substituted in words, they are actually working on important skills that support literacy development.

 

Being a child in Canada in the 80s, I was raised on songs by Fred Penner and Raffi. You can’t imagine how star struck I was when one day, about five years ago, I actually saw Fred Penner in real life, having lunch in a restaurant in Winnipeg, at the table next to mine. I had seen him at a concert when I was really young, but this was different! He was ten feet away! I could barely keep myself from starting at him! He had to have been pretty amazing for me to still recognize his greatness over 30 years later!

 

In kindergarten and Grade 1, phonological awareness can be directly taught, as a stepping stone toward reading and spelling. It is important to teach these skills, because children “do not automatically identify sounds just because they can speak and understand language” (Fountas & Pinnell, 2009, p. 178). In fact, “[S]peakers focus their attention on the meaning of utterances, not sounds. Unless they are trying to learn an alphabetic code, there is no reason to notice and ponder the phonemic level of language” (National Reading Panel Report, as cited in Fountas & Pinnell, 2009, p. 175).

 

Some children transition from nursery rhymes and songs right into the next level, in which they associate sounds with specific letters. Not all children need phonological awareness training, and it may be beneficial only for those who struggle with reading problems (Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1999, p. 404). Some students, however, need to be specifically taught to hear the distinct sounds within words, and to “map” those sounds to letters, which is called “orthographic mapping” (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 45). “Orthography” has to do with writing letters and words.

 

Students need to be able to connect “what is heard in the mind (phoneme awareness) with what is seen on the page (letter-sound skills)” (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 45). Phonemic awareness and connecting letters with their most common sounds (phonics) are “prerequisites” to learning to read. In fact, early literacy teachers will not be able to move their students along in literacy, until the students are “proficient” with these two skills (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 49). Letters and their sounds need to be connected easily and automatically for the child, before they can benefit from “formal reading instruction”, according to Dr. Kilpatrick (p. 49).

 

Formal reading instruction in Grade 1 usually includes “word study”, or phonics instruction. However, Dr. Kilpatrick recommends that prior to teaching students the beginning, middle, and ending sounds in words, which is part of the phonics instruction that usually happens at the start of Grade 1, it is a better idea to teach them word families. (Word families, I am sure you will recall, are sets of words that follow the same spelling pattern, like rat, cat, fat, mat, pat, sat).  This would allow the children to apply their developing skills at letter-sound association with the first sound, in each of the word family words, and then use the rhyme to help them along, so that they can read full words.

 

Since most students are not able to map full words yet, in the first month of Grade 1, using word families is like providing “training wheels” for the students at this earlier stage in reading (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 50). Many students at this stage can map the first sound in a word only, and so this approach could be used first, prior to phonics. The word family approach is called the “Linguistic Approach”, and Dr. Kilpatrick recommends that Grade 1 teachers use “a ‘linguistics first, phonics second approach, while systematically training phonological awareness” (p. 50).

 

Dr. Kilpatrick (2016) asserts that if Grade 1 teachers were to follow his advice on this, they would “reduce the number of struggling readers to a fraction of what any traditional method (including phonics alone) would produce” (p. 50). Currently there is a portion of students in every school who read far below grade level. If we apply the research that tells us about how reading progresses, we can dramatically lessen the number of students who struggle (p. 45).

 

It is at this point that I have some questions, and am curious to learn more about the best way Grade 1 teachers might spend their first months with their students. The idea that there is an absolute best way to spend this time, and that doing so will eliminate the likelihood that any students will struggle to read is very appealing! I have always been very interested in teaching reading, and I am constantly learning and growing as a teacher of reading. The reason why the first few months of Grade 1 is especially interesting to me now, however, is that I will be transitioning to a new position in my school division next September. My first task in this new role is to provide support to Grade 1 teachers, as our division moves away from Reading Recovery and toward a new approach.

 

I am questioning the use of word families, despite Dr. Kilpatrick’s very convincing argument, because I have recently been taking part in Orton-Gillingham training. My instructor explained the other day that she is opposed to using word families, because she believes it can lead students down the road to guessing, or to not attending to each letter and sound in words (V. Bjornson, presentation, May 30, 2020). Once students begin to guess, they are moving away from word mapping, and are not learning the core skills they will need to become strong readers. It is better, instead, to have the students attend to each letter in a word, one at a time. To me, this makes more sense, as I have spent lots of time working with students who think that reading is about guessing.

 

Dr. Kilpatrick seems to concur with some aspects of Bjornson’s argument when he says the following: “For beginning reading instruction we need to make use of reading materials that are appropriate to the level at which the student can phonologically and orthographically deal with words” (2016, p. 49). If students are asked to read texts that are above the level that they can decode, or if they are taught to memorize full words before they learn the letter-sound connections, they can sometimes develop unhealthy coping behaviors that can lead them down the wrong path (p. 49).  Would word family words not be considered inappropriate for students who are not yet able to deal with three letter words, in the first month of Grade 1, I wonder?

 

However, I can also see benefits to word families, as they would help to build confidence in struggling readers.   If time is spent on word families for a brief period while students solidify their letter-sound skills, and phonemic awareness, it can give them the satisfying feeling of reading words, even if they are actually reading just the first letter, and recalling the rhyme, when solving the rest of the word.

 

I am curious what your perspective is on this question. Have you used word families in the past? Have you noticed a tendency toward guessing words after having used it, or is it a helpful transition that segues into reading CVC words? What are your thoughts on phonological awareness training and phonics instruction?

 

 

References:

Bus, A. G., van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological Awareness and Early Reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (3), 403-414.

Lonigan, C. J., & Shanigan, T. (2008). Executive Summary of the Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. National Centre for Family Literacy.

Kilpatrick, D. (2016). Equipped for Reading Success: A comprehensive, step by step program for developing phoneme awareness and fluent word recognition. Casey & Kirsch Publishers.

National Institute for Literacy (2008). Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. National Centre for Family Literacy.

Pinnell, G. S. & Fountas, I. C. (2009). When Readers Struggle: Teaching that works. Heinemann.

 

A Letter to My Younger Self, as a First-Year-Teacher

A Letter to My Younger Self, as a First-Year-Teacher

by | May 12, 2020 | Evidence-Based Practices Series, Grade 1

Have you ever wished you could talk to your younger self, to share important words of wisdom that you gained through experiences, years later? Oh, how I wish I could send a letter back to myself, when I was a first year, Grade 1 teacher. If I could only sneak a copy of Beverly Tyner’s (2009) Small Group Reading Instruction, into the hands of my 23 year-old-self.   How much better that year would have gone! Never mind that Tyner’s book was not published until almost ten years after my first year of teaching; if we can travel back in time, the publication date is not important!

 

I have summarized Tyner’s model below, to give you a snapshot of what it might look like, if you were to adopt this method for your own class. Essentially, she believes that “boxed reading programs that do not provide teachers with the appropriate materials or the necessary knowledge about the development of readers will never be the answer for struggling readers” (2009, p. xi). Understanding the truth in this statement has led me to move away from my research on the effectiveness of these kinds of “boxed” programs, and to move on to researching general approaches or strategies for teaching reading.

 

This same advice, to bring together the best parts of various programs, to fit the needs of unique students, was given to me as a student in a class at the University of Manitoba called Diagnostic and Remedial Techniques in ELA. This is the idea of empowering teachers to make decisions and judgements as to how to build a literacy program that works for their own class, and for individual students.  (Lourenzo, C., lectures, Sept. 2018). Providing teachers “with the knowledge to be good consumers of reading products will drive the reading process forward in unprecedented way” (Tyner, 2009, p. xi). Teachers with knowledge of the research on reading are then able to adjust the instruction that they do in their classes, based on this information and on their own good judgement and experiences.

 

Beverly Tyner provides a framework which teachers can use to structure this kind of selecting, applying and adjusting of various strategies, when working with small groups of students.

 

 

Differentiated Instruction

  • Tyner is a former early elementary school teacher herself, and explains that she understands how daunting it is to try to differentiate lessons for a wide range of learners.
  • She shows teachers how they can meet the needs of everyone in the classroom. This includes those who are struggling to read, as well as those who come to school already able to read some words.

 

The Developmental Reading Process

  • She provides teachers with a basic understanding of the “developmental reading process” that allows them to put theory into practice (p. 159).
  • Essentially, there are “stages through which beginning readers naturally progress” (Tyner, 2009, p. 5). After assessing the students, using the ERSI assessment tool, teachers group their students into small groups of three to four students. Students are grouped with “others who are most similar in their literacy needs” (p. 7).
  • The five stages that readers pass through as they become independent at reading, are described, with the important characteristics of readers at that stage.
  • A grade-level designation is included for each stage. This allows teachers to coordinate their small group lessons with reading materials appropriate for the learners at each stage.
  • Tyner’s model meets the recommendations for effective assessment by Reutzel and Cooter (2016): “In general, assessment should proceed developmentally according to the sequence in which skills are learned: phonemic awareness, to alphabet knowledge, to phonics and other decoding skills” (p. 188).

 

The 5 Stages

  • Stage 1 – Emergent Reader
  • Stage 2 – Beginning Reader
  • Stage 3 – Fledgling Reader
  • Stage 4 – Transitional Reader
  • Stage 5 – Independent Reader

 

  • The groups are flexible; students are moved from group to group based on ongoing assessment by the teacher (p. 7).
  • “The progression begins in Stage 1 with the emergent reader (basically non-reader) and continues to an independent reading level in Stage 5” (p. 7).

 

  • The stages bridge from Kindergarten to Grade 2 level. “Students advance through these levels as they build on their knowledge and move forward at their own pace” (p. 8).

 

  • Tyner describes the characteristics of a reader in the “emergent stage”, as a person who has very little phonemic awareness, knows very few or no sight words, knows less than half of the alphabet, and does not understand the concept of a word (p. 9).

 

  • At the next stage, “beginning reader”, the student has developed the ability to hear sounds in words, can track print, knows more than half the alphabet, and knows 15 sight words (p. 9). It goes on from there, with characteristics of each stage explained, as well as information on how to check whether the student has moved into the next stage.

 

 

 

Inclusive

  • Tyner provides an early-intervention model that allows teachers to meet the needs of students who are working at the lowest level, who she has termed “emergent readers”, the “beginning readers”, “transitional readers”, and so on, without the need for students to leave their classroom.

 

  • Our goal, in inclusive schools today, is to provide instruction to students with intellectual disabilities alongside their same age peers, whenever possible. Tyner’s model makes this feasible through the structure of this approach, the time spent in small groups working on specific, intentional goals.

 

  • It is not only the weakest students who receive this strategic teaching, but all students. Every student receives small-group instruction time with the teacher, including those at the later stages in reading development.

 

  • As she explains, “the approach presented in this book might help lay the foundation on which teachers can begin to build effective reading programs for all students. We can no longer be content in only addressing the needs of struggling readers…teachers recognize the need for providing differentiated instruction to students performing above, on, and below grade level” (Tyner, 2009, p. 160).

 

 

Small-Group Lessons

  • Tyner shows teachers how to take the word study that they use with the full class, and adjust it to meet the needs of specific students in small-group. This allows for students who are significantly behind, to receive direct instruction in the specific areas of weakness.

 

  • This tailoring of instruction is what helps students advance as readers.

 

  • Key to the small group work is the direct teaching of phonics, with the goal of helping students see the patterns in words.

 

  • “…Phonics falls under the wider category called word study. Word study refers to the systematic, developmental study of words…and encompasses alphabet knowledge, beginning consonant sounds, word families, common and uncommon vowel patterns” and so on (p. 11, italics in original).

 

 

Word Study

  • Most appealing to me, is the sequencing that Tyner provides, in showing teachers how to move students from one level to the next, in their growth toward becoming independent readers.

 

  • Specific letters and word parts, or patterns, are taught at each stage, to move students along in developing the ability to decode words.

 

  • An important goal for students at the emergent stage is to develop phonological awareness. Very clear, direct teaching of phonemic awareness is of utmost importance for students who fall below grade level in reading.

 

  • “Students who exhibit phonemic awareness will have an easier time learning to read and spell (Goswami, as cited in Tyner, 2009, p. 10). This is the kind of instruction that students who are reading below level need, in order to close the gap.

 

  • “The need for systematic phonics and word study instruction delivered in small-group is well documented” (Morris, NICHD, Santa & Hoien, as cited in Tyner, 2009, p. 11).

 

 

 

Comprehensive Literacy Program

The five components are:

(1) phonemic awareness

(2) phonics – this is included in a wider category called “word study”.

(3) fluency

(4) vocabulary

(5) comprehension

  • These instructional components have been identified by the National Reading Panel (2000) as “components consistently [relating] to reading success” (NICHD as cited in Tyner, 2009, p. 10).

 

Whole-Class Application

  • Additionally, Beverly Tyner (2009) recommends a way for teachers to structure their ELA class time, which includes all of the components of a comprehensive literacy program, and is based on research. (This overall structure, is what I especially wish I could share with younger-me!)

 

“The Literacy Block”(Tyner, 2009, p.22) is broken down into four chunks:

 

  1. Whole-Group Instruction – Read Alouds / Modelled Reading

 

  1. Whole Group Shared Reading – Including Choral Reading

 

  1. Small-Group Differentiated Reading Model – In which all 5 components of literacy are addressed for all students. “Small group instruction is for all students, although the struggling readers may be seen more frequently” (p. 22).

 

  1. Independent Reading – Where students practice reading or doing activities at their independent level, on their own or with partners, while the teacher provides lessons to small groups of students.

 

  • Tyner provides advice for how to structure this time so that the teacher is not interrupted while working in small groups, by students who are given the task of working independently (See Chapter 9: Engaging and Managing the Rest of the Class During Small-Group Reading Instruction, pp. 144-158).

 

Varied Texts

  • Tyner (2009) provides a clear description of how to run each part of the block as well as the purpose for each. She even explains which type of reading material to use for each part of the literacy block, and tells why.

 

  • For example, during Shared Reading, “the primary focus… is to share grade-level text; therefore, the teacher is primarily responsible for reading the text” (p. 19). Through choral reading, all students are taught grade level content and vocabulary.  Students with weaker reading skills are provided support, without attention being drawn to them, since the class reads in unison.

 

  • In the Small-Group Reading Instruction slot, the kind of text used, differs. Students need to practice reading, with books they can read with success. To provide just the right level of difficulty, leveled books are recommended for use in small group, by Tyner.  Since this model is flexible, the teacher may adjust the types of books used.  Personally, I have used decodable texts for students in the emergent and beginning stages, because that way students can apply what they have learned in word study, immediately afterwards.  The decodable books I have chosen, are ones that include only the word parts or letters that the child has been introduced to.  This allows them to successfully decode the text, using their new skills.  I find decodable texts very useful at these early stages, since  I know that the right amount of challenge is necessary to nudge them forward, as readers (p. 13).

 

Research – Based

 

  • Beverly Tyner (2009) provides an entire model that shows teachers how to make the day to day work that they do in their classroom reflect the research on literacy.

 

  • Her advice for the word study portion of the lessons meets Stahl’s (1992) recommendations for successful phonics instruction (Reutzel and Cooter, 2016, p. 187):
  • “First of all it builds on children’s knowledge of how print functions. In the early stages phonics and decoding instruction also build on students’ phonological awareness when the alphabet is introduced…Phonics is integrated into a comprehensive reading program, and focuses, ultimately, on reading words, not memorizing rules” (Stahl, as cited in Reutzel & Cooter, p. 187). Tyner provides a comprehensive program that meets these criteria.
    • Research confirms that effective programs include onset and rime instruction, which can also be woven into writing instruction (for instance, using “temporary” or phonemic spellings)” (p. 187).
    • “A prime objective of exemplary phonics instruction is to develop independent word-recognition strategies, focusing attention on the internal structure of words (structural analysis)” (p. 187).
    • “All effective instruction is preceded by an assessment of student knowledge” (p. 187)

This valuable framework, the idea of the developmental stages, the precise description of how to go about teaching students at various stages in their development, is invaluable. Additionally, as noted above, the methods used are based in research.

 

If I had had this plan, when I first began teaching, along with the rationale for why to include each component, I can only imagine how much better the year would have gone. This is my new favorite book, and I want to share it with all of you!

 

I encourage you to give it a try, if you are an early-years teacher. Let me know how it turns out!

 

If you are already familiar with this method, what are your impressions? Please share your experiences with it, in the comment section below.

 

Happy teaching everyone!

 

 

 

References:

Reutzel, D. R & Cooter, R. B. Jr. (2016). Strategies for Reading Assessment and Instruction in an Era of Common Core Standards: Helping Every Child Succeed. Pearson.

 

Tyner, B. (2009). Small Group Reading Instruction: A differentiated teaching model for beginning and struggling readers. International Reading Association.

12 Facts About the Orton-Gillingham Approach: Evidence Based Practices Series

12 Facts About the Orton-Gillingham Approach: Evidence Based Practices Series

by | Apr 27, 2020 | Dyslexia / Specific Disability in Reading, Evidence-Based Practices Series, Understanding Research

I was first introduced to the Orton Gillingham approach by our divisional school psychologist years ago, when she recommended “skywriting”, for a child who was struggling to remember letter names and sounds.  In skywriting, the student writes the letter in the air, while pointing and looking upwards, and visualises the letter as they write it.  Using large body movements, the student forms the letter, and says the name, and the associated sound (Gieni, personal communication, 2012).  This kind of activity, which involves multiple senses and is kinesthetic, is key to the Orton-Gillingham approach.

 

More specific directions were given to me just last year, by another school psychologist, who is also an advocate for multi-sensory learning.  She suggested having the child use two fingers, the pointer finger and middle finger, while pointing to the sky.  She further recommended that the child write the letter with their arm extended, elbow straight.  The student was to keep her eyes closed, while pointing up, and to the right, as she visualized the letter, in order to engage the part of the brain that would store the information (Betker, personal communication, 2019).

 

The psychologist further suggested some other techniques that  involved engaging multiple senses.  The child was to place  a piece of paper over top of sand paper, and then write letters with a pencil, pressing lightly onto the page.  This was to provide the student with a “muscle memory” of the shape of the letter.  Feedback from the pencil being dragged over sandpaper, would cause a sensation in her hand that would lead to better memory (Betker, personal communication, 2019).

 

Being a former Roots of Empathy teacher, I was familiar with the idea of developing the brain through engaging a child’s senses, so this made sense to me.  I gave it a try, and began to look further into this idea of using multiple pathways in the brain, in order to support learning. I began to see the influence of the Orton-Gillingham Approach in various programs and activities that I came across in my work as a resource teacher.

 

For some struggling readers at my school, who were still learning the alphabetic principle in Grade 2, the Orton-Gillingham multi-sensory approach was what finally worked, when I tried it with these students.  In my office I had found a kit, developed by the  Institute for Multi-sensory Education (1998), that was my starting point.  It included a DVD that showed how to implement the steps outlined in the manual.  Also included were some crayons, Popsicle sticks, a flat, red, plastic mat with a grid pattern, and some “house paper”.  This kit was designed for parents, and did not require specific training to use, other than viewing the DVD.  Other OG based programs that I am familiar with, including the Wilson Reading System and the Barton Reading & Spelling System, require extensive training.

 

 

I have found this approach to be useful, and have seen positive results myself, with these programs, however I want to be certain that I advocate for approaches that have the highest likelihood of resulting in a measurable, positive impact on students in our school division.  I am aware of the danger in using anecdotal comments or personal success stories to draw conclusions, even it is my own success story!  Instead, I must learn whether the approach has been proven effective, through empirical data.

 

Here are some quick facts about the Orton-Gillingham (OG) Approach:

 

  1. The Orton-Gilligham approach is not new. It was developed by a child neurologist named Dr. Samuel Orton, in the early 20th century (Ritchey &Goeke, 2006, p. 171).

 

  1. Anna Gillingham was a “gifted educator and psychologist” who “compiled and published instructional materials as early as the 1930s which provided the foundation for student instruction and teacher training in what became known as the Orton-Gillingham Approach” (Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators, 2018).

 

  1. A curriculum was developed, based on Dr. Orton’s ideas, by Anna Gillingham and Bessie Stillman, and “remains the backbone of Orton-Gillingham (OG) instructional programs and other instructional programs derived from the original curriculum” (Ritchey &Goeke, 2006, p. 171).

 

  1. The OG approach was initially designed for students with Dyslexia, to remediate reading deficits, and was taught through one to one tutoring (Ring, Avrit & Black, 2017, p. 384).

 

  1. OG is called an approach, not a method because “the latter implies more rigidity in the practice than was intended. The flexibility to meet the needs of their students has since inspired practitioners to modify and adapt the instruction, and is one of the reasons why Orton Gillingham is the basis of many current published curricula” (Uhry & Clark, as cited in Ring et al., 2017, p. 396).

 

  1. Many educators in the past actually worked with Orton, Gillingham and Stillman to make adaptations to the original methodology, in order to change it to meet the needs of whole classes of students, for adult learners, and for other educational needs (Ritchey &Goeke, 2006, p. 172). Some programs that are adaptations to the original methodology, include the Wilson Reading System, Alphabet Phonics and Barton Reading and Spelling System.  Each of them involve  the instructional principles common to the original OG methodology (p. 172).

 

  1. In the Orton-Gillingham approach, there is a focus on phonics. The rules of the English language are taught directly and systematically (Ring, Avrit & Black, 2017, p.384).  OG lessons present the “units of language …introduced in a systematic sequence of increasing complexity from simple vowels and consonants through multiple syllable words” (Uhry & Clark, as cited in Ring et al., 2017, p. 384).

 

  1. “Explicit instruction is provided in phonology and phonological awareness, sound-symbol correspondence, syllables, morphology, syntax and semantics” (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, 171).

 

  1. The learning is cumulative, and students are required to master or overlearn concepts, before advancing in the curriculum (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p. 171)

 

  1. “A key characteristic of OG reading instruction is that it is multisensory, involving visual, auditory, and kinesthetic/tactile learning pathways, often referred to as the Language Triangle” (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p. 171, italics in original).

 

  1. The instruction is “individualized to the needs of each student” (Uhry & Clark, as cited in Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p. 172).

 

  1. “OG instruction is to be provided by trained and qualified teachers, tutors or other specialists” (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p. 172).

 

 

Is the Orton-Gillingham Approach Supported by High Quality, Scientific Research?

 

In reading articles on this topic, I did find two sources which concluded that the OG approach is supported by research.  One of them is a report from the Best Evidence Encyclopedia (BEE) site.  BEE is an especially reliable source.  This source was recommended by the Council for Exceptional Children journal in the article A Special Educators Guide to Successfully Implementing Evidence Based Practices (Torres, Farley & Cook, 2014) .  Bestevidence.org is “a free web site created by the Johns Hopkins University School of Education’s Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education (CDDRE)” Retrieved on April 26, 2020 from http://www.bestevidence.org/aboutbee.htm.

 

The second source was a 2017 study that tested the effectiveness of two programs, each based on the original Orton Gillingham approach.  One program, called “Take Flight”, was found to produce significant overall effects  (Ring, Avrit & Black, 2017).  Significant gains were shown across many types of reading outcomes, including comprehension, word identification, spelling and word attack skills / decoding (pp. 392-394)

 

Looking more closely at the information provided by John Hopkins University’s Best Evidence Encyclopedia, this is what I found:

 

In a summary for educators, entitled Effective Beginning Reading Programs, the Orton-Gillingham Approach was recommended. The Orton-Gillingham Approach is listed in a chart, under the heading, “Limited Evidence of Effectiveness:  Weak Evidence with Notable Effects“.

 

Now, it is not immediately apparent that a program listed in this category, with the words “limited evidence” as the heading, might be a reliable option!  However, upon studying the chart more closely, it became apparent to me how few programs actually make the cut, to be included in the BEE Effective Beginning Readings Programs chart.

 

The chart rates programs under the following five categories:

  1. Strong Evidence of Effectiveness,
  2. Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness,
  3. Limited Evidence of Effectiveness: Strong Evidence of Modest Effects,
  4. Limited Evidence of Effectiveness: Weak Evidence with Notable Effects, and
  5. No Qualifying Studies

http://www.bestevidence.org/aboutbee.htm>

 

  • Only three programs, out of almost 200 that were researched, were listed as having “Strong Evidence”.

 

  • Not one made it into the “Moderate Evidence” category.

 

  • Twelve were listed as having “Limited Evidence”.

 

  • Under “No Qualifying Studies” there were over 160 programs listed.

 

Of the  approximately 160 programs, for which there were no qualifying studies, I saw many programs well known to me, listed.  These programs are well known to many of my colleagues, and likely to you, and are widely used.  Some of the ones included in this category were those based on the OG approach, such as WRS and Barton:

  • Hooked on Phonics,
  • Wilson Reading System (WRS),
  • Seeing Stars,
  • Jolly Phonics,
  • Fundations,
  • Fountas Pinnell Units of Study,
  • Barton Reading & Spelling System

 

This does not necessarily mean that these programs are not effective.  It means that currently, there is a lack of sufficient evidence, or studies of high quality, to determine their effectiveness.  

 

The Orton Gillingham (OG) approach is well-known and widely used in schools all over Canada and the USA, however, according to many of the articles I read in learning more about OG, there is limited evidence on its effectiveness.  (Ring, Avrit & Black, 2017, p. 384 / Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p.172 / What Works Clearinghouse, July 2010).

 

According to Ritchey & Goeke (2006), teachers’ reactions to the approach are “overwhelmingly positive”. However its use is “fuelled by anecdotal evidence and personal experience” (p. 172).   Most of the research studies carried out so far on this approach have not met the definition of scientifically-based research (p. 172).  This does not mean that the approach is ineffective.  It only means that conclusions about its effectiveness cannot yet be made, based on the information that is currently available (Institute of Education Sciences, 2010).

 

As I mentioned above, I, too, am a teacher who has personally found the approach to be effective with the students I teach.  However, my goal in this blog is to seek out programs and strategies that are supported by scientific evidence.

What can I conclude from this week’s foray into educational research? 

 

When taking the course “Diagnostic and Remedial Techniques in ELA” last winter, I couldn’t really understand why my instructor, who is a reading clinician, would often steer us away from “packaged programs”.  However, after looking closely into the BEE research summary of packaged literacy programs, I am beginning to see why the instructor was more inclined to choose certain strategies, as opposed to entire programs, for use with students.  My instructor taught us that the real strength in teaching reading is in the close observation of individual students, and applying specific strategies to match the students strengths and needs, to move them forward.

 

It is not enough to purchase a program and follow the steps.  Instead we must take a more diagnostic approach, making small adjustments, trying an approach, and noting the results.  After each lesson, it is necessary to make minute changes, to help the student learn and advance. There is nothing like a good teacher, observing, adapting and applying a variety of approaches, in the act of teaching reading to a unique individual.

 

In working with particular students it may very well be appropriate and effective to use the OG approach.  It is necessary to measure the students’ progress and to determine the effectiveness of the approach with specific individuals, using assessment data.

 

I will continue to read articles on the topic of the Orton-Gillingham approach, and will add to this summary over time.  If you know of any especially good sources of information on this topic, please comment below!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References:

 

Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators (2018). Retrieved April 25, 2020, from  https://www.orton-gillingham.com/about-us/orton-gillm/.

 

Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators.  (2018).  Retrieved on April 26, 2020 from https://www.ortonacademy.org/resources/what-is-the-orton-gillingham-approach.

 

Institute of Education Sciences, 2010.  Retrieved on April 25, 2020 from  https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/EvidenceSnapshot/528.

 

Johns Hopkins University School of Education’s Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education (CDDRE).  Retrieved on April 26, 2020 from http://www.bestevidence.org/aboutbee.htm.

 

Ring, J. J., Avrit, K. J., Black, J. L. (2017).  Take Flight:  The evolution of an Orton-Gillingham based curriculum.  The International Dyslexia Association, Ann. of Dyslexia,67, 383-400.

 

Ritchey, K. D., & Goeke, J. L. (2006).  Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading instruction: A review of the literature.  The Journal of Special Education, (40), 171-183.

 

Slavin, R.E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009) Effective beginning reading programs: A best evidence synthesis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education.  Retrieved on April 25, 2020 from  http://www.bestevidence.org/reading/begin_read/begin_read.htm.

Coming Full Circle – The Oelwein Method & ABA – Evidence Based Practices Series

Coming Full Circle – The Oelwein Method & ABA – Evidence Based Practices Series

by | Apr 2, 2020 | Evidence-Based Practices Series, Reading Instruction for Students with SCD

After reading about the Oelwein method, I have to say that I have come full circle in my views about teaching reading to students with Significant Cognitive Disability (SCD), and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

What I mean by that, is after reading Literacy Skill Development for Students with Special Learning Needs: A Strength Based Approach, (Brown & Oelwein, 2007), I was reminded of the teaching method I learned over 16 years ago, and had used as an Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) tutor, when I worked in the ABA program at the St. Amant Centre, here in Manitoba.  The method used in ABA, called Discrete Trial Teaching, is very similar to the Oelwein method I just read about today. 

I wonder why I did not immediately think of ABA and Discrete Trail Training when I first set out to research information about teaching reading to students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (SCD) and Intellectual Disabilities (ID)?  It is odd, considering my very positive experience with the method, and my knowledge of the research that proves its effectiveness for people with Autism. 

 I suppose the breakdown, for me, had to do with my more recent focus on reading instruction. In the past, my experience with ABA had been teaching life-skills or self-care skills, mainly.  Also, perhaps I saw ABA and Discrete Trial Training as a method for students with Autism only.  I had forgotten that this method can be used with people with various developmental disabilities.  I had learned of its use with people other than those with Autism, at a workshop at the Council for Exceptional Children conference in 2017, where Discrete Trail Training was the focus. 

As my career has taken me towards supporting students with a large variety of abilities, in becoming readers, my repertoire of strategies has broadened, and I have moved toward other teaching methods.  However, as I said in my blog post about fluency yesterday, the method I used as an ABA tutor, is always my “go – to”, when other methods are not proving successful for the students I work with, as a resource teacher.

My pursuit, through this blog, has been to research reading interventions that work for students with SCD and ID. With this as my focus, I suppose I have not put enough stock in the “tried and true”.  After reading about the Oelwein method, I am grateful to have had the experience of working as an ABA tutor.  

Essentially what is described in the book Literacy Skill Development for Students with Special Learning Needs: A Strength Based Approach, Brown & Oelwein (2007) is very structured, intensive method.  The method, what I know as Discrete Trial Training, is applied to the task of teaching “whole words” to students (p.40).  Students are taught to read the full word, on sight, without breaking down the word into its sounds. 

Important to the Oelwein method is the “selection of vocabulary words that are immediately useful to the learner. It is critical to show students that words have a purpose and can be manipulated to have meaning” (2007, p. 78).

The Oelwein method involves engaging the learners through using their strengths (Brown & Oelwein, 2007, p. i, preface). As you are likely aware, people with ASD are strong visual learners, and so are many people with DS. The authors describe how important it is to use this visual strength to support these students in reading: “Research has found that individuals with ASD process visuospatial information more easily than transient auditory information” (Quill, as cited in Brown & Oelwein, 2007, p. 12).

Students begin by learning whole words, through a three step approach. The reasoning behind starting with whole words is that students with significant learning needs often are not successful with the phonics approach.

The authors argue that “the learning style of students with a variety of special learning needs…makes it difficult for them to read with a phonics-based approach. For these students the letter-by letter decoding of words is a labour-intensive process that can be both frustrating and discouraging (p. 12). However, the authors explain that phonics is not dismissed entirely in the Oelwein method. It is taught later that it would be for “neurotypical” learners, but it is still taught (Brown & Oelwein, 2007, p. 27).

Brown & Oelwein describe two approaches for teaching reading: the “bottom-up” approach, and the “top-down” approach (pp. 3-4). Bottom-up is beginning with letters and sounds, and advancing to whole words. Top-down is the approach used in the Oelwein method, where students are first taught whole words, and later are shown that words are made up of individual sounds.

The Oelwein method involves taking students through a three-step sequence, called the “match, select and name” sequence:

“1) Matching: the student matches word to word (or word to a word printed under a picture);
2. Selecting: the student selects a word upon request;
3. Naming: the student names the word on request, either verbally or by hand sign” (p. 14).

Essential to this method are the following points:

• The words that are used must be important and personal to the child. Teaching might begin with the child’s name, parent’s names, and a sibling or pet’s name. Later words that are connected to the child’s interests are used.

• Sight words are taught to allow the child to begin to form sentences with the words that they begin to read. I number of sentences can be formed with the student’s first four personal words, and the sight words “I” and “see”: “I see Mom. I see (name).”

• These short sentences are then transferred into books that are personalized for the child.

• Students then are supported in learning to read these books, through modelling and repeated reading, until the child achieves fluency. Before long the student has the rewarding feeling of being able to read a book!

• The method is visual and systematic (there is a sequence chart that is used to determine how many words are taught, how they are maintained, and which sight words are incorporated, and when. New books are taught as the student becomes fluent with previous books.

Most importantly, to me, the method described by Brown & Oelwein is very similar to  Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), which, as I said earlier, is an empirically proven method for teaching students with ASD. In the Oelwein method, the adults use very clear instruction, immediate prompts, and verbal praise following correct responses, just as is the case for ABA and Discrete Trial Teaching (DTT). Here is a snapshot, in case you are not familiar with those acronyms:

“With the picture card on the table, show Abby the Abby flashcard and say, “This word says ___.” Wait for her to say or sign her name.

If she does not sign or say it, cue her by pointing to the picture; if she does not respond, tell her, “It says, Abby.”

Give her the flashcard and tell her to put Abby (flashcard) on Abby (picture card).

Provide feedback for each response (Brown & Oelwein, 2007, p. 40)

Alas! The tried and true! I feel satisfied knowing that my experiences with Applied Behavior Analysis are further substantiated here.  It gives me confidence to carry on with what I know works, while at the same time continuing to expand my repertoire of evidence-based reading strategies.

It is also very valuable to see how the basics I had been familiar with, can be applied in teaching reading to students with special needs.

The method supports learners with SCD, ASD and DS in developing new literacy skills quickly, and allows students to feel the joy in reading books very early on in the process.

After reading the book by Oelwein & Brown (2007), I now have some answers to the numerous questions that I was left with, in my post about fluency yesterday. I am confident that building automaticity of whole words must come before repeated readings of passages. Also, I am convinced that applying the “top-down” method, which leaves phonics to later in the learning process, is a very smart idea, for students with severe developmental disabilities, ASD and SCD.

That being said, considering the needs of individual learners, and what is currently working for them or not working, would impact my decision on how to approach teaching them, but this is good information to have at the ready!

What is left, for me, is to try this out on my own, with students I work with each day. I might have to wait a bit to try it out, considering schools are still closed here, due to the pandemic.

I encourage you to give it a try yourself, once we get back to school, and let me know what you find.

I will end with a quote that sums up the philosophy of this approach perfectly, and I feel is an apt statement about teaching students of all abilities:

“Do not persist with a longer, harder and louder approach if the student is not meeting with success in a reasonable time frame ” (Brown & Oelwein, 2007, p. 12).

I am grateful for having been referred to this book, and would love to share it with you. You can read part of this book yourself for free, by going to the link below, and clicking on “Preview this book”.

https://books.google.ca/books/about/Literacy_Skill_Development_for_Students.html?id=LdmVLfuChU4C&redir_esc=y

Thanks Ailsa, for the advice to check out the Oelwein method!

 

References

Brown, L. T. & Oelwein, P. (2007). Literacy Skill Development for Students with Special Learning Needs: A Strength Based Approach. National Professional Resources Inc./Dude Publishing.

Martin, G. & Pear, J. (2003).  Behavior Modification:  What it is and how to do it.  7th Ed.  Prentice Hall.