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.

 

Fluency Instruction for Students with Severe Autism and SCD – Evidence-Based Practices Series

Fluency Instruction for Students with Severe Autism and SCD – Evidence-Based Practices Series

by | Apr 1, 2020 | Evidence-Based Practices Series, Reading Instruction for Students with SCD







Melekoglu (2019) in the article, Evidence-Based Fluency Interventions for Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities, states that it is especially helpful to teach fluency in the early years:  “Fluency instruction should start in the early grades because researchers have repeatedly shown that students between first and third grade benefit most from explicit and systematic fluency instruction” (p. 411).  








He goes on to say that fluency interventions are especially important for students with Learning Disabilities:  “the academic gap between good readers and struggling readers rapidly gets wider, even in the first grade.  Therefore, teachers should utilize effective fluency interventions as early as possible to keep students with LD on track” (p. 414).


 


Melekoglu sees fluency as encompassing not only word recognition, but phonics skills, too.  Automatic, or fluent recall of letter-sound associations might also be part of the fluency interventions this author is referring to.  


He states: “To become fluent readers, students with LD first need to master phonological awareness and phonics skills in first grade (Speece & Ritchey, as cited in Melekoglu, 2019, p. 415.)


 


Using repeated readings to teach fluency is something that I am very familiar with.  I have used Precision Reading (Freeze, 2002 / 2010) for a number of years, and know it to be effective in  increasing the speed at which students can read, and the number of words they can read with automaticity.  I also have seen how it supports struggling students in building confidence in themselves as readers. 








In the Precision Reading “core strategy”, designed by Dr. Freeze, students read passages of 100-300 words in length, over and over again, for up to ten days (Freeze, 2002, p. 65).  By the end of the 10 days, the number of words they can read in one minute’s time has often doubled.   This method of teaching fluency, through repeated readings of passages, is evidence-based (Melekoglu (2019); Freeze (2002/2010).


 


Freeze (2002 / 2010) does, however, list characteristics of students who are likely to not benefit from this intervention, and includes students who have intellectual disabilities (ID) in this list. 


This brings me back one of my original goals in writing this blog, and carrying out reading research:  Is it true, that interventions meant for struggling readers would be effective for those with ID or Significant Cognitive Disabilities (SCD), or not?


 


Much of the research that I have done up to this point has indicated that there is no need to use alternate methods for teaching reading to students with ID or SCD, and that the interventions used for struggling readers without disabilities would work for those with disabilities.  See my post entitled “Essential Features of Reading Interventions for Students with ID or SCD” (Busch, March 8, 2020). 








I see that fluency of word recognition, as well as quick, automatic application of sound-symbol relationships is key to becoming a capable reader.  I also see that whether the student has a disability or not, this must be true.  However, I am left asking whether these evidence-based methods, designed for struggling readers and those with LD, could be effective with those who have SCD. 










Melekoglu (2019) provides three “effective teaching methods” for fluency instruction: 


1) Using a model, either  a person reading in front of the student, or a recording of them reading, so that they can hear what fluent reading sounds like, 




2) Having the student read the same passage over and over again, and




3) Giving specific feedback immediately to students , while listening to them reading.  (p. 415).










When I think about the students I have worked with, with diagnoses of severe Autism and / or SCD, I question the conclusion that the regular reading interventions, such as these methods vouched for by Melekoglu, would suffice, for very low functioning learners. 


When trying these types of interventions with learners who have severe Autism or SCD myself, I did not see noticeable results.










In fact, I often encountered difficulties with rigidity and stereotypy that interfered with the students’ progress, when using repeated readings or phonics methods.  The students’ challenges with memory and attention interfered, as well. 










Each time I was reminded of the need for a much more intensive, systematic intervention, and the use of positive reinforcement and extinction, to support these students in learning new skills, including reading skills.










I eventually turned to Discrete Trial Teaching, each time I encountered these difficulties in the past. 


Discrete Trial Teaching is a method I had learned as an Applied Behavior Analysis tutor, before I became a resource teacher.  This method, based in behavioral psychology, has always been my tried and true method, when other interventions fail. 




 


Perhaps the distinction I am getting to here, lies in the severity of the student’s disability, when it comes to reading interventions.  A person with an IQ in the borderline range may benefit from similar interventions as those used with typically developing struggling readers, but what about students with IQ scores in the 50 – 55 range?










One of my colleagues referred me to the Oelwein Approach, and that is where I will look next.  It appears to be a method designed to teach reading to students with Severe Cognitive Disability and/or Down Syndrome.


 


I will get back to you on what I have learned in a few days.  In the mean time, I would like to invite you to comment on the questions below, and to share your experiences with teaching students with severe Autism, Down Sydrome or SCD.


 


Have you ever used the Oelwein Method?  If so, what are your impressions?  Did you see progress with your students with very Significant Cognitive Disability?


 


Do you believe that phonics should be taught before we use the “repeated readings” method with learners? 


 


Or should both skills be taught at the same time? 










Or, as Dr. Freeze suggests, should phonics instruction be excluded from reading instruction, and the focus be on full word memorization, instead (2002/2010)?


 


As I am sure you will agree, it is difficult to draw conclusions from so many different perspectives.  Often I have found contradictory information on reading instruction, even when both sources are reliable, and well-founded. 












Additionally, sometimes my own experiences tell me that something is missing, and it is necessary to keep reading and researching.  










I will now sign off, with more questions than I had at the outset!  The research continues!


 


References: 


 


Freeze. R.  (2002 / 2010). Precision Reading:  Instructors’ Handbook (2nd Edition).  D. R. Freeze Educational Publications.


 


Melkoglu, M. A. (2019).  Evidence based fluency interventions for elementary students with learning disabilities.  European Journal of Education Studies, 6 (5), 411-423.


 

			
 
			
 
				
				
			
 
				
				
			
 
				
					
 
			
					


											
								The 10 Most Important Things to Know About Teaching Reading to Students with ID or SCD  							
					
															
The 10 Most Important Things to Know About Teaching Reading to Students with ID or SCD  

					
					
 by  | Mar 8, 2020 | Reading Instruction for Students with SCD

				
				
				
				
					

				

				
				
				

				
				
				
Here it is!  My very first Top 10 List, as a blogger! 


What follows is a brief summary of the research I have read up to this point in time, with regards to teaching students with Intellectual Disability (ID) or Significant Cognitive Disability (SCD) to read..


Please scroll down to see details to explain each point, and references.


    

  1. IQ scores are not as important as you might think, when it comes to choosing reading interventions.
    2. 

  2.  Some practices in teaching reading are well accepted, due to the large amount of research that has amassed over time to support them.   
    3. 

  3. Students with ID / SCD require achievable goals to be clearly identified by teachers.
    4. 

  4. It may be necessary to use alternate forms of assessment when determining whether an intervention has been effective for your students with SCD.
    5. 

  5. It is important to understand and accept that progress for students with Significant Cognitive Disability (SCD) or Intellectual Disability (ID) will likely be very slow.   
    6. 

  6. When identifying practices and programs for use with students, it is necessary to be skeptical and to look at research studies and articles critically.
    7. 

  7. It is essential to have a basic understanding of the vocabulary used in research studies to determine the impact of a given approach.
    8. 

  8. Deciding whether to continue an intervention with students with SCD should be based on data. 
    9. 

  9. Use the principles of educational psychology, when teaching struggling readers, and in particular, those with SCD.
    10. 

  10. Provide many, many repetitions, to enable the student to learn. Build the skills to the point that the student recalls the information with automaticity.
    11. 



 


Here is the list a second time, with points to elaborate.


 


    

  1. IQ scores are not as important as you might think, when it comes to choosing reading interventions.
    2. 



 


    

  • 

      

    • We do not need to teach reading differently to students with low IQ, as compared to other struggling readers (Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Molfese, P. J., Weiss, B., & Fletcher, J. M., 2009).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • In a meta-analysis that looked at how students with low IQ learn to read, as compared to struggling readers who have average IQ, it was found that there is no difference in how these two groups of students learn to read (Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Molfese, P. J., Weiss, B., & Fletcher, J. M. (2009).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • IQ scores do not have a role in planning interventions, or in matching interventions to readers, since there is no important difference in how we should approach teaching reading, to the two types of students (Stuebing, et. Al., (2009).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • There is no difference in “growth patterns” and “no significant differences between these two groups of readers on how they develop reading precursor skills” (Wristers, Francis, Foorman, Fletcher, & Swank, as cited in Joseph, 2002).
      • 

    

    • 



 


 


    

  • 

      

    • It is a good idea to use reading programs that were designed for struggling readers in general, with those who have low IQ. Students with ID “should be provided with evidence-based reading instruction” (Allor et al., 2014, p. 302).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  1. Some practices in teaching reading are well accepted, due to the large amount of research that has amassed over time to support them.   
    2. 



    

  •  “…it makes the most sense to think about research as proceeding as a slow accumulation of knowledge over time and to read across many different studies on a particular question or topic.  Although breakthroughs or headline-making studies periodically appear, it is usually a mass of related studies over a period of years that lead to a well-accepted or durable conclusion” (Duke and Martin, 2011, p. 21).
    • 



 


    

  • These features (below) were described as essential in teaching students with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) by Allor, et al., (2014)
    • 

  • 

      

    • Use Direct Instruction
      • 

    • Use highly detailed lessons allowing for explicit instruction
      • 

    • A fast pace is often necessary, to maximize student engagement and motivation
      • 

    • It is necessary to model all skills repeatedly and clearly
      • 

    • The teacher must carry out frequent cumulative reviews, to ensure mastery and maintenance of skills (p. 293)
      • 

    • Use of very “consistent, explicit, and repetitive routines, focusing on key-skills” is important (p. 303)
      • 

    • Individual pacing and behavioral supports are often necessary
      • 

    • It is necessary that groups be kept small, with only one to four students to each teacher (p. 303).
      • 

    

    • 



 


 


    

  1. Students with ID / SCD require achievable goals to be clearly identified by teachers.
    2. 



    

  • 

      

    • Just as is necessary when teaching students without disabilities, clear goals need to be determined at the outset.
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • Lemons, C.J., Zigmond, N, Kloo, A.M., Hill, D.R., Mrachko, A.A., Pattera, M.F., Bost, T.J. & Davis, S.M. (2013), reasoned that teachers would be better equipped to create realistic, appropriate goals if they had better data on the existing skills of this population of students, and could measure progress more accurately and frequently (p. 410).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  1. It may be necessary to use alternate forms of assessment when determining whether an intervention has been effective for your students with SCD.
    2. 



 


    

  • 

      

    • One difficulty is that when reading tests, designed for use with the typical student population, are used with students with disabilities, it is not known which tests to use and for what grade-level (Lemons et al., 2013, p. 411).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • “More sensitive measures are needed to determine when small amounts of progress are being made so teachers and students will recognize the results of their hard work and continue instruction that is effective” (Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Cheatham & Otaiba, 2014, p. 304).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  1. It is important to understand and accept that progress for students with Significant Cognitive Disability (SCD) or Intellectual Disability (ID) will likely be very slow.   
    2. 



 


    

  • 

      

    • “Students with low IQ do benefit from comprehensive reading programs that were designed for struggling readers, and readers with LD, but progress is slower” (Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Cheatham & Otalia 2014, p. 303).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • The progress one might expect to see could may take many years, as opposed to many months, to achieve. Allor et al. (2014) noted that it took between one and three years for students in Grades 3 to 8 with Intellectual Disability, to achieve reading scores in the average range on Grade 1 reading passages.
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  1. When identifying practices and programs for use with students, it is necessary to be skeptical and to look at research studies and articles critically.
    2. 



 


    

  • 

      

    • “…it is rare to encounter an education program or practice that does not claim to be ‘research-based’. We must go beyond these claims and, in the spirit of healthy skepticism, demand the compelling evidence that a program works” (p. 57).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • Seeing the description “research proven” is not a guarantee that the program can be trusted more than others.  Use of these terms alone means very little. We have to ask questions that allow us to get underneath any individual’s, organization’s, or company’s use of these terms (Duke and Martin, 2011, p.  17).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • There are a series of questions that can be asked, in an effort to look critically at the claims made.  Some questions one might ask are:
      • 

    

    • 



    

  • 

      

    • 

        

      • 

          

        • How was this program tested?
          • 

        • Who was it tested on?
          • 

        • Is there a match between the people who participated in the study, and the students I intend to use this intervention with? 
          • 

        • Are they of the same age group and do they have other important characteristics in common? (Duke and Martin, 2011, p. 18)
          • 

        • Does the study look at the same, specific goal that I am working on with my students? (Duke and Martin, 2011, p. 18)
          • 

        • Does the study meet the other criteria described by Duke and Martin, with regards to outcome measures / standards / quality / degree of impact, and so on? (pp. 18-19)
          • 

        

        • 

      

      • 

    

    • 



    

  1. It is essential to have a basic understanding of the vocabulary used in research studies to determine the impact of a given approach. 
    2. 



 


    

  • 

      

    • In terms of effect size, John Hattie sets the “bar of acceptability at 0.4, and calls this the “hinge point” ((Fisher, Frey and Hattie, 2016, pp. 8-9). This is the number we need to look for when reading research.
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • For more information on understanding research, please see my previous post, “Important Research Terms Defined for New Graduate Students and Interested Teachers” (Busch, Mar 1, 2020)
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  1. Deciding whether to continue an intervention with students with SCD should be based on data.  
    2. 



 


    

  • 

      

    • Take baseline data before you begin your intervention.
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • Select interventions that are proven by research to be effective for struggling readers
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • After a period of six months, take data again, to see whether growth in the specific skills you are targeting has occurred. Use this information to decide whether to continue with the same intervention, whether to make some important adjustments, or to try something else.
      • 

    

    • 



 


 


    

  • 

      

    • If the students involved have made less than a year’s progress over the course of a year, many people believe it is good practice to end the intervention, and to try something else (Rick Freeze, personal communication to author, February 23, 2020).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • Fisher, Frey and Hattie (2016) explain that “students naturally mature and develop over the course of a year, and thus actions, activities, and interventions that teachers use should extend learning beyond what a student can achieve by simply attending school for a year” (italics in original, p. 8).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  1. Use the principles of educational psychology, when teaching struggling readers, and in particular, those with SCD.
    2. 



 


    

  • 

      

    • “Delivering reinforcers for efforts made toward achieving a goal can be considered as ways of providing support to students. This cannot be stressed enough when working with children with reading difficulties” (Joseph, 2002).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • Use immediate reinforcement of behaviors that you want to increase.  “…it is crucial that educators and parents shape reading behaviors through praise and rewards contingent upon efforts made at achieving reading skills” (Joseph, 2002)
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • Use scaffolding to provide necessary support to the child when introducing new information then, fade your support over time. Your prompts will be “gradually faded once the child approximates independent functioning while completing tasks” (Wood, Bruner, and Ross as cited in Joseph, 2002)
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  1. Provide many, many repetitions, to enable the student to learn. Build the skills to the point that the student recalls the information with automaticity. 
    2. 



    

  • 

      

    • “Within the time allotted for literacy activities, students need opportunities to make frequent responses during oral and silent reading as well as writing lessons” (Joseph 2002).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • Children with learning disabilities [and significant cognitive disabilities] need more opportunities to practice than their peers (McCormick, as cited in Joseph, 2002).
      • 

    

    • 



 


    

  • 

      

    • Build the skills to the point that the student recalls the information with automaticity. Once the student can recall the information with ease and immediately, they will be able to use their brain for other skills, like comprehension (Freeze, 2020)
      • 

    

    • 



 


 


Do you agree with these points?  Do you feel that something important was missed?  Please tell me what you think needs to be added.  I welcome your comments!






For more information on teaching struggling readers, I strongly recommend the following two articles:


https://www.readingrockets.org/article/best-practices-planning-interventions-students-reading-problems


https://clarekosnik.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/10_things_to_know_about_research_duke_trtr1002.pdf


 


 


 


 


 


 


References


Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J.P. & Otalia, S. A. (2014).  Is scientifically based reading instruction effective for students with below-average IQs?  Council for Exceptional Children, 80 (3), 287-306.


Duke, N.K. & Martin, N.M. (2011).  10 Things Every Literacy Educator Should Know About Research.  The Reading Teacher, 65, 9-22.


Fisher, D., Frey, N, & Hattie, J. (2016).  Visible learning for literacy:  Implementing the practices that work best to accelerate student learning.  Corwin.


Steve Fleischman, “Before Choosing Ask Three Questions” in Proven Programs in Education: Classroom Management and Assessment, ed.  Robert E. Slavin (Thousand Oaks:  Corwin, 2014), 55-59.


Freeze, R. (2020). Precision Reading: Instructors’ Handbook (3rd Edition). Winnipeg, MB: D. R. Freeze Educational Publications (www.precisionreading.com).


Joseph, L.  (2002).  Best practices in planning interventions for students with reading problems.  Reading Rockets.  Retrieved February 22, 2020 from https://www.readingrockets.org/article/best-practices-planning-interventions-students-reading-problems


Lemons, C.J., Zigmond, N., Kloo, A.M., Hill, D.R., Mrachko, A.A., Paterra, M.F., Bost, T.J., &  Davis, S.M. (2013).  Performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities on early-grade curriculum-based measures of word and passage fluency.  Council for Exceptional Children, 79 (4), 408-426.


Rosen, P.  (n.d.).  The discrepancy model:  What you need to know.  Retrieved February 22, 2020 from  https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/evaluations/evaluation-basics/the-discrepancy-model-what-you-need-to-know


Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Molfese, P. J., Weiss, B., & Fletcher, J. M.  (2009).  IQ is not strongly related to response to reading instruction:  a meta-analytic interpretation.  Council for Exceptional Children,  76 (1), 31-51.


Torres, C., Farley, C. A., & Cook, B.G. (2014).  A Special Educator’s Guide to Successfully Implementing Evidence-Based Practices.  Teaching Exceptional Children, 47 (2), 85-93.


 

			
 
			
 
				
				
			
 
				
				
			
 
				
					
 
			
					


											
								Baffling Observations Made by Our American Colleagues in Special Education							
					
															
Baffling Observations Made by Our American Colleagues in Special Education

					
					
 by  | Feb 24, 2020 | Reading Instruction for Students with SCD
Is it possible for students with significant cognitive disabilities (SCD) to learn to read?  This question was asked by Lemons, Zigmond, Kloo, Hill, Mrachko, Paterra, Bost & Davis in the article, Performance of Students With Significant Cognitive Disabilities on Early-Grade Curriculum-Based Measures of Word and Passage Reading Fluency (2013, p.  409).


Lemons and colleagues (2013) state that “although evidence regarding effective practices for teaching reading to children with SCD has increased…there have been relatively few studies of whether literacy goals for these students can be accomplished” (p. 409).


Reading these lines, I was baffled.


What do they mean, I thought, when they say that evidence for an educational practice has increased, but then say, that they don’t know whether the goals, that were linked to those practices, “can be accomplished“?


If something is shown to be effective, wouldn’t it have to result in accomplishment of the goals?   Otherwize, how can it be considered effective?


Lemons and his colleagues are researchers from the University of Pittsburgh, where there exists similar legislation to Manitoba’s Bill 13, Appropriate Education Programming.


The American legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, has ultimately the same requirements that we do, for providing equal opportunity to education, for all students.  It requires that “all students – including those with SCD…participate in an accountability system that holds schools responsible for teaching academic content to everyone” (p.  409).


The goal of this system was to determine whether enough students were meeting outcomes at their grade level, to a sufficient degree (Lemons et al., 2013, p. 409).


When this legislation was brought in, however, it was clear that some students (those with significant disabilities) needed to be tested against different standards than what was used with the general school population.  To meet this need, each state created something called the AA-AAS, which are “alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards” (p. 409).


Lemons and colleagues reflected that, even though a different assessment tool could be used to measure growth for various students with disabilities, it was absolutely the case that academic content must be taught to these students.  This included literacy instruction.  Also, teachers must be able to show measurable progress among the students in this population towards becoming readers, if they were to fullfill their obligation to the No Child Left Behind Act.


Upon reading the Lemons article a second time, I have come to a hypothesis as to the meaning of the statement made by the authors, that I had found so confusing.


I have come to see that essentially it has been difficult for educators to create realistic literacy goals for students with disabilities, and also to measure the growth that does occur, when students with SCD are provided with evidence-based reading interventions.


The authors stated that not enough is known, about the academic skills of students with various disabilities.  They reasoned that teachers would be better equipped to create realistic, appropriate goals if they had better data on the existing skills of this population of students, and could measure progress more accurately and frequently (Lemons et al., 2013, p.  410).


One difficulty, is that when reading tests designed for use with the typical student population, are used with students with disabilities, it is not known which tests to use and for what grade-level:  “although there are established benchmarks or targets for performance…for students who are performing at or near grade level, it is much less clear how to evaluate the performance of students with SCD when they are assessed with early grade-measures (e.g., an eighth grader’s score on a second-grade oral reading fluency passage” (p.  411).


Essentially, it is hard to tell whether student progress has occurred, when the assessment tools aren’t sensitive enough to measuring the smaller gains that occur over time for students with significant disabilities (p. 423).


Thus, there are interventions that are shown to work, to be effective with this population, however, sometimes the data may indicate, incorrectly, that no progress that has been made.


This observation, of the mismatch between improvement in early literacy skills in students with SCD, and the tools that measure reading achievement, rang true for me.  I remember having to report our school’s literacy data to our divisional superintendent, following a year of intense reading intervention with many students in the school.


In October of that year, I had used the Jerry Johns Basic Reading Inventory, which is an informal reading inventory (IRI) that is used by teachers to  “evaluate a number of different aspects of students’ reading performance” (International Reading Association, n.d.).


The majority of the students I had worked with daily, over the course of the school year, had scored at the Pre-Primer (Kindergarten) level when I had tested their reading levels in October.  Shockingly when I assessed them again in May, I discovered to my dismay, that they scored at the Kindergarten level again!  I was certain that these students had made substantial gains, yet the data did not reflect that.  How could this be?


At the start of the year, the students in question had not yet developed the alphabetic principle, i.e.:  the ability to match letters with their corresponding sounds.  By the end of the year they knew the sounds of all of the letters of the alphabet and were beginning to decode two and three letter words accurately.  I knew that the students had made excellent progress, and had considered my intervention to be successful.  I had seen the students develop the ability to read decodable three letter words!  How could it be that when it came time to report on progress, the data showed almost no growth!


I suppose this must be what Lemons and colleagues (2013) had observed themselves, when they sought to find out which assessment tools would be most effective in measuring the reading skills of the 7 440 students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (SCD), Learning Disabilities (LD) and Autism, whom they assessed (p.  412).


Their conclusion was that that better understanding of the reading skills of this population of students is needed.  Additionally, they found a need for further studies into establishing “which measures are most appropriate to capture growth” (p. 423).  These studies could “evaluate the frequency at which the measures should be administered to most efficiently capture growth, and provide a better understanding of expected rates of progress for students with SCD” (p. 423).


Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Cheatham & Otaiba, (2014) share the desire for an assessment tool that would give justice to the growth that does occur, however minimal, over the course of many months, when working with students with SCD.  They conclude, in their study of the effectiveness in using scientifically based reading instruction with students with SCD, that “more sensitive measures are needed to determine when small amounts of progress are being made so teachers and students will recognize the results of their hard work and continue instruction that is effective” (p.  304).


I also would find it especially helpful to have a trajectory of skills identified, which could be used to support lesson planning and progression of skills along a predetermined track, if such a thing could be created.  This article made me question how the current trajectories for literacy development could be further broken down and stratified, and how this could benefit both special education teachers and the students with whom they work.


Do you follow a specific trajectory or sequence when teaching students with SCD to read?  What system do you use?


 


 


References


Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J.P. & Otalia, S. A. (2014).  Is scientifically based reading instruction effective for students with below-average IQs?  Council for Exceptional Children, 80 (3), 287-306.


Lemons, C. J. et al. (2013).  Performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities on early-grade curriculum-based measures of word and passage fluency.  Council for Exceptional Children, 79 (4), 408-426.


International Reading Association. (n.d.).  Reading Rockets.  Retrieved February 8, 2020 from   https://www.readingrockets.org/article/critical-analysis-eight-informal-reading-inventories


 

				
					
 
			
					


											
								A “Sobering Reality”							
					
															
A “Sobering Reality”

					
					
 by  | Feb 24, 2020 | Reading Instruction for Students with SCD
Have you been tempted to use a certain reading intervention with the students you work with, who are diagnosed with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (SCD), only to find that the intervention is intended exclusively for students with IQ scores of 70 and above?


I am curious to find out what happens when special education teachers, like myself, teach students with SCD, using reading interventions designed for use with the general population.  What problems would we encounter when trying to implement these interventions with students who have very low IQ?  Would we see results?


If a strategy is proven to be effective in teaching reading to struggling readers, does that make it a good option for teaching students with SCD (Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Cheatham & Otaiba, 2014, p.289)?  Allor and her colleagues carried out a long-term study of the impact of daily, intensive reading instruction on students with IQ scores in the 40-70 range, that is, students with intellectual disability (ID) or SCD.  Students in the borderline range for ID were also included, that is, students who scored between 70-80 on IQ tests (p. 288).


This was a “4-year longitudinal study examining the effectiveness of comprehensive, research-based reading instruction for students with low IQs” (Allor et al., 2014, p. 288).  Results were published in the journal Council for Exceptional Children, under the title Is Scientifically Based Reading Instruction Effective for Students with Below-Average IQs?


The intervention used was an evidence-based reading intervention, that had been proven to be effective with struggling readers, (not including those with ID), called Early Intervention in Reading (Mathes & Torgesen, as cited in Allor et al., 2014, p. 293).  As was the case for the intervention that I had been considering, for students who I work with, many students in the study did not have the skills that were identified as prerequisites for the intervention, and so additional lessons had to be created and taught before the students could begin (p. 293).


The intervention had many features considered essential in teaching students with ID, including direct instruction.  Additionally, the lessons were “highly detailed to make instruction explicit and…fast paced in order to maximize student engagement and motivation.  All skills [were] modelled and cumulative review [was] ample to ensure mastery and maintenance of skills” (p. 293).  Very “consistent, explicit, and repetitive routines, focusing on key-skills” were used (p. 303).  Individual pacing and behavioral supports were put in place, and the groups were kept small, with only one to four students to each teacher (p. 303).  A number of measures were implemented to ensure that the teachers were well trained, and that they applied the intervention with fidelity (p. 294).


When summarizing the results of the study, the authors concluded:  “students with low IQ do benefit from comprehensive reading programs that were designed for struggling readers, and readers with LD, but progress is slower” (p. 303).


Essentially, the data showed that the students did gain improved scores in reading words and passages, over the course of the study.  The verdict was that students with ID “should be provided with evidence-based reading instruction” (p. 302).


However, Allor et al. (2014) also noted that it took between one and three years for students to achieve reading scores in the average range, on Grade 1 reading passages.


They concluded the following:   “The sobering reality is that a typical student in our treatment group with an IQ of 75 (borderline range) would require 52 weeks of intervention to move from 20 words per minute (wpm) to 60 wpm on first grade passages. Thus, based on our data …students with IQs in the moderate range (40-55) would require approximately three and a half years to move from 0 wpm to 20 wpm [on first grade passages]” (italics mine, p. 302).


When looking critically at this study and the conclusions that the researchers came to, I am left questioning the time and effort invested, over the course of four years, when the results were of less than one year of growth, for the students involved.


At the same time, when working with students with SCD personally, I find it to be incredibly rewarding to see progress, especially when it is so long in coming, and to see students filled with pride as they gain new skills.  In fact, I find myself spending a disproportionate amount of time with one to five different students at the school where I work.


I celebrate their small successes with leaps of joy, and as much as I debate this is my mind, I can’t bring myself to spend my time elsewhere.  This minute growth in students with SCD, who begin to believe in themselves and who glow with satisfaction when they learn something new, is what makes my heart sing.


However, I am reminded of the advice given to me from one of my professors in my post-baccalaureate program, when I was working toward special-education certification.   Dr. Freeze advised our class that it is best practice to “seek interventions that result in more than one year’s growth per year, so that students eventually catch up” (Rick Freeze, personal communication to author, February 23, 2020).


Spending four years in working toward improved reading skills, and seeing only one year of growth, as occurred for many students in the study by Allor et al., is not defensible, Dr. Freeze would likely argue.  His advice is pasted next to my computer at work, as a reminder of how I should run my days, what I should keep as priorities, and how I should delegate my time:


“Spend your time with students who have the greatest potential for growth,” he would say.  “Put your focus where there will be the biggest pay-off.  For a student who does not progress when you do put lots of effort in, there is little difference when you do less.” (Rick Freeze, personal communication, February 17, 2017)


It is his advice that I have posted up next to my computer.  My intent is to use it like a ship’s binnacle, to steer me in the right direction, in the raging ocean of resource teaching.  However, despite the important guidance from Dr. Freeze I find that yet again, I am off-course, spending my time in a whirlpool, seeing very little change.


Recently, Dr. Freeze’s advice has been on my mind a lot.  I question my practice of spending such large periods of time each day on teaching reading to students who, in all likelihood, could still be reading at Kindergarten or Grade 1 level in three years. One of the students I work with was recently diagnosed with SCD, and is making very minimal progress.  I celebrate her successes, and that of the other five students who I work with almost daily, who are the students with the lowest reading scores by grade, in the school.


At the same time, as February moves full speed ahead, I see that these students are still reading at Kindergarten level, far below their grade placement level, despite intense, research-based intervention, and will likely not have gained even a year’s growth in reading, over the past year.


What do I do when June rolls around and my students have barely skinned their chins on Grade 1 level reading?  I can’t see myself dropping the intervention, yet I question this.  What is the right thing to do?


The other side of the story, before you decide that I must keep on with these five students into the next year and the next, I am obliged to include here, the Whole Picture.  I am sorry to say that with all this time spent on my chosen five, I have not met my goal of working with other students diagnosed with reading disability, with IQ scores above 70, and for whom my research-proven interventions are designed for.  These students might make quick progress, if given the opportunity to learn, using a method honed specifically to their needs.


It has been my intent to make time for them, but my days are taken up with the five lowest achieving students who bring me joy and challenge me, and week after week I see that I have not started my planned intervention with the students at my school diagnosed with reading disability.


What would happen if I ended my reading interventions with the five weakest readers, my intervention that has resulted in less than one year of reading growth for even one of them, over the past two years, and worked with one or two students who have a greater likelihood of making considerable gains?  Lemons et al. found that students with learning disabilities (IQ scores in the 70-80 range) made the largest gains as a result of their intervention, when compared to those with Intellectual Disabilities and autism (p. 415).


Should I change course, and focus on the students who have the highest potential for growth?  If I do, what will become of the students whose reading intervention is terminated?


I am curious to hear your thoughts.  What advice do you follow, with regards to how you spend your time as a resource / student support / literacy-lead teacher?


Do you follow any specific rules in terms of intervention length?  Does your school or school division provide guidelines as to who can receive reading intervention, and for how long?  How do you feel about the advice you have been given with regards to this?


How should resource teachers spend their time?  Which students should receive intensive reading intervention, and for how long?  How do you determine this?


What interventions have you used?  Are you careful to choose interventions that have been empirically validated to work for struggling readers without SCD?  How have you modified or adjusted the interventions to suit the students’ needs?  Please share your thoughts and experiences!


References


Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J.P. & Otalia, S. A. (2014).  Is scientifically based reading instruction effective for students with below-average IQs?  Council for Exceptional Children, 80 (3), 287-306.


Freeze, R. (2020). Precision Reading: Instructors’ Handbook (3rd Edition). Winnipeg, MB: D. R. Freeze Educational Publications (www.precisionreading.com).


Lemons, C.J., Zigmond, N, Kloo, A.M., Hill, D.R., Mrachko, A.A., Pattera, M.F., Bost, T.J. & Davis, S.M. (2013).  Performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities on early-grade curriculum-based measures of word and passage fluency.  Council for Exceptional Children, 79 (4), 408-426.