What is the Science of Reading?

What is the Science of Reading?

by | Oct 31, 2020 | Dyslexia / Specific Disability in Reading, Evidence-Based Practices Series, Grade 1, Teaching Reading to Struggling Readers

 You may be hearing more and more about the Science of Reading lately.

 

Do you wonder what it is that everyone is talking about?

 

My goal is to give you a quick synopsis of the Science of Reading, so that you can see what all of the excitement is about!

 

With this information you may decide to adopt some new techniques or strategies that will benefit the students you work with.  In my experience, teachers who find out about the Science of Reading are grateful to finally have the knowledge to support students who they had not been able to help learn to read, up until this point.

 

No matter what grade you teach, you are likely to have students who struggle to read in your classes.  The Science of Reading can be applied to support readers at any age. All of us can improve our practices by learning more about the scientific research behind reading. If you are a life-long learner, as I am, this information brings a breath of fresh air to literacy instruction, and to teaching in general.

 

What is the Science of Reading?

It is research that is based on a formula called the Simple View of Reading, first proposed in 1986 by researchers Gough & Tumner, which shows that reading comprehension depends on two basic components: decoding, and language comprehension (Farrell et al., 2019).

Decoding (D) x Language Comprehension (LC) = Reading Comprehension (RC)

Essentially, it is research that shows that a person will not be able to understand what they are reading if they do not have strong skills in both decoding, and language comprehension (Farrell et al., 2019, para 1). The significance of this research is that it shows the importance of directly and explicitly teaching students to associate letters and sounds, and then to sound out words letter by letter.

“Gough and Tunmer (1986) proposed the Simple View of Reading to clarify the role of decoding in reading. Many educators did and still do believe that strong decoding skills are not necessary to achieve reading comprehension if language abilities are strong” (Farrell et al.,2019, para 3).

 

Breaking Down the Formula

The formula can be further explained and broken down.

The multiplication symbol in the formula is significant, because it shows how a student with poor skills in either area would struggle to understand what they were reading.

An explanation by Dr. Jan Hasbrouk from The Reading League, helps to clarify this:  “If the decoding skill is weak…especially if it is so weak we would have to say it is basically a zero, in terms of competency in decoding, no matter how smart you are, how language proficient you are, …what a good thinker you are, you are not going to have reading comprehension” (Hasbrouk, 2019, 7:25).

This kind of profile is characteristic of students with dyslexia, who have average or above average intelligence, yet experience a “block” when it comes to interpreting written language (Hasbrouk, 2019).

Students who are learning English often experience the opposite challenge, compared with students who have dyslexia. They may be able decode or pronounce the words that they are reading, yet not be able to understand the meaning of the words. Imagine, for example, that the student does not know any of the English words in a paragraph they have been given to read in science class. Even if their decoding is 100%, (that is, they can pronounce all of the words aloud), if their understanding of the meaning of the English words is low, they will not have any understanding of what they’ve read (Hasbrouk, 2019).

This research is important because it provides an opposite view of learning to read, from the very common whole-language approach. In the whole-language philosophy, successful readers are thought to bring what they already know about language to the page, and to predict upcoming words.  They apply their understanding of oral language, sentence structure and meaning to reading the words (Zakaluk, 1982, para. 9-10). In contrast, in phonics-based approach, reading is seen as beginning with letters and sounds, and the emphasis is on cracking the code (para. 5). The whole-language approach remains very popular in schools today, and was the main approach used throughout the 80s and 90s.

 

Why is there so much attention on the Science of Reading now?

If the Simple View of Reading was first proposed in the 1980s, then why is it being brought up so much lately, you might wonder.

Over the past ten years or so, there has been extensive research into what happens inside the human brain, as a person develops the ability to read (Kearns, 2019, p. 185). Neuroscientists have been observing brain waves in readers, and have been using neuroimaging data to observe the difference between the brains of students with typical reading skills and those with dyslexia (p. 182). Their discoveries have implications for teaching reading, which confirm what Gough & Tumner presented in 1986:

“In the early elementary grades, students require extensive instruction and practice to help them learn grapheme-phoneme connections and recognize many words by sight. Some kinds of instruction – especially explicit, systematic phonics instruction – are especially effective in helping students acquire word reading skills. In its absence, some students will not develop good reading skills” (Kearns et al., 2019, p. 183).

For more information on connecting graphemes (letters) with phonemes (sounds), please see my previous post, on orthographic mapping.

 

Phonics and Whole-Language Combined

In contrast to the whole-language approach, the Simple View of Reading indicates the importance in teaching students how to decode, or to sound out words by matching letters to sounds.  In the Simple View of Reading, language skills remain an important factor, but it is only half of the equation. Students need both decoding and language skills to comprehend what they read.

Even though research on the importance of teaching decoding has existed for over forty years, and even though this research has been replicated many times, and has not been dis-proven, many teachers do not know about it (Farrell et al., 2019, para 1,3) or are not convinced of its merit.

Many early years teacher do teach phonics and decoding, however some continue to believe that this is not necessary, or that it should only be touched on, in passing. There is the belief that students will grasp what they need to know about letters and letter patterns through exposure to words and reading, and that it is not important to spend time deliberately, directly teaching phonics. For example, Marie Clay, creator of the Reading Recovery program, states: “The beginning reader must discover for himself how to scan and visually analyze print to locate cues and features…” (p. 8).

As a previous resource teacher, and reading intervention teacher, I have worked with many, many students who were not able to deduce letter and sound correspondence through general reading practice. Instead, they required very intensive, explicit instruction, in order to learn to read. Developing the ability to decode was what finally helped them find success. In fact, I recently learned that up to 50% of students will struggle to read, if they are not directly taught sound symbol relationships (Hasbrouk, 2019). Bringing phonics into your instruction benefits all readers!

For all teachers, the Simple View of Reading is a helpful tool in determining how to help students who are struggling with reading comprehension (Farrell et al., 2019). Keeping the formula in mind when deciding what type of support to provide to students, the teacher can quickly see whether the problem is breaking down for the student over decoding or understanding language. This provides a very helpful starting point.

Middle Years and High School Students Who Struggle to Read

No matter what age the student is, consulting the Simple View of Reading can support the teacher in deciding how best to teach reading to an individual who is struggling:

“All of us can think of an older student who struggles with reading words.  This struggle usually occurs because poor decoding skills were not mastered during the foundational instruction phase.   Often students in these grades have adopted inefficient coping strategies that negatively impact comprehension.   Even in later grades, students can benefit from phonics instruction and teachers are encouraged to provide time to enable “catch-up” growth.  There is no substitute for effective decoding, and it can be taught at any age” (The Barksdale Reading Institute, Phonics tab, “Advanced Phonics Continuum”).

 

Where to Look Next: 

According to The Reading League, a website that was created with the goal of supporting teachers in improving the reading skills of students in the state of Mississippi, there “two key reports” that teachers should be aware of:

“Teachers should be knowledgeable about two national reports that articulate key recommendations for instruction that are based on the science of reading.

  • The National Reading Panel (2000) emphasized that phonics instruction should be systematic and explicit.

 

  •  The Institute of Educational Sciences (2016) confirmed the findings of the National Reading Panel by emphasizing again that it is important to explicitly teach the alphabetic principle and that students need to decode, encode, and analyze word parts in order to internalize the sound-symbol associations.

 

  •  In addition, the IES report recommended the importance of reading decodable connected text everyday during the early reading instruction years to build accuracy and fluency. (The Barksdale Reading Institute, Phonics tab, “Research: Two Key Reports” section)

 

I hope that you will find this helpful, and that you will apply this research with the students you teach.  I am convinced if you give it a try, you will see positive changes not only in the readers who are experiencing difficulty, but with all of your early readers!

Happy Teaching!

 

References

Clay, M. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties. Heinemann.

 

Farrell, L., Hunter, M., Davidson, M., & Osenga, T. (2019). The simple view of reading. Reading Rockets. https://www.readingrockets.org/article/simple-view-reading

Hanford, E. (2020, October 3). Influential literacy expert Lucy Calkins is changing her views. APM Reports. https://www.apmreports.org/story/2020/10/16/influential-literacy-expert-lucy-calkins-is-changing-her-views?fbclid=IwAR26L9qEoFLsxBYbe7y74qZMHgXUzrfiO2-vpOTQVxEYiPmlWuZyr5dbU10

 

Harbrouk, (2019, July 9). The science of reading: An overview (by Dr. Jan Hasbrouck) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTvHSgoTeZE

Kearns, D. M., Hancock, R., Hoeft, F., Pugh, K. R., & Frost, S. F. (2019). The neurobiology of dyslexia. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51 (3), 175-188.

 

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

 

The Barksdale Reading Institute. (n.d). The Reading Universe:  Understanding the Big Picture of Literacy Instruction [interactive grid]. https://www.readinguniverse.org/copy-of-concepts-of-print

 

Zakaluk, B. (1982). A theoretical overview of the reading process: Factors which influence performance and implications for instruction. [Unpublished monograph]. University of Manitoba.

 

Orthographic Mapping Leads to Reading Enjoyment

Orthographic Mapping Leads to Reading Enjoyment

by | Sep 8, 2020 | Dyslexia / Specific Disability in Reading, Teaching Reading to Struggling Readers, Understanding Research

Now, here is something to really sink your teeth into. Get yourself a cup of coffee or tea, and find a cozy, quiet spot to read. I have been learning about orthographic mapping over the past many months, and I feel that I am finally getting a grasp on it. This post covers recent reading research that is incredibly interesting, but also quite complex.

 

The big question we are concerned with today is, “How do students develop the ability to read words with ease?”

 

It is an important question to answer, because if we can help more students become fluent readers, we will be able to get them to the point where they can read for fun!  This happens only when students are able to read words automatically, with ease.  When words are instantly recognized, reading turns into something effortless and fun, and kids can dive into books and stories for enjoyment.

 

When first learning to read, students who have been taught to decode through phonics instruction are able to sound out words letter by letter. This happens very slowly, but eventually, most students are able to recognize words instantly.  How does this happen?

 

Word learning, or developing a sight word vocabulary, involves a mental process called “orthographic mapping” (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 27).

 

When we talk about orthography, we are talking about the symbols (letters) that are put together to form words. A word’s orthography is the precise sequence of individual letters, in a precise order (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 39).  Certain letter combinations that occur frequently in English become “unitized” once the child processes them a number of times.  This means that the common combinations like “str” and “ing” become single units, with the letters attached together in a chunk (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 33).

 

Orthographic Knowledge

 

Orthographic knowledge is the understanding that there are rules which determine the correct order of letters within words (Zakaluk, 1982 / 1886).  This structure is predictable, since in the English language, certain rules govern how letters can be arranged in words (Zakaluk, 1982 / 1996).

 

“One of the most significant facts about language is that it is structured: orthographic symbols are arranged according to a fixed set of rules and cannot be put together in nonpermissable graphemic sequences. For example, it is appropriate to string together the letters s, t and r to form /str/, but inappropriate, in English to combine them to form the sequence /tsr/…The fact that letters cluster in repetitive patterns thus serves as a generalization that can be applied to decipher new words” (Zakaluk, 1882/1996, Section: Orthographic Mapping, para: 1, bolding mine)

 

 

Sight Word – Definition

 

Reading researchers use the term “sight word” to mean “a familiar word that is recognized instantly, automatically and effortlessly, without sounding it out or guessing.  It does not matter if the word is phonetically regular or irregular.  The point is that it is immediately recognized” (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 27). This is important to clarify, since many people use the term “sight word” to mean a word that is spelled in a non-phonetic, irregular way.  In orthographic mapping, any word can become a sight word.  It happens when the word is instantly recognized by the reader.

 

When students read with ease, fluently, we know that they can’t be using their decoding skills to do it.  It happens too quickly for that.  We assume that the student has a picture of the full word stored in the brain, like a kind of visual picture of the word (Kilpatrick, 2016 / Dehaene, 2013). However, this assumption turns out not to be true. In fact, it has been shown by recent brain research that visual memory is not involved in reading, after all (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 27).

 

Whole Language Versus Phonics

 

Dr. Stanislas Dehaene (2013), a cognitive neuroscientist, has explained how recent science proves that words are not stored visually, as whole words. Dehaene explains that even though it feels like we read words as whole words, in actuality, we process letters one at a time, or in familiar chunks, when reading (Dehaene, 2013). This knowledge of how we decipher words using our brains is important, because when teachers learn about this science, it can’t help but impact their teaching practices.

 

If you are an early-years teacher, this knowledge that words are not stored as “whole words” may cause you to think differently about the kinds of tasks you have your students do.  Common practice in many classes, especially for teachers who have a “whole language” philosophy about reading, is to compile a list of irregularly spelled or high frequency words for students to memorize.  Students are assigned a stack of word cards, and the words are flashed in front of the child, while the word is said aloud.  The child repeats the word, and moves on to the next card.

 

In this task, typically the child’s attention is not drawn to the internal structure of the word (the letter combinations / the sounds), but rather they notice general way that it looks, the shape of the word.  The idea is that the child will remember the full word, once they have seen it and heard it said aloud numerous times.  However, we now know that this practice is not likely to be useful for many students. Dehaene (2013), explains that having students pay attention to the “global shape” of a word, attending to the way that the letters descend below or rise above the lines, is not an effective method to develop a student’s sight word vocabulary. Instead what is needed is for students to develop strong letter – sound knowledge.  Letter sound correspondence and decoding words, or sounding words out letter by letter is taught through the phonics method.  Dehaene’s research is important because it essentially puts the debate to rest about whole language versus phonics instruction (Dehaene, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25GI3-kiLdo).

 

 

Phonological Awareness and Letter Sound Knowledge Support the Development of Sight Words  

 

Moats & Tolman (2009) concur that it is not visual memory that is involved in reading, but rather a different process involving our phonological and orthographic processors.  If you recall, “phonological” refers to the sounds in spoken language.  Phonological awareness is the ability to break words down into syllables, and then into individual sounds or phonemes.  Phonemes are usually shown in print by isolating a letter between two slashes, like this:  /a/.  The slashes around the letter a show the sound that the letter “A” makes, in a word like “cat”.

 

The phonemes for the word sit are:  /s/ /i/ /t/.

 

For the word stand, the phonemes are /s/ /t/ /a/ /n/ /d/.

 

Some words have fewer phonemes than letters.  An example is that in the word fish, there are four letters, but only three phonemes.  The phonemes for fish are /f/ /i/ /sh/.

 

/sh/ is made up of two letters, but since it makes one sound, it is one phoneme.

 

As mentioned above, orthography has to do with the symbols in written language, the letters themselves.  Therefore, it is both the sounds within a word, and the letters, that are involved in orthographic mapping.  An important skill that must be developed then, is the ability to associate letters and their corresponding sounds quickly and instantly.

 

 

Dr. Dehaene explains that teaching letter to sound correspondence is the fastest way for children to learn to read and to comprehend what they read. He says that while visual memory is not used in full word reading, it is used in learning the names of the letters of the alphabet. Associating letters and sounds is ” a matter of visual-phonological memorization” (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 30).

 

So how does orthographic mapping actually occur?  This is a very difficult question to answer; it is hard to conceptualize exactly what is taking place. The information that I have come across on the topic is very intricate, but I will do my best to explain it, as I understand it. I highly recommend the following video, from the Reading League, that explains the process in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRHcUeGohc.

 

 

Phonological Awareness

 

Kilpatrick believes that all children should receive phonological awareness training all the way through to the end of second grade.  At the end of Grade 2, students should be screened to see which skills they still need to focus on.  No age is too old, for teaching phonological awareness.  Kilpatrick provides lessons for older struggling readers, who, he believes, will continue to struggle with reading if their phonological awareness difficulties are not addressed (2016, p. 18).

 

Dr. Kilpatrick recommends that we develop our students’ phonological awareness skills to the advanced stages, in order to develop strong readers.  As mentioned above, phonemes are the smallest units of sound in a word.  Phonological awareness is an umbrella term that encompasses the component skills involved in hearing the sounds in spoken language.   These skills, which progress from easiest to hardest, include:

  1. Hearing distinct words within sentences
  2. Hearing syllables within words
  3. Noticing alliteration, or that certain words begin with the same sound (example: sun, sat, sip)
  4. Hearing rhyming, and being able to produce rhyming words
  5. Phoneme awareness, or hearing the individual sounds within a word (cat is made up of /c/ /a/ /t/)
  6. Phoneme manipulation, or being able to swap sounds in and out of a word, to create a new word

 

 

When a student is first developing the understanding that sentences are made up of words, and words are made up of syllables, they are demonstrating the beginning stages of phonological awareness.  Eventually, students acquire the ability to break individual words into their smallest sounds, or phonemes.  Students are able to hear alliteration, and can distinguish the first sounds in words.  Usually, they will be able to hear the final sounds next, the sounds at the end of words. Eventually students are able to hear and pick out the sounds in the middle of words.

 

Phoneme Manipulation

 

The most complex phonological awareness task, and the task that is most highly connected with successful readers, is phoneme manipulation (Kilpatrick, 2016).  Awareness of phonemes comes naturally to some students, and some need to be taught how to do this, in a very specific, direct way.  For the 30 – 40% of students who do not develop this awareness on their own, it is essential to teach it, as they will not become strong readers without this ability (Kilpatrick, 2016).

 

Furthermore, Kilpatrick states that “poor phonological awareness is the most common cause of poor reading. Reading problems can be prevented if all students are trained in letter sound skills and phonological awareness” (2016, p. 13)

 

Phoneme manipulation is the most difficult of all of the phonological awareness tasks, because it involves taking a word apart (or segmenting it) into its component sounds, and then adding, deleting or changing one of those sounds.  Here are some examples of phoneme manipulation tasks, taken from Kilpatrick’s book, Equipped for Reading Success:  A Comprehensive Step by Step Guide for Developing Phoneme Awareness and Fluent Word Recognition (2016, pp. 221-221):

 

Teacher:  “Say cord”

Student:  “cord”

Teacher:  “Now say cord, but instead of /d/, say /k/

Student:  “cork”

 

Here is another one, that is a bit harder:

 

Teacher:  “Say hand”

Student:  “hand”

Teacher:  “Now say hand, but don’t say /n/”

Student:  “had”

 

According to Kilpatrick, activities like this help students to “map” words, so that they become sight words. In order to do these more difficult tasks with phonemes, students need to have mastered the easier phonological awareness tasks, to the point that they segment a word into phonemes so automatically that they do not even realise that they are doing it (Kilpatrick, 2016).  The act of separating and blending sounds has the effect of cementing certain sound sequences together, in the brain.

 

How does this happen?

 

  • The child takes a known word, divides it into phonemes.

 

  • The child understands that certain letters or groups of letters correspond with each sound in the word, and then bonds these together. The graphemes (letters), are bonded to the phonemes (sounds) in an exact sequence.

 

  • The sequence is specific to a single word, that becomes connected together, so that the word then becomes instantly recognizable (The Reading League, Retrieved on Sept 6, 2020 from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRHcUeGohc).

 

 

This belief in the importance of teaching phonological awareness and phonics is echoed by Reutzel and Cooter (2016):  “A prime objective of exemplary phonics instruction is to develop independent word-recognition strategies, focusing attention on the internal structure of words” (p. 187).

 

Phonics Defined

 

Recall here that phonics has to do with both letters and sounds, whereas phonological awareness has to do with just the sounds.  Phonological awareness training happens orally, with no visuals, no pencil or paper, or letter tiles.  Teaching phonics is visual, involving written letters. A good way to remember this is that you can do phoneme awareness tasks with your eyes closed.  Phonics requires your eyes to be open.

 

 

Additional support for this kind of teaching, comes from the National Reading Panel (NRP) Report:  “Recent findings indicate that connections between phonemes (sounds) and graphemes (letters) must be taught explicitly and that children must practice applying their phonological awareness skills in their reading and writing. These connections must be explicitly taught through phonics instruction, because “deduction does not always occur” (NRP, 2000 as cited by Reutzel and Cooter, 2016, italicized words mine). Some students might learn to read without explicit phonics instruction, yet without it, 30% of students will never become strong readers (Kilpatrick, 2016).

 

The Orton Gillingham Approach

 

What methods are best suited to teaching students to orthographically map words?  A structured literacy program, in which letters and sounds, letter combinations, and rules for English spelling, are taught explicitly and systematically, is best suited for this.  The Orton-Gillingham approach is one example of structured literacy.  In this approach, students are taught “jingles” to help remember spelling rules.  These rules are taught explicitly, with many examples, pictures and rhymes. Students memorize the rules, and repeat them over and over again, to help with reading and spelling (Bjornson, Orton Gillingham Academy, Classroom Instructor Course, June – July 2020).   As Zakaluk (1982/1996) explains, the English language is very structured and redundant, making knowledge of English spelling rules very useful to beginning readers (Section: Orthographic Mapping, para:  1).

 

 

 

Further Explanation of Orthographic Mapping

 

I found a clear and teacher friendly explanation of how orthographic mapping occurs at another teacher’s blog site, and I strongly recommend it to you:  https://sarahsnippets.com/how-do-we-learn-new-words-orthographic/.  Sarah’s blog posts include helpful pictures, as well.  She too, is a fan of Dr. Kilpatrick.

Thank you, Sarah, for your simplified explanations, and awesome visuals, and also to the Reading League for the very precise and descriptive videos!  Please see the links below!

 

 

References:

 

 

Bjornson, V.  (2020) Orton Gillingham Academy, Classroom Instructor Course.

 

Dehaene, S. (2013).  Retrieved from:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25GI3-kiLdo.

 

Kilpatrick, D. A. (2016).  Equipped for reading success: A comprehensive, step by step program for developing phonemic awareness and fluent word recognition. Syracuse: Casey & Kirsch Publishers.

 

Moats, L, & Tolman, C (2009). Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS): The Challenge of Learning to Read (Module 1). Boston: Sopris West.

 

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.

 

 

The Reading League, Retrieved on Sept 6, 2020 from:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRHcUeGohc

 

https://sarahsnippets.com/how-do-we-learn-new-words-orthographic/

 

 

Structured Literacy – The Sextuplets! AKA The 6 Syllable Types

Structured Literacy – The Sextuplets! AKA The 6 Syllable Types

by | Sep 1, 2020 | Dyslexia / Specific Disability in Reading, Evidence-Based Practices Series, Grade 1, Teaching Reading to Struggling Readers

As an identical twin, I think I look for doubles, similarities, or matches in almost everything I do.  If you are a twin like me, you likely find other twins to be fascinating, and swarm toward them like moths to a flame.  I had the absolute luck of getting to work in a classroom a couple of years ago in which the kindergarten teacher, the educational assistant, and I, the resource teacher, all had identical twin sisters! I experienced an immediate feeling of companionship whenever I entered the classroom.

 

Today I am going to introduce you to the six syllable types in English, and perhaps because of my personal way of seeing the world, I like to think of these syllable types as sextuplets.  They are similar but unique in their own special way, just like sextuplets would be!

 

In structured literacy approaches, the six syllable types are explicitly taught to students, as they develop an in depth understanding of English spelling.  Direct phonics instruction, that is carefully structured and sequenced, is key to structured literacy.

 

The National Reading Panel has identified five fundamental reading skills (Melekoglu, 2019, p. 412).  These five skills are the basis for developing reading skills in students and “problems in any one of these skills can impact improvements in other crucial skills” (p. 413).  The five skills are “phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and text comprehension” (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as cited in Melekoglu, 2019, p. 413).

 

Structured literacy has to do with two of the five fundamental reading skills:  the phonics and phonemic awareness skills, mainly.  However the other components are not forgotten or left out.  As you will see below, when a new letter or letter pattern is taught to students, they are given the opportunity to use that new knowledge in sentences and books.  These skills are not taught in isolation, but rather, applied to reading real text, as soon as possible, and within the same lesson.

 

The important elements of structured literacy, according to Valdine Bjornson of the Manitoba Reading and Learning Clinic, (Orton Gillingham Academy, Classroom Instructor Course, June – July 2020) are:

  • The reading instruction is highly sequenced, beginning at the most basic and working toward the complex.  For example, short vowels are taught before vowel teams.

 

  • It is cumulative, in that each lesson involves reviewing what was previously taught.  This occurs when the teacher asks questions about concepts learned in earlier lessons, weaving the concepts into the current lesson. The teacher constantly spirals back to previously taught information, since the later tasks are built on them.

 

  • Every lesson progresses logically, and builds sequentially.  Tasks that are easier, come first in the lesson.

 

  • Concepts practiced earlier on in the lesson are returned to towards the end of the lesson.  The student applies the letters / patterns that were introduced early on in the lesson, to reading and writing words and sentences in the final steps of the lesson.

 

  • Each lesson involves reading “connected text”; sentences or books that include the letters or patterns just taught. The teacher does not give students words or sentences to read that are beyond what they have been explicitly taught.  Doing so would be considered unfair, and would not be emotionally sound.  The teacher is careful to structure the lesson so that the student feels successful, and so they only give tasks to the student that they are confident the student will be able to do.

 

The Orton Gillingham approach is the premier model for structured literacy.  Once students have learned the letter names and sounds, the teacher introduces the six syllable types in English.  There are six syllable-spelling conventions used in English. It is useful to teach them because when students know the syllable types, it makes it easier for them to spell words correctly.  It also helps them to  know how to pronounce the vowels, in words that they do not yet know (Moats & Tolman, 2009).  When students learn how to chunk longer  words into syllables, and have been taught the syllable types, they are able to tackle longer words.  They will be also be less likely to skip or guess at longer words (Moats & Tolman, 2009).

 

Here is a list of the six syllable types.

 

  • Open
  • Closed
  • Silent – e
  • Vowel Team
  • Vowel R
  • Consonant – le

 

Before teachers can introduce the syllable types, students must learn how to divide a word into syllables, and how to count the number of syllables in a word.  This is an oral activity, in which the student is asked to repeat a word, and then clap or tap the number of syllables they hear.  Hearing syllables in words is one of the earliest steps in developing phonological awareness. As mentioned above, phonological awareness is one of the five essential components of teaching reading, according to he National Reading Panel.

 

It is sometimes helpful to have students count how many times their jaw moves down, when they say a word aloud.  Syllables can be counted this way, since every syllable has a vowel, and our jaws drop down each time we make a vowel sound (Moats & Tolman, 2009).

 

Try saying the following words aloud, and while you do, place your hand on your chin.

Count the syllables in each of these words:

 

Apple (2)

Potato (3)

Watermelon (4)

Box (1)

 

Open Syllable

Open syllables are syllables that end in vowels.  When the syllable ends in a vowel, the vowel sound is long.  An easy way to see this at work, is to look at short words that end in long vowels.  Remember that the long sound is when the vowel says its name.  The short sound is when the vowel makes its soft, short sound.  Long “E” is like the sound at the end of “me”, and short “E” is the sound in the middle of the word “bed”.

 

 

Each of these words end in a vowel, and the vowel sound is long.  These are examples of open syllable words.

 

Me

He

Hi

She

No

Go

So

 

 

Closed Syllable

Some smaller words that are examples of closed syllables, are words like “mat” and “set”.  Note that after each vowel, there is a consonant. Words that follow this pattern can be shown as “CVC” or consonant, vowel, consonant.  They can also look like this:  “VC”, in multisyllabic words like the first syllable in “ap-ple” or like in the word “ask“. The consonant “closes the door” and makes the vowel quieter.  One way to help students remember this, is to tell them that it is harder to hear someone who is talking behind a closed door, because the sound is softer.  That remind us that the vowel is making its soft sound.

 

Another idea is to use a visual cue, in which you show students how the pronunciation of a word changes when a consonant is added to the end of the word. To do this, you could have an open syllable word written on a longer card, so that part of the card can be folder over.  On the back of the flap, a consonant is written.  When the consonant is added to the end of the word, the pronunciation of the vowel changes.

 

For example,  the word “me” is written on a card, with a flap that has a letter “T” written on the back. The flap is the door.  When the door is open, the word is read as “me”, pronounced /m/ /ee/, but when the door is closed (the flap with the letter “T” on it closes like a door), the word now reads “met”. Opening the door again hides the “T” behind it, so the word reads “me” again.  This demonstrates the idea of open and closed syllables, and is helpful in illustrating the way that the vowel changes its sound in open and closed syllables.

 

In the training offered by the Orton Gillingham academy, picture cues are used to remind students about the different syllable types.  A tiger is used to show open syllables, due to the long “I” in the first syllable of the word ti – ger.  A camel is used to show closed syllables, due to the short “A” sound in the first syllable, and the fact that the letter “M” closes the door, and signals to us that the vowel uses its short, soft sound in this syllable.

 

The other four syllable types are very recognizable, especially when illustrated with a few examples.  Usually these syllable types are taught in single syllable words first, and then are expanded to words with multiple syllables. Remember that the “C” stands for “consonant”, and “V” for “vowel”.

 

Vowel Consonant – e

(VCe)

Examples:  rake, bike, hope, com-pete, des-pite

 

Vowel Team

(CVVC, CVV)

These are syllables with long or short vowel sounds, that use two or more letters to spell the vowel.  This category includes diphthongs like ou / ow, and oi / oy.  Examples of vowel teams are oo, ae, ai,

Words:  rain, read, away, loud, boy

 

Vowel – r

(V-r)

Also called “R controlled vowels”, because the letter “R” changes the way that the vowel sounds.

Examples are:  er, ir, or, ar, ur

Words:  fur, hurt, cart, yurt, sir

 

Consonant – le

(C-le)

These words have a consonant before the letter “L”, followed by a silent “E”.

Examples:  apple, candle, little

 

Once you know the syllable types, you can notice different combinations of these types in multi-syllabic words.  The word candle, for example, contains a closed syllable: “can”.  Then, the second syllable in the words is a consonant – le syllable: “dle”.

 

Teaching reading this way involves many components, including supporting students in developing phonological awareness, or the ability to hear the sounds within words, which is what they do when they break a word into syllables.  It also involves teaching them some vocabulary unique to English language.  In this structured literacy approach, children are  taught the meaning of the words “vowel”, “consonant”, and “syllable”, for example.  They are taught difference between a long and short vowel sound.  Additional vocabulary is introduced as we teach about open and closed syllables, and it expands from there.

 

David Kilpatrick, a well known reading researcher, advocates for using phoneme awareness and phonics in teaching students to read (2016).  He points out that one might wonder whether it is necessary to teach reading in such a structured and direct way, since it seems that most students learn to read and spell fine without this.  In reality, many students do learn to read without the use of a structured literacy approach, he agrees.  However, for about 30% of students, direct, systematic phonics and phonemic awareness instruction is vital in becoming a successful reader (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 16).  Without it, these students will remain struggling readers throughout school.

 

Teaching phonics and phonological awareness is necessary, in order to prevent many students from becoming struggling readers.  This method supports stronger readers in becoming even better at reading:  “Typical first and second graders can learn to read more quickly and efficiently when they are trained in phoneme awareness” (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 17).  Without a structured literacy approach, such as the Orton Gillingham method, early elementary school teachers will continue to struggle to meet the needs of the weakest readers in their classes.  Being a poor reader will have an impact on a student’s self-esteem and academic success, limiting their potential to become an accomplished, literate adult.

I hope you enjoyed meeting the sextuplets!  They might even feel close to your heart, it you are a twin or a triplet yourself.  I am sure you can appreciate the similarities and the important unique qualities of each.  As a twin, similarities and differences were very important, when I was growing up.  At times the differences were of utmost importance, as I struggled to define myself as an individual.  At other times, the sense of belonging that came from having someone with the same DNA as myself, the same voice, hair, eyes, nose, and body type was very soothing.

I hope you found this post helpful. If you are interested in learning more about structured literacy, I strongly recommend the Orton Gillingham Classroom Educator course, offered by the Manitoba Reading and Learning Clinic.  This post just barely scratches the surface, but if you would like to learn more, you can really go into it deeply through the Orton Gillingham training. For more information, please contact me below or through a message on the home page.

You can also go to directly to Manitoba’s very own Orton Gillingham Academy training locale, at  https://sites.google.com/view/thereadingandlearningclinicofm/home?authuser=0

 

 

 

 

 

References:

 

Bjornson, V.  (2020) Orton Gillingham Academy, Classroom Instructor Course.

 

Kilpatrick, D. A. (2016).  Equipped for reading success: A comprehensive, step by step program for developing phonemic awareness and fluent word recognition. Syracuse: Casey & Kirsch Publishers.

 

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

 

Moats, L, & Tolman, C (2009). Excerpted from Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS): Spellography for Teachers: How English Spelling Works (Module 3). Boston: Sopris West.  Retreived on August 31, 2020 from https://www.readingrockets.org/article/six-syllable-types.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Are IQ Tests Necessary Anymore, & What is a Good Source when Carrying out Research, After All?

Are IQ Tests Necessary Anymore, & What is a Good Source when Carrying out Research, After All?

by | Feb 24, 2020 | Dyslexia / Specific Disability in Reading

Have you had the experience of working closely with a student who has average intelligence, but is not able to read?  One student who I will never forget, who I will call Andy, was wise beyond his years.  In eighth grade, Andy chatted easily with adults on current events.  Yet Andy could not read.  He needed to have his books and assignments read aloud to him, and an adult recorded his responses, when it was time for tests and assignments.  Yet, his ELA teacher once told me that, at test time, she had to make sure that other students did not sit too closely to him, for fear they would hear his answers and copy them.  He loved novel studies, but was not able to read above the Grade One level.

What is it like for a person to advance to high school without the ability to read early-elementary level text?  How different is it for a student with average intelligence, as opposed to someone with a significant cognitive disability, to face this reality?

Dr. Freeze (2020) describes the ability to read as existential.  If a person cannot read, it impacts their sense of self.   His description of the struggle to read, for kids like Andy, is insightful: “…The stakes are raised for non-readers when they enter school. More than any other variable, knowing how to read predicts academic and social competence, confidence, engagement and positive outcomes throughout the school years. If children do not learn to read at elementary school, they face an existential crisis. This crisis first appears when children fail to make the transition from “learning to read” in Grades 1, 2 and 3 to “reading to learn” in Grades 4, 5 and 6. During this transition, non-readers’ personal self-doubts, frustrations and reluctance to read evolve into blaming the teacher or the book, resistance to reading activities, pretend reading and learned helplessness. By high school, non-readers feel shame, inferiority and anger…It should be noted that some non-readers find success in work and life. However, I have never met a non-reading adult, successful or otherwise, who did not lament that fact that he or she had never learned to read” (Chapter 5, pp 2-3).

Costello, Foss, King, Mann, Schupack & Wilkins (2015) concur:   “One’s language is very important to one’s identity.  When children with dyslexia struggle with reading and writing in their native language, it damages their perception of themselves.  A student’s frustration with the tasks of language may contribute to low self-esteem and the mistaken belief that he or she is simply unable to learn” (p. 1, Lesson 7).

Truthfully, had it not been for the fact that our school psychologist assessed Andy with a reading disability, and explained to me that, by definition, a person with a reading disability has average intelligence, I would likely have had an entirely different perception of Andy and my expectations for him would have been drastically different.  I might have assumed that he had very low intelligence, due to his inability to read, and would have made inaccurate statements and recommendations to his teachers.  I am grateful to our school psychologists for their ability to reveal to us so much about how the students we work with think and learn, and what is feasible for our students, in terms of academic and life goals.

Additionally, if I had known more about teaching reading to struggling readers back then, I would likely have been able to do more for Andy, in teaching him to read.  Unfortunately, in my own growth as a teacher, I had not yet focused on reading research, and was learning instead about supporting teenagers with significant disabilities in transitioning to the work place, and to assisted living communities.  Andy was an anomaly to me.  The other students I worked with from day to day had very low intelligence, and were not able to read as a result.  These two types of readers are addressed in the article that is the focus of today’s post, a research article entitled IQ is Not Strongly Related to Response to Reading Instruction:  A Meta-Analytic Interpretation, (Stuebing, Barth, Molfese, Weiss & Fletcher, 2009). 

 Now, in the USA at least, it will become much more difficult for teachers to have students assessed for reading disabilities or dyslexia.  Reasons for this change are explained below, but I have to say first of all, that I personally feel that not having this information puts teachers and students at a disadvantage in some ways.  It allows teachers, like myself, to jump to conclusions about a student’s intelligence and abilities, and removes the ability to check in with a psychologist to learn the true nature of a student’s strengths and weaknesses.  It allows for huge misperceptions on the part of everyone involved with the student.  I have heard arguments in opposition to the use of IQ testing, which warn us against labelling students, but I find that a label would not to be as detrimental as the alternative.  What if, for lack of an IQ test, we completely misunderstand a student’s cognitive ability, and set the bar much too low, or impossibly high?  What are your thoughts on the issue?

Prior to the revisions to Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 2004, schools used something called the “Discrepancy Model” to determine who received special education supports.  Essentially, this model involved checking whether there was a difference, or discrepancy between a child’s IQ scores, and how well the student was doing in school, or whether they could meet grade level outcomes.  A student who scored in the average range on an IQ test, but was struggling to read at grade level, could be diagnosed with a specific learning disability in the area of reading.  Once given this diagnosis, students were provided with special education services.  (Rosen, n.d.)

Now, in place of this model, many schools in the USA use the Response to Intervention (RTI) model.  This is the model that is used commonly here in Manitoba, as well.  In this model, there is no longer a significant need for IQ tests and specific diagnoses, when students are found to be struggling at reading.  Students are provided with support when they are first seen to be experiencing challenges.  The Response to Intervention (RTI) model “looks at all students’ reading, writing and math skills early in the school year. Then it provides targeted support to those who are struggling.  Children who don’t respond to increasing support may then be considered for special education. The benefits of RTI: Students get help early. And they don’t have to wait to prove eligibility in order to get support” (Rosen, n.d. section 5, paras 1-2).

Teachers who work with struggling readers usually work with two different types of students, according to Joseph (2002), those with “IQ-reading achievement discrepancies,” (those described above, like my student Andy), and “students with a combination of low ability and low reading achievement” (para 5). “Low ability readers make up the largest number of poor readers.  They tend to have lower than average IQ and have below grade level listening comprehension, word recognition, and reading comprehension performance” (para 6)

Many research studies have been conducted over the past decades that look at how effective IQ scores are in predicting student reading achievement, and how responsive students will be to reading intervention (Stuebing et al., 2009, pp. 31-32).

Steubing et al., (2009) looked at the results from a large number of studies of this kind, some which indicated that IQ was helpful is predicting student outcomes, and some which determined that there was very little difference in the learning outcomes of struggling readers with and without diagnoses of reading disabilities.  The goal of the Steubing meta-analysis was to look at the multiple studies that had been carried out over time, to determine for certain, whether IQ scores could tell us how students would respond to reading interventions.

Sometimes when meta-analysts gather data, they do not include all of the data that is available to them, even if that data is valid.  If a study shows a small effect, or if the results are considered “nonsignificant”, that study may not be sent in to be published, and the results may be ignored.  When only studies that show significant effects are included in a meta-analysis, the researchers are not seeing the whole picture.  When this happens, a positive bias can occur in the research (Steubing et al., 2009, p.  36).

The meta-analyses carried out by Steubing et al. was unique in that it included data that is sometimes left out, for the reasons described above.  The methods they used involved estimation.

When reading this, I asked myself, “Since when is it more accurate to make an estimation?  Aren’t estimates by definition less precise?”

Yet, the authors state that this method results in more accurate data, since a larger number of studies and therefore, more participants, are included and analyzed.  It is an approach that was advocated for by researchers Lipsey and Wilson (2002, as cited in Stuebing et al.).  It is a more difficult approach, that involves looking closely at studies that were unreasonably ignored in previous meta-analyses.

Apparently, in many meta-analyses, the researchers take the easy road, and look only at published studies that show a significant impact or difference.  it is simpler to leave out studies in which the data is less easy to analyze or studies which are not as easily retrieved, since they were never published.  This is something so common in fact, that it has been termed the “file drawer problem” by Rosenthal.  (as cited in Steubing et al., 2009, p. 36).  Again, a red flag rose in my mind, as I have been taught that the way to determine whether a source is reputable is whether or not it has been published by a respectful journal.

The researchers found, after looking at this much larger amount of data, including studies previously left out, that there were only very minor differences among the two groups of struggling readers. Thus, there was very little basis for requiring IQ tests (p. 44).  If the IQ test tells us that a learning disability exists or does not exist, but fails to impact how we teach reading to kids, I can see why people may question the need for IQ tests.

Essentially it was concluded that there is no difference in how these two groups of students learn to read:  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.  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).

What do we use then, if we do not use IQ scores, when planning reading interventions?  Instead, teachers can use tests of phonological awareness or reading comprehension, and be guided by the data they collect on their own.  An excellent article on how to support struggling readers with and without reading disabilities can be found in the following link:

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

I suppose that leads me to conclude that requesting an IQ test to determine which reading intervention to use with a particular student, may not be necessary.  I do, however, see the value in IQ tests when it comes to long range planning for students who struggle to read and learn.  These tests help teachers and parents to understand how an individual child’s brain works, what methods might be especially effective in supporting a specific learner, and what to expect in terms of progress over time.  I would like to invite you to share your own thoughts on IQ tests, below.

I would also like to invite you, colleagues of mine, who may have more experience with research and meta-analyses, whether the methods used in this study are in fact proper, or whether the results should be questioned, due to the use of estimation and non-published studies.  I am tempted to believe that the methods used by Steubing et al. are suitable and appropriate, considering that their results were published in a well-respected journal, even if the data from some of the studies they consulted was not.  Also, it makes sense to me that leaving out data can skew results, especially if that data is properly acquired.  What do you think?  Please share your thoughts and knowledge on the topic below!

 

 

References

Costello, S., Foss, J. M., King, D. H., Mann, M., Schupack, H. & Wilkins, A.  (2015). Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators.  AOGPE Subscriber Course – Lesson 7:  History of the English Language, Part 1.   Retrieved February 13, 2020 from   http://courses.ortonacademy.org/

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

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.

The Iris Center.  Star Legacy Modules.  Retrieved February 22, 2020 from http://www.ideapartnership.org/documents/IQ-RTI.pdf