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.