Page 1

The Reading League January 14, 2016

David A. Kilpatrick, PhD

State University of New York, College at Cortland East Syracuse-Minoa Central Schools

kilpatrickd@cortland.edu


1  2 

} 

Understand sight vocabulary development & fluency Learn the “elusive” research based reading interventions My real goal is to “whet your appetite” to embark on a course of self-study so you can become a “conduit” of empirical reading research to your schools. ◦  The Reading League will provide follow up resources


} 

Huge field

◦  Hundreds of new empirical studies appear every year

–  I have 480 such articles on my hard drive from 2012 alone!

} 

Flies under the radar of education-related fields

◦  General education, special education, literacy education, ELL education – even school psychology

} 

I was introduced to this “field” in the summer of 1997 via a former NYASP president (Phil McInnis)


} 

Annals of Dyslexia

} 

Dyslexia

} 

Journal of Research in Reading

} 

Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal

} 

Scientific Studies of Reading

} 

Written Language and Literacy


} 

Journal of Literacy Research

} 

Literacy Research and Instruction

} 

Reading Psychology

} 

Reading Research Quarterly


}  }  }  } 

}  } 

}  }  }  } 

}  } 

} 

American Educational Research Journal Applied Psycholinguistics Assessment for Effective Intervention Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties Brain and Language British Journal of Educational Psychology Cognition Cognitive Psychology Cortex Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Journal of Educational Psychology Journal of Experimental Child Psychology Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

}  }  }  }  }  }  }  }  }  }  }  } 

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition Journal of Learning Disabilities Journal of Memory and Language Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools Learning and Instruction Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal Learning Disabilities Quarterly Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice Memory and Cognition Psychonomic Bulletin and Review Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology


} 

Australian Journal of Language and Literacy

} 

} 

Australian Journal of Psychology

} 

} 

Behavior and Brain Function

} 

} 

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers

} 

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology

} 

Biological Psychiatry

} 

Journal of Educational Research

} 

Biological Psychology

}  } 

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Journal of Communication Disorders

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment Journal of Research in Childhood Education

} 

Brain

} 

Brain Research

} 

British Educational Research Journal

} 

British Journal of Developmental Psychology

} 

British Journal of Psychology

} 

} 

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology

} 

} 

Child Development

} 

Learning and Individual Differences NeuroImage

} 

Cognitive Brain Research

} 

Neurology

} 

Cognitive Neuropsychology

} 

} 

Cognitive Science

} 

} 

Contemporary Educational Psychology

} 

} 

Developmental Neuropsychology

} 

Neuropsychologia Neuropsychology

} 

Developmental Psychology

} 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

} 

Psychological Bulletin

} 

Developmental Science

} 

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

} 

Educational and Child Psychology

}  } 

} 

Journal of School Psychology Journal of Special Education

} 

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

} 

Journal of Vision

} 

} 

Language and Cognitive Processes

Neuron NeuroReport

Psychological Review

} 

Educational Psychology Review

Psychological Science Psychology in the Schools

} 

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Remedial and Special Education

} 

Exceptional Children

Review of Educational Research

} 

} 

} 

Exceptionality

} 

} 

International Journal of Disability, Development and Education

} 

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology School Psychology Quarterly

} 

International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders

} 

School Psychology Review

} 

Journal of Behavioral Education

} 

Trends in Cognitive Science

Journal of Child Neurology

} 

} 

} 

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

Vision Research


LANGUAGES Arabic Chinese Dutch English Finnish

COUNTRIES Australia Belgium Brazil Canada China

French German Greek Hebrew Italian

Japanese Korean Norwegian Portuguese Russian

Serbo-Croatian Spanish Turkish

Finland France Germany Greece Israel

Italy Japan Korea The Netherlands Norway

Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States


–Deaf Education

–Psychology—Behavioral

–Education

–Psychology—Cognitive

–Linguistics

–Psychology—Developmental/Child

–Literacy/Reading Education

–Psychology—Educational

–Medicine—Neurology

–Psychology—Experimental

–Medicine—Pediatrics

–Psychology—Neuropsychology

–Medicine—Ophthalmology

–Psychology—Psycholinguistics

–Optometry

–Psychology—School –Special Education –Speech/Language Pathology


WORD-LEVEL READING SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND WORD-LEVEL READING DIFFICULTIES


• 

Reading problems

•  NAEP - current reading difficulties – 30%-34% in 4th grade (NAEP) •  Related to behavior, self-esteem, graduation, college & career •  General & Special educational remediation •  Weak readers generally remain weak readers

• 

The gap between research and practice

•  Documented for general & special ed teachers, teacher trainers, and even (gulp!) school psychologists •  Lack of awareness of the research is the biggest factor


QUESTION: Show of hands . . .how many of you are in an elementary school that has a FORMALIZED (self developed or commercially developed) systematic phoneme awareness training for K or 1? •  Study after study after study shows such training at Tier 1 should reduce reading problems 50%-75%

•  i.e., 50% to 80% of at-risk kids in the bottom 15% no longer in the bottom 30%

•  Tier 2 should reduce reading difficulties even further

•  Research shows roughly the same magnitude of benefit as Tier 1

•  Tier 3 can get nearly half of students in the bottom 5% above the 30th %ile (or higher) and 99.5% out of the the bottom 5% •  Tier 3 could then be 1:1 or 1:2 to maximize results, even if not “normalized”

•  For those whose reading is not normalized: Graduating at a 6th grade reading level is better preparation for adulthood than graduating at a 2nd or 3rd grade reading level (our current bottom 1%-2% of readers)


Doesn’t this all sound too good to be true? The sad story: RTI was designed to “capture” the amazing results that researchers have repeatedly found. Yet it’s not happening in the schools! •  Focus seems to have shifted to the “framework” and “process” of RTI •  The actual instructional approaches were lost in translation

•  Everyone has to find these elusive “research-based” approaches on their own

•  A federal report from Fall 2015 says RTI Tier 2 is not working •  Those highly successful intervention approaches will be covered later


The key to understanding wordreading difficulties


} 

Understand how written words are learned

} 

Understand why some students struggle ◦  1) sounding out words and 2) remembering the words they read

} 

Determine what needs to happen for them to learn

} 

Determine if research shows this can happen


} 

} 

} 

} 

}  } 

Auditory (anything you can hear like a knock on the table) vs. phonological (sounds of speech) Phonological (sounds of speech including whole words, syllables, phonemes) vs. phonemic (the individual, smallest sounds in spoken words the phonemes – such as /s/ /u/ /n/) Orthography and orthographic (the proper way to spell sounds in a particular language – a speech sound in English is spelled differently than that same sound in other languages) Phonological awareness (oral – can do it with eyes closed) vs. phonics (visual - instruction teaching how the sounds in our words are represented by the letters in print) Phonic decoding – sounding out a word Sight word and sight word vocabulary (or orthographic lexicon) – see next slide.


•  Three definitions used in educational contexts

•  A term for the classic Whole Word approach to reading (i.e., “The Sight Word Approach” from the Dick and Jane days) •  An irregular word that can’t be phonically decoded (e.g., of, could) •  Any instantly familiar word that is recognized “on sight” •  Words that you already know and don’t have to sound out •  It doesn’t matter if it is phonically regular or irregular •  This last term is the only way I will be using the term •  The average adult person has 50,000-90,000 sight words in their sight vocabulary!

•  Thus, a sight word is a familiar, instantly accessible, known word. A sight word is a word that, upon looking at it, you can’t avoid reading it. It is THAT instantaneously!


} 

}  } 

} 

} 

} 

Alphabetic Writing – the squiggles that are the letters of the alphabet represent our speech at the phoneme level It was invented by an anonymous ancient Phoenician Alphabetic writing requires good phonological skills vs. syllabic or logographic (like Chinese) The alphabetic principle – is an insight that the sounds of spoken language are represented by the letters of the alphabet. Kids usually get this insight by first grade. Without appreciating the nature of alphabetic writing, the following emphasis on phonology will not make sense The next slide will show how important (indeed central!) phonology is to acquiring proficiency in an alphabetic writing system (“alphabetic orthography”)


} 

In an alphabetic languages, it’s all about the relationship between the sounds we’re making and how they’re represented on the page.


1. 

Phonological Development Early Phonological Awareness

Rhyming, Alliteration, Syllable Segmentation, First Sound Awareness

2. 

1. 

Basic Phonemic Awareness

2. 

Advanced Phonemic Awareness

3. 

Segmentation & Blending 3. 

Reading Development

Best assessed via phonemic manipulation (and timed)

Letter Name & Letter Sound Knowledge Phonic Decoding & Basic Spelling Skills Orthographic Mapping

(i.e., efficient sight word acquisition - a rudimentary version of #3 overlaps with #2)


} 

All three phases in the development of learning to read words require phonological skills ◦  This is virtually unavoidable in an alphabet based writing system because the “characters” (i.e., letters) represent sounds, not words

–  E.g., in Chinese, the characters represent words and in one of the two Japanese scripts the characters represent syllables

} 

Poor phonological skills can disrupt any or all of these phases

PHONOLOGICAL SKILLS ARE CRITICAL! Let’s try a couple demonstrations…


blue yellow green white! brown black purple yellow! blue gray red gray! red green brown pink! white orange brown red" Taken from Stroop, 1935


From Ehri & Wilce, 1987, Journal of Reading Behavior.

You had to put a lot of effort into NOT reading the words. THIS DEMONSTRATES SIGHT VOCABULARY! You had to suppress saying those printed words. PRECOGNITIVE means it’s already there and already available before you have a chance to think about it!


•  Sight words are effortless & pre-cognitive—words “pop out” •  The elusive key to reading fluency is: SIGHT VOCABULARY SIZE •  With a large sight vocabulary: Most (or all) words “pop out”; reading will be fast and accurate

•  With a limited sight vocabulary: •  Reading is effortful and often inaccurate because too many unfamiliar words require attention and strategic decoding. •  You’re stopping, hesitating, trying to figure things out. FLUENCY IS THE RESULT OF HAVING A LARGE NUMBER OF WORDS YOU CAN READ BY SIGHT – effortlessly.


•  Sight vocabulary development is compromised in students with reading difficulties/disabilities •  In most weak readers, lack of fluency is not due to inadequate practice •  Very little “practice” is needed to add words to one’s sight vocabulary for typically developing readers •  Reading practice (e.g., reading and rereading of the same text) is effective for typically developing students because they read a lot, have a lot of exposure to words, and the words become orthographically mapped (become sight words) in just 1 to 4 exposures! •  Just 1 to 4 exposure is all that is needed for permanent storage! (You’ll never forget that word and have to sound it out again!) •  Struggling readers may need dozens of exposures to a word for it to become a sight word.


•  Skilled readers exclusively rely on sight vocabularies while they read unless they encounter new/unfamiliar words •  Readers who are not good orthographic mappers have to sound out the same word over and over again, sometimes even though they may have just seen that word in the previous sentence. •  Understanding sight vocabulary development and how it develops as a result of good orthographic mapping is central to understanding and addressing most wordlevel reading problems


An Introduction to Orthographic Mapping


•  Our intuitions fail us here – research has debunked the visual connection. •  Input (visually seeing words with our eyes) and storage (retaining their pronunciations for later use) are not the same thing •  Input is visual, storage is orthographic, phonological, & semantic

•  Cattell’s in 1886 – timed flashed words on screens and reaction times. Found that a drawing of a tree (visual memory) and the word “tree” – the printed word was responded to more quickly than the picture!


•  Findings from the 1970s

•  Correlation between word reading & visual memory: zero to weak •  RD (only) kids have equivalent visual memory to non-RD

•  1960s to 1980s miXeD cAsE sTuDiEs

•  Words were presented with both upper and lower case letters •  About 200 words in mixed case presented as practice. Then presented different words in mixed case and there was no difference in time it took to read them in mixed case vs. same case •  Adams’ comment about debating with students – several students were angrily insisting that all the words were in the same case •  If a first grader learns “bear” he can instantly identify “BEAR” – putting words in capitals doesn’t slow down kids •  Consider all the fonts and personal handwriting we read (e.g., wedding invitations) •  IT’S THE ORDER OF THE LETTERS! We remember letter order, not visual memory of the word!


◦  Word reading correlates strongly with phonology not visual skills –  PA & Word-Level Reading: r = .30 to .85; –  Usually .5 to .7 depending on which PA test (more on this later)

–  Visual Memory & Word Reading: r = .1 to .2 (usually not statistically significant)

◦  Note how we sometimes “block” on names of people and things (visual memory of an old friend’s face won’t provide us her name), but never written words


◦  Neuroimaging studies since 2000 show us where in the brain various functions occur: –  –  –  – 

1) 2) 3) 4)

phonic decoding (left temporal); instant word recognition (left fusiform gyrus); memory for faces (right fusiform gyrus); and object naming (right parietal occipital)

These are processed in four different areas/sub-systems of the brain!

(Cattell’s findings in 1886 that we can read the printed word “tree” more quickly than we can say the word “tree” after seeing a picture of a tree, now make sense!)


Printed words are read instantly and effortlessly based on orthographic memory, not visual memory Hmm. What’s Orthographic memory?


•  Orthographic Mapping

•  The mental process we use to store words for instant retrieval •  How we efficiently turn unfamiliar words into familiar words •  The mechanism for building one’s sight vocabulary •  Weak readers are very inefficient orthographic mappers! •  Orthographic mapping requires phonological/ phonemic proficiency……


•  • 

Phonological Awareness vs. Phonological Proficiency

Phonological Awareness (PA)

•  Tied to performance on specific tasks (rhyming, alliteration, segmentation, blending, isolation, identification/categorization, manipulation) •  All PA tasks correlate with reading development •  Everyone agrees it is important •  Hazy relationship with reading development - most intuitively assume it simply relates to phonic decoding and spelling

• 

Phonemic Proficiency •  •  •  • 

Has a very clear, detailed relationship with reading development Ties in with our theories of word reading development Explains sight word acquisition (obviously not an intuitive conclusion) Appears to be the Holy Grail of understanding orthographic mapping (i.e., sight word learning) and the intervention studies that have featured working on phonemic proficiency are those with the most effective outcomes!


• 

Broadly:

•  Phonemic proficiency represents how much phonological/phonemic skill you need to be a efficient word-level reader •  Phonological proficiency vs. phonemic proficiency depends on level of development – kids will become more proficient at the phonological (e.g., syllable) level before the phonemic (e.g., individual sounds) level.

• 

Narrowly:

•  Phonemic is the ability to instantly and automatically (i.e., without conscious attention) to the phonemic segments of spoken words

• 

• 

Phonological proficiency is not captured on K-1 segmentation screening assessments PA develops until 3rd-6th grade; it doesn’t stop at 1st •  This further development is critical for sight-word development

• 

Only one current test directly tests phonemic proficiency and it is free to all of you via the supplemental materials for this presentation


By late 2nd grade

◦  Read never-seen-before single syllable nonsense words virtually instantly! (e.g., “blat” – they see it and just read it). They need to fetch /b/, then /l/, then /a/, then /t/, then blend them all together in less than a second! ◦  After asking them to: “Say ‘fly.’ Now say ‘fly’ and instead of /l/ say /r/.” Good readers will instantly say “FRY.” They have to take apart “fly” then identify where the /l/ is, omit it and replace it with /l/ then blend it together. They do it in under a second! No conscious effort! PROFICIENCY!


• 

• 

More difficult tasks and timing/automaticity are better estimates than simple segmentation tasks given on DIBELS and AIMSweb. Deletion and substitution PA tasks are better assessments of phonemic proficiency •  They capture automaticity and implicit access to the phonemic segments •  Phonemic segmentation tasks do not necessarily assess automaticity and proficiency

•  Basketball analogy – it’s great if I can make 98/100 free throw shots in basketball in my own driveway. It’s not good enough for me to become an NBA player because the proficiency needed for me to do this in my driveway is much different than the proficiency needed to do it in a game with tall defenders in my way.

•  Segmentation assessment is not enough

The importance of phonemic awareness for reading is actually UNDERRATED!


When you’re reading along in context and come to a word for the first time… fly …you sound it out…/f//l//y/. Then, if you have instantaneous access to the sound properties…you can connect the pronunciation to the printed form on the page. You already have ‘fly’ in your long term memory…that’s the anchor for THE LETTER SEQUENCE of those letters/sounds. You’ve matched that printed F to the sound /f/, the printed L to the sound /l/, and the printed Y to the sound /i/.


These two elements have been missing in a lot of our assessments and interventions.


• 

• 

•  • 

• 

What skilled readers can do that struggling readers cannot do: TOWRE/TOWRE-2 and instant reading of single syllable nonsense words PAST and the instant manipulation of phonemes Identifying letter sounds and segmenting words is so proficient it is PRE-COGNITIVE, i.e., implicit and unconscious But not for struggling readers, which is why they are poor orthographic mappers


• 

• 

• 

Of the 40,000 to 90,000 words in our sight vocabulary, only a tiny fraction were taught to us directly Most were learned “in real time” while reading – we taught them to ourselves. What was needed for us to do this? •  Phonic decoding skills •  Phonemic proficiency


• 

Orthographic mapping requires proficient letter-sound skills and phonemic proficiency

•  Advanced phoneme proficiency is essential for storing words but is not needed for phonic decoding

•  Phonic decoding is based on letter-sound skills and phonological blending


Many incorrectly assume PA loses its importance for reading after first grade

•  Based on the declining correlations between PA & reading with age (in typical learners, by the way!). This decline is misleading •  Similar to how letter-name knowledge loses its correlation to reading •  3rd to 6th Grade level of PA ≈ an adult level of PA skill, so •  We function as if any PA development beyond Gr. 1 is of no consequence for reading development •  The most popular PA test is segmentation = the least sensitive to reading! •  When PA tasks level out: Segmentation – late Gr 1; Untimed manipulation – late 2nd to late 3rd; Timed manipulation (best test of proficiency) – 5th grade


• 

Phonological long-term memory (LTM) is the foundation for orthographic memory

•  Phonological LTM refers to all the words (and word parts) orally familiar to us, regardless of whether we know their meaning

Phonological LTM (Phonological Lexicon)

Vocabuary (Semantic Lexicon)

Phonological LTM (Phonological Lexicon)

Vocabuary (Semantic Lexicon)


• 

• 

• 

Phonological long term memory is the anchoring point for remembering printed letter strings Phonological proficiency is the means by which orthographic sequences attach to phonemic sequences in phonological LTM; making those strings familiar Without phonological proficiency, there’s no efficient way to make use of spoken words stored in Phonological LTM as the “anchoring” point


“Transparent” Words (i.e. words with one-to-one correspondence between letter and sound)

PLTM Phoneme Awareness/ Analysis

/red/

win

/haz/

Orthographic Mapping

Letter-Sound Knowledge

/r/ /ĕ/ /d/

/h/ /ă/ /z/

/w/ /ĭ/ /n/ Phoneme Blending

red Oral First: A mind prepared to store words

has

Phoneme Awareness/ Analysis

/win/

Phonological LTM Activation

Self-Teaching Hypothesis Print First: Mapping while reading


Words that are “Opaque” (i.e. words without a one-to-one correspondence between the printed letters and the sounds)

/m/ /ā/ /k/

/r/ /ē/ /d/

/c/ /ō/ /m/

make

read

comb

If we have the pronunciation in our memory, it can serve as the anchor for the sequence of letters in the word. We will not confuse make for made or mike. Make will become a part of our sight word vocabulary.


Regular vs Irregular & Transparent vs Opaque

/h/ /ă/ /t/

/b/ /ā/ /k/

/s/ /ŭ/ /n/

/s/ /ĕ/ /d/

hat

bake

son

said


•  Irregular and opaque words take longer to learn

•  Only 1-2 extra exposures for typical readers; many more for RD

•  Most irregular words are off by only one element

•  (said, put, comb, island; multiple violations are rare: one, iron)

•  Many regular words are not transparent but are mapped with little difficulty – a minor adjustment is needed •  Silent e words (bike, make) •  Word with vowel digraphs (seen, boat) •  Words with consonant digraphs (that, she)

•  Multi-syllabic regular words change the vowel (“vowel reduction”), just like irregular words •  Holiday, market


•  Thus, irregular words require similar “adjustments” as those needed for many regular words •  Irregular words do not cause reading problems in English •  Even very regular orthographies (e.g., Italian, Spanish) have RD •  English phonic decoding harder to learn, but these irregularities are not the cause of poor sight word reading

•  Conclusion: Irregular words are not a challenge for skilled orthographic mappers

•  “Exception words are only exceptional when someone tries to read them by applying a [phonic] decoding strategy. When they are learned as sight words, they are secured in memory by the same connections as regularly spelled words . . .” (Ehri, 2005 p. 171-172)


The “actual� best practices nobody has noticed yet . . .


} 

My 90/10 “Insight” Spring 2013

◦  Refined in 2014 and being further reviewed


About 80%-90% of intervention studies show 0 to 9 SS point improvements in word reading Only 10%-20% of intervention studies show 12.5 to 25 SS point improvements in word reading –  Results maintained at 1, 2, 3 & 4 year follow ups (depending on the study) –  Results from the 0-8 studies often lost gains in follow up studies


The 80%-90% were subdivided into two groups: 0 to 5 SS points and 6 to 9 SS points

Thus a “tripartite� division exists within the intervention research! Minimal results group: 0 to 5 standard score improvements Mostly 2-4 points

Moderate results group: 6 to 9 standard score improvements Mostly 6-7 points (one study had 9)

Highly successful group: 12.5 to 25 standard score point improvements Mostly 14-17 points

NOTES: A standard score is the number of standard deviations above the mean. A standard deviation (SD) of improvement means a student who gets an 85 on a word reading test will move up to 100. Another who has a 75 will get a 90. The students in the intervention research studies were getting normalized performance and maintaining their gains! These are the studies that prompted RTI! The students became orthographic mappers!


} 

Studies in all three categories cut across what studies normally look at: ◦  ◦  ◦  ◦  ◦ 

} 

1) age/grade 2) SES, 3) group size (e.g., 1:1 vs. 1:3) 4) severity level of reading difficulty 5) length of intervention

These factors cannot explain the disparity in outcomes

◦  6 to 8 recent meta-analyses of intervention focused on these and missed the glaring tripartite division –  (The big W in It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad World)

} 

All three categories (0-25) used explicit, systematic phonics ◦  Thus, phonics is not “the answer” BUT ◦  It’s an important part of the answer: All studies NOT using explicit, systematic phonics were in the 0-5 minimal outcome group


The 3 categories based on outcomes align with three different intervention approaches relative to orthographic mapping! } 

Minimal Group (0 – 5 SS improvements)

◦  None formally trained phonological awareness/analysis ◦  Most did explicit, systematic phonics ◦  All provided reading practice with connected text

} 

Moderate Group (6-9 SS improvements)

◦  All did explicit, systematic phonics ◦  All provided reading practice ◦  All but one trained phonological segmentation and/or blending

–  This is “basic phonological awareness” (mastered by most at end of 1st grade) like segmenting and blending


} 

Highly Successful Group (12-25 improvements)

◦  Aggressively addressed and “fixed” PA issues using advanced PA training (e.g., “Say ‘bent’…now say ‘bent’ and change the /n/ to /s/”) ◦  All did explicit, systematic phonics ◦  All provided reading practice with connected text

} 

} 

These interventions gave students the foundational tools for orthographic mapping They now became efficient at adding words to their sight vocabulary ◦  Apparently, none of the other interventions did this

} 

There was a fluency lag, however

◦  Fluency improved, but not to same degree as isolated word reading ◦  Capacity to add to the sight vocabulary vs. actual sight vocabulary based on reading experience


}  } 

} 

Conclusions consistent with orthographic mapping Unless their problem with advanced phonemic awareness is fixed, poor word-level readers don’t catch up Advanced phonemic awareness is essential for sight word development and if they don’t have it, they cannot efficiently add to their sight vocabulary


} 

The three part “formula” used in the studies with highly successful outcomes

1  Aggressively train phonological awareness to the advanced level 2  Teach and/or reinforce letter-sound knowledge & skills (phonics) 3  Extensive opportunities to read connected text

} 

Do these sound familiar . . . ? What are we missing?

◦  Phonological awareness assessment training is typically segmentation –  Only takes a child to an ending 1st grade level –  Not enough PA for orthographic mapping

◦  PA continues to grow past 1st grade – this is treated as inconsequential! ◦  PA training assumed not to be helpful with older students ◦  Phonological awareness assessments only take us to the basic level – we do not assess the advanced level on our current tests (I’ll provide you with the one exception)


} 

The following interventions have been studied in the empirical reading literature and have been shown to yield 2 to 5 standard score point improvements: ◦  Repeated Readings, READ180, Reading Recovery (all independent studies), Fast ForWord, Read Naturally, Failure Free Reading, and Great Leaps ◦  These are commonly recommend these not knowing they have already been studied and shown to have limited results –  Rarely do students “catch up” with these approaches –  Many of these have studies with “statistically significant” results so they can all themselves “research based”!


} 

“Gold Standard” phonic programs (i.e., Wilson, Orton-Gillingham, DISTAR/Reading Mastery)

◦  Often yield huge improvements in phonic decoding (15-25 SS points), but limited improvements in general word identification (e.g., 3-5 SS points) ◦  They typically do not develop phonological proficiency, which is needed for orthographic mapping/sight word development ◦  Research shows that poor response to these programs is based on poor phonological awareness

} 

} 

Reading comprehension interventions in the presence of significant word reading difficulties are minimally helpful Also, any suggestion that some students simply cannot learn phonic skills is not based on research and guarantees a student will not catch up ◦  Again, phonics “treatment resistors” have poor phonemic awareness


} 

Tier 1 instruction – What is effective K-1? ◦  KEY COMPONENTS ◦  ◦  ◦  ◦ 

Phonological Awareness Letter-Sound Knowledge Connecting phonological awareness to word-level reading Good teaching techniques based on general learning principles –  Seems to be the focus of RTI efforts

} 

} 

Early, rigorous development of PA and LS skills in K-1 dramatically reduces the number of struggling readers Quick Survey: ◦  Adjustment to earlier question . . .


} 

Programs used in studies with highly successful outcomes ◦  Experimenter designed – not commercially available L ◦  Florida Center for Reading Research (pieces of these experimenter designed approaches) – all free! www.fcrr.org ◦  Road to the Code (Benita Blachman et al.) ◦  Phonemic Awareness in Young Children (Adams et al.) ◦  Ladders to Literacy (O’Connor et al.) ◦  Interactive Strategies Approach (Scanlon, et al.) ◦  Other programs: –  Rosner program – long track record of success in schools –  Equipped for Reading Success (studies underway; based on Rosner)

} 

These are effective for K-1 prevention & early intervention, but not for Gr. 2-12 remediation ◦  They do not train to the level of advanced phonemic awareness ◦  Other programs are more well suited for intervention…see next slide


} 

Programs used in studies with highly successful outcomes ◦  Experimenter designed – not commercially available L ◦  Lindamood (ADD now LiPS) ◦  ◦  ◦  ◦  ◦ 

–  Be cautious about the Seeing Stars they are promoting now (in the 0-9 group)

Interactive Skills Program (now in book form) PhonoGraphix Read, Write, Type (only one study so far) Discover Reading (Reading Foundation, Alberta, Canada) Other programs using advanced PA training not in these studies:

–  Rosner program – long track record of success in schools –  Equipped for Reading Success (studies underway) is the only program based upon Orthographic Mapping–should have equivalent results to the others but is easier to implement (based on the Rosner program)

◦  All studies with highly successful outcomes (12-25 group) did “advanced” phonological awareness training!


} 

} 

} 

There is a singular developmental path of typical wordlevel reading from letter name knowledge to fluent reading of multisyllabic words in connected text This singular path involves development of phonological proficiency and letter-sound/phonic proficiency The goal is to get students to develop orthographic mapping skills – phonic decoding is a very important step along the way ◦  Also a lifelong skill for encountering unfamiliar written words

} 

Fluency does not appear to be an additional reading skill, independent of this singular path/process ◦  Fluency appears to be a by-product of the efficiency of reading development (more on this later)


} 

kilpatrickd@cortland.edu

The Reading League - January 14, 2016 Presentation  

Recent Advances in Understanding Reading Development and Difficulties: Prevention and Highly Successful Interventions - Dr. David Kilpatrick

The Reading League - January 14, 2016 Presentation  

Recent Advances in Understanding Reading Development and Difficulties: Prevention and Highly Successful Interventions - Dr. David Kilpatrick