Printer Friendly

Significant reading improvement among underachieving adolescents using LANGUAGE! A structured approach.

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a structured reading intervention program with adolescents identified as evidencing significant reading underachievement. The LANGUAGE! program was implemented for one school year with 552 students in grades 6, 7, 8, and 10 in an urban west-coast school district. Students received daily intervention for 90 minutes in groups of 10 to 28 students. Progress was measured by a comparison of pre and post test data on several measures of reading decoding and comprehension. Statistical analysis suggested that implementation of the LANGUAGE! intervention program was effective in significantly improving reading comprehension and spelling, word recognition for students in grades 7 and 10, and reading decoding for students in grades 6, 8, and 10 in the sample. Results are interpreted as they relate to improving reading performance of adolescents with intractable reading underachievement.



One-fourth of American students experience difficulty with reading (Calfee & Norman, 1998). In fact the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed that only one-fourth of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders were "proficient or above" in writing while one-third were proficient in reading. This results in significant numbers of students performing below grade level expectations in writing and reading. (Donahue, Voelk, Campbell, & Mazzoo, 1999). In a 1998 speech to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Dr. G. Reid Lyon reported that reading would challenge 60% of American children throughout their school experiences. If students are not successful in literacy by 6th grade, many become unwilling to engage in reading activities at all (Pittner &Coit, 1999). By the time they enter high school, students with low reading skills have a limited chance of attending college (Lyon, 1998). Unless a concerted effort towards reading and writing intervention is undertaken prior to these students exiting high school, statistics show that they will likely be underemployed, undereducated, and underutilized in our society.

The incidence of reading underachievement among adolescents has led educators and politicians to re-examine overall literacy instruction particularly for adolescents. Adolescent students with poor reading skills are often multiple years below grade level and in immediate need of effective intervention. To evaluate effective literacy instruction for adolescents, the factors that have contributed to the current high incidence of reading achievement among adolescents must be understood.

Understanding the Problem

There are several factors that affect a child's development of reading achievement. Research has shown that strong literacy skills begin early in life (Adams, 1990; Chall, 1983; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998). Students who come from strong literacy environments have better developed vocabularies, awareness of print concepts, and more reading experiences than other students (Lyon, 1998). Parental variables play an important role in a child's early literacy, such as the socioeconomic level of the family, parental reading level and their oral language facility (Lyon). Student mobility is another factor impacting early literacy. When students change schools, frequently instruction is fragmented and important skills are missed. Extreme mobility may be associated with low family income, seasonal employment of parents, or limited English proficiency (Donahue, et al., 1999; Wright, 1999). Conversely, higher reading and writing performance is associated with more reading material in the home, family involvement in the student's education, and discussions at home about reading in general. These variables all provide a strong foundation for acquiring literacy skills

In spite of the importance of a rich literacy environment early in a child's life, effective instruction throughout school is also essential. Two contrasting instructional reading methods, code based versus comprehension based, have been differentially supported over many decades in American schools (Adams, 1990; Calfee, & Norman, 1998; Cantrell, 1999; Maston, 1996; Routman, 1997). These contrasting approaches have been termed phonic based versus whole language, and the philosophies representing each have framed the reading instruction debate. Phonics instruction focuses on systematic memorization of sound-letter associations and rules, often through drills, worksheets, and basal readers (Lyon, 1998; Maston; Routman; Stein, Johnson, & Gutlohn, 1999). Those who use whole language instruction do not systematically teach the structure of written language, but rather assume the child will internalize the phonemic structure of language based on reading meaningful text (Strickland, 1998). Teachers use a variety of children's literature emphasizing comprehension of the overall story. When questions arise about decoding words and their phonemic structure, teachers address the specific question and then provide more practice reading meaningful text.

While both approaches have strengths and weaknesses, many education colleges, school districts, and some states have endorsed whole language to the exclusion of systematic phonics instruction (Maston, 1996; Moats, 1998; Routman, 1997). The focus on whole language as a methodological approach to reading instruction, resulted in teachers entering their professions without an understanding of the structure of oral language (Honig, 1997; Moats; Strickland, 1998). According to a number of studies (Honig; Lyon, 1998), the numbers of students underachieving in reading increased significantly in schools that neglected early systematic phonics instruction. For example, in 1987, California adopted a state curriculum focusing on whole language literature-based instruction. Poor reading scores on NEAP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) assessments in 1994 precipitated a return to systematic phonics instruction in 1996 (Maston; Routman).

Most attempts to address underachievement in reading have been aimed at elementary age students (Honig, 1997; Moje, Young, Readence, & Moore, 2000; Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999). Intervention for adolescents has been largely neglected due to an assumption that they will not be motivated to participate in systematic decoding instruction and/or they will evidence minimal improvement. Further, the focus on curricular content for middle and high school students renders a remedial class in reading often unrealistic for many students. In spite of infrequent implementation of remedial reading programs for adolescents, some states are funding pilot remedial reading programs for middle and high school students. In states where students are required to take state standardized assessment tests, teachers are motivated to implement programs to raise students achievement scores in skill areas like reading not just for elementary age students but also for older students.

Reading Intervention Programs Aimed at Adolescents

Overall, poor adolescent readers demonstrate poor decoding, poor spelling, few or no strategies to attempt an unknown word, weak vocabulary and oral language, little outside reading, and a well developed set of avoidance behaviors (Honig, 1997).

Many programs have been designed to address reading skills or low academic achievement in at-risk adolescents. Programs such as Project Enable (MacDonald, 1999) and The KIP Program (Grann, 1999; Levin & Fienberg, 1994) focus on social intervention as a way to improve academics. Characteristics of an effective program may include individual attention, counseling for at-risk behaviors, help with development of social skills and self esteem, high expectations for achievement and behavior, and parent/family involvement and responsibility (Manning, 1993).

Project Enable (MacDonald, 1999) targeted at-risk middle school students in a poor, urban area. Components of the program included adult mentors, high-interest low-reading level books, computer programs, and field trips to see possible career choices. The program emphasized training on self-esteem and goal setting, life choices, behaviors, social skills, and conflict resolution.

The KIP Program (Grann, 1999) targeted at-risk adolescents in urban middle schools located in New York and Texas. This program emphasized appropriate dress and behavior, "mainstream culture", and developing character skills. Parents and students signed contracts indicating their commitment to the program. A strict incentive/punishment system was used to maintain discipline, accountability and high standards. After one year, students in New York demonstrated reading scores 54% higher than before. In Texas, one year of intervention resulted in 91% of students passing the state literacy test compared to one-third before intervention.

Other approaches to low reading achievement target improved comprehension skills. Some educators believe that low readers are often denied the opportunity to improve comprehension skills because they are placed in literacy poor environments where reading is segmented into a series of steps to be mastered (Zigo, 1998). Since the ultimate goal of reading is the construction of meaning, some interventions for adolescents concentrate entirely on strategies to improve understanding, vocabulary, and recall of information.

Story elements and mapping provide a framework for students to recognize and recall elements of texts. Mapping allows students to visually represent the information so recalling details is easier. Mapping techniques have been shown to help students answer literal and inferential questions about texts, as well as write more cohesive stories (Gardill & Jitendra, 1999; Vallecorsa & DeBettencourt, 1997).

Other comprehension strategies include Narrative Thinking (Zigo, 1998), Reciprocal Teaching (Palinscar & Brown, 1984), pre-reading activities designed to activate background knowledge (Idol-Maestas, 1985; Snider, 1989), and the K-W-L strategy (Ogle, 1986; Shelly, Bridwell, & Hyder, 1997). Overall, programs which target one aspect of comprehension typically result in improved comprehension skills for specific materials only (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997).

In contrast to comprehension based intervention programs or programs that focus on social skills, other programs directly teach decoding skills. Students typically focus on phonological awareness, sound/letter relationships, and learning to segment and blend sounds into words. Most programs teach a systematic strategy to break unfamiliar words apart or combine sounds for spelling. Most decoding programs do not address comprehension skills.

Decoding programs based on Orton-Gillingham principles have been successfully implemented with college students (Chander, Munday, Tunnell, & Windham, 1993; Guyer & Sabatino, 1989), juvenile delinquents (Simpson, Swanson, & Kunkel, 1992), and school-age students (Oakland, Black, & Stanford, 1998). All studies resulted in improved word attack skills and mixed reading comprehension results.

The Lindamood Program, known as the Auditory Discrimination in Depth Program (ADD; Lindamood & Lindamood, 1975) and the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program- Third Edition (LIPS; Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998) is the second main decoding program used. Lindamood instruction implemented with students between the ages of 7 and 12 years results in improved phonological awareness skills, word attack, and word recognition. The same students also demonstrated more phonemic and alphabetic strategies when spelling (Alexander, Anderson, Heilman, Voeller, & Torgenson, 1991; Kennedy & Backman, 1993).

Phonographix (McGuinness, McGuinness, & McGuinness, 1996) is a newer program based on Orton-Gillingham ideas. When implemented with students ranging in age from 6 to 15 years, Phonographix instruction resulted in significant gains in word recognition and word attack after 12 hours of intervention. Two years after the initial treatment, a parent survey showed subjects were no longer identified as learning disabled and all had improved grades (McGuiness et. al., 1996).

The LANGUAGE! Program

When choosing an appropriate reading program for adolescents, educators face a dilemma. Given the integrated nature of reading, and the fact that most programs only address one component of reading, which intervention is most appropriate for the needs of the students? Which intervention will yield the best results? This decision is difficult because of the lack of research into adolescent reading. Most studies examine effective strategies for younger students and generalize the effectiveness of this information to older students. As a result, funding is primarily provided to establish and research early intervention and elementary school programs (Moje et al., 2000; Moore, et al., 1999). When research is conducted, the studies often lack elements of good research, such as control groups, long term intervention to show progress, consistency of instruction, and adequate subject size (Oakland, Black, and Stanford, 1998). The most consistent use of control groups and scripted intervention has been reported for decoding programs (Alexander et al., 1991; Chander et al., 1993; Guyer & Sabatino, 1989; Kennedy & Backman, 1993; McGuiness et. al., 1996; Oakland et al, 1998; Simpson et al., 1992)

Overall, research has shown that a significant proportion of adolescents currently experience reading difficulties. A variety of programs exist which focus on one aspect of reading instruction instead of the process of reading. Research on effective interventions for adolescents at risk is still an area of great need. Jane Fell-Greene, aware of the limitations of existing programs, published LANGUAGE! A Structured Approach in 1995 as a solution to the dilemma (Greene, 1995, 1998).

Given the existing reading needs of adolescents and lack of well-documented alternatives, educators have been searching for new alternative programs. LANGUAGE! (Greene, 1995) was designed as a comprehensive curriculum for at-risk students in 4th through 12th grades. The curriculum includes direct instruction of phonemic awareness, letter/sound correspondence, reading, writing, spelling, grammar, language, and vocabulary skills.

LANGUAGE! was designed for adolescents and adults who had not learned to read and write through traditional instructional methods such as whole language or basal reading programs. The curriculum is based on the premise that certain students learn best when learning small parts of language in a structured manner (Greene, 1995).

LANGUAGE! is implemented individually or in small groups. Students are typically seen outside mainstreamed classes in blocks of two hours. Students are initially placed into the curriculum by completing a spelling test. Although students enter the program at different places, they are expected to participate until the curriculum is completed. LANGUAGE! is made up of three levels and takes approximately three years to complete (Greene, 1996). Each level has student skill books and corresponding controlled vocabulary readers, the J & J Language Readers (Greene & Woods, 1991).

Level I, made up of 24 non-phonetic vocabulary words, has a readability level ranging from primer to 2.4 grade level. Level II ranges from 2.5 grade level to 4.5 grade level reading levels. Students are expected to learn long and short vowels, R controlled vowels, schwa, consonant blends, syllables, sight words, and comprehension strategies. By the end of the level, students should have mastered phonetic reading and read fluently. Level III includes reading skills 4.6 through 6.0 grade level (Greene, 1995). Students expand comprehension strategies, focusing on morphology and syntactic skills, while reading more difficult materials.

A six-step process for teaching each unit is provided in the LANGUAGE! Manual (Greene, 1995). The instructor introduces the new concepts and reviews vocabulary out loud. After oral directions are provided for the student workbook activities, the student completes the unit tasks and the teacher checks the work. Next, the student reads silently in the J&J Reader. Student and teacher conference to check comprehension and answer expansion questions. The student completes writing assignments on provided topics. The teacher only counts errors for concepts that have been previously taught. Last, the student completes the unit spelling test. If mastery (80% accuracy) is demonstrated on all tasks, the student moves on to the next unit. If concepts are not mastered, the teacher re-teaches until mastery is achieved.

A pilot study on the effectiveness of LANGUAGE! was conducted in 1994-1995 (Greene, 1996; 1998). A group of 43 young adults sentenced to detention facilities received LANGUAGE! instruction for approximately 23 weeks. Records indicated that all subjects were between 13 and 17 years old, had average IQ and histories of low socioeconomic levels. The control group consisted of similar subjects who received intensive, traditional, language arts instruction while serving their sentences.

Both groups made progress after an average stay of 20-23 weeks. The LANGUAGE! group demonstrated lower overall language skills on pre-testing measures. The students in this group were drawn from states with consistently low NEAP reading scores (Greene, 1996). Participants in the LANGUAGE! showed .5 to 1 full standard deviation or three years improvement on the GORT-3. Standard scores on the WRAT-3 showed average spelling scores increased from 73.55 to 82.57, and reading scores increased from 74.22 to 92.13. All gains were significant when compared to the control group's performance (Greene, 1996, 1998). The use of LANGUAGE! was considered a successful intervention for the young adults in the study.

Given the need to further substantiate the effectiveness of programs implemented in the public schools, more efficacy studies are needed. Although the pilot study showed LANGUAGE! did improve reading skills in a select population of adolescents, can it be implemented as successfully in the public school? The purpose of the current study is to examine data collected from three schools and determine the effectiveness of Language! when it is implemented in a larger population enrolled in a public school district.



During the 1998-99 school year, a west coast school adopted the Language! program as a district curriculum for students with poor reading achievement. Three schools were chosen to implement the curriculum after the majority of students (83%) performed below average in reading when compared to the national results of the Stanford Achievement Test.

From the three participating schools, data were collected on 552 students in grades 6, 7, 8, and 10. Of the 552 students, 276 were male and 275 were female. The majority of the students who participated were not identified as special education students. Fourteen students were classified as special education by the school district, but no information was provided on disabilities or aptitude. Sixty-four percent of the students were considered to have English as a primary language. Half of the students represented in the data were Asian-Americans. Thirty percent were Hispanic. African-Americans accounted for 14% of the sample. Nine percent of the students were Caucasian and 2% were Native American.


Within the three participating schools, language arts teachers received training in LANGUAGE! implementation and materials. Initially, teachers attended three days of training conducted by a certified LANGUAGE! trainer. Some teachers received four follow-up sessions during the school year, however the additional training did not result in significantly different outcomes for students.

In the context of their language arts classes, students participated in LANGUAGE! instruction daily for 90 minutes, resulting in approximately 270 hours of intervention during the year. Groups averaged 10 to 28 students per class, with one adult assigned to each class. Instruction was individually paced and based on pretest information and on-going assessment. Separate classes were provided for each grade level within the schools.


Several measures were used to collect pre and post intervention data on the participants. All data were collected by the school district. Pre and post tests were administered and scored by school psychologists, classroom teachers and/or trained paraprofessionals. Measures included Word Attack and Letter-Word Identification subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised (WJ-R ACH; Woodcock & Johnson, 1989), the Spelling subtest from the Wide Range Achievement Test-3 (WRAT3; Wilkinson, 1993), and the reading portion of the Multilevel Academic Survey Test (MAST; Howell, Zucker, & Morehead, 1985). The WJ-R and the WRAT3, both nationally normed tests, are two of the most widely used measures when evaluating reading programs with decoding instruction (Torgenson, 1998).

On Word Attack (WJ-R ACH), students are given a list of nonsense words to decode. Test items include single syllable and multi-syllabic words with regular phonetic patterns, including consonant and vowel digraphs and blends. Students with strong decoding skills are able to generalize English rules to decode the unfamiliar words. The measure is norm referenced and yields grade levels, percentiles, and standardized scores.

In contrast, on the Letter-Word Identification subtest (WJ-R ACH) students are presented with lists of real words. Some items are phonetically regular, while others are not. Students with average sight word vocabularies generally score close to their grade level. The measure is norm referenced and results in grade level and standardized scores.

The Spelling section of the WRAT3 was administered. Students are asked to spell a list of isolated words which range from basic orthographic patterns to longer, complex words with irregular spelling. The measure provides standardized scores as well as grade equivalents.

The MAST is a paper and pencil test standardized on students in grades kindergarten through 12th grade. Students silently read paragraphs and demonstrate comprehension using a cloze procedure. Both the short and the long forms of the MAST were administered to students.

The test-retest reliability coefficients on each instrument were calculated to determine test stability. The test instruments demonstrated relatively strong reliabilities. The reliability coefficients noted in Table 1 are all within an acceptable range, thus suggesting that the tests chosen to measure changes in reading achievement in the current study were robust.

Because the data were collected in three schools where different teachers implemented the program, mean scores across all pre- and post-tests by school were calculated. Two sample t-tests were calculated for each pair of schools to determine if any school produced statistically different scores. Total scores by school demonstrate slight differences, but were not statistically significant. This indicates that instruction across schools was consistent and data can be analyzed as one large sample.


The study was a one-group pre-test post-test design. Differential treatments were not utilized, common to educational research. Descriptive statistics, including raw score means, standard deviations, and percentiles, were generated. In addition, paired sample t-tests were conducted on the data, and gain scores were calculated. The effect sizes of the tests were also calculated to determine the magnitude of gain score differences (see Table 2, 3, 4 and 5).

Mean scores across all pretests and posttests by grade were calculated. Paired sample t-tests were calculated to determine if the differences between pre- and posttest scores were statistically significant. Across all grade levels and assessment measures, t-tests were significant (p < .05), excluding comparisons made at grades 6 (t = .26, p = .80) and grade 8 (t = 1.80, p = .08) on the Woodcock-Johnson Letter Word Identification subtest, and grade 7 (t = .25. p = .79) on the Woodcock-Johnson Word Attack subtest. The t-test results suggest that implementation of the LANGUAGE! intervention program improved performance at all grade levels in reading comprehension and spelling. Additionally, the program improved sight word recognition for students in grades 7 and 10, and improved decoding performance for students in grades 6, 8, and 10.

It is not uncommon for statistically significant results to occur when using large sample sizes as in the current study. A statistically significant difference score may occur; however, the change may be so small as to be inconsequential. Thus, to further understand the impact of the intervention on reading performance, effect sizes of the gain scores were examined. The term "small," "medium," and "large:, are relative, not only to each other, but to the area of behavioral science. In the face of this relativity, there is more to be gained than lost by supplying a common frame of reference. A small effect size is commonly perceived to be d = .2. A medium effect size is d = .5, and a large effect size is d = .8 (Cohen, 1988). Using this criteria, the following comparisons yielded meaningful effect sizes in the moderate to large ranges: The WRAT-m at the 6th grade level (d = .67), the short version of the MAST at the 7th grade level (d = .71), 8th grade level (d = .74), and 10th grade level (d = .81); the Woodcock-Johnson Letter Word Identification at the 10th grade level (d = .55), and the Woodcock Johnson Word Attack at the 10th grade level (d = .65).

Thus, based on the analyses conducted, it appears that LANGUAGE! promoted improved reading performance across most grade levels in the sample. The magnitude of the effect sizes were variable, with moderate effects reflected primarily on the two versions of the MAST, a reading comprehension measure, across all grade levels.


Given that school practice is often driven by political and economic expediency rather than research based practices, the school district involved in this study is to be commended for its investment in personnel and resources needed to collect and analyze the data reported. Overall, results indicate students receiving LANGUAGE! made statistically significant gains in measures of decoding skills, sight word recognition, spelling, and most importantly, reading comprehension. Given that the students participating in the study were in middle and high school grades, and evidenced intractable reading difficulties, significant gains are noteworthy. In addition, since reading intervention for middle and high school students is often neglected based on an assumed inability to make progress, results from a program such as LANGUAGE! are also noteworthy.

When considering application of these results for intervention, it is important to bear in mind the weaknesses of the study including the lack of a control group and the fact that the norming samples in the assessment measures used were not similar to the sample in this study. Additionally, difference scores usually yield substantially lower reliability than the reliabilities of tests administered separately. This lower reliability is due to two factors: (1) the errors of measurement in both separate tests accumulate in the difference score, and (2) whatever is common to the two tests is cancelled out in the difference score. Thus, in the current study, one must bear in mind the role of error in calculating scores that represent what appear to be meaningful differences (Thorndike, 1997).

Educational research as a whole can improve the rigor of its research practices by including control groups in its efficacy studies. Due to ethical considerations, all students must receive a reading treatment. Future research may consider measuring the effect of an experimental program by comparing it to a referent group receiving the pre-existing reading program to discern quantity and quality of improvement.
Table 1
Comparison of Test-Retest Reliability: Alpha Coefficient

MAST-S MAST-L WRAT3 WJ Letter Word Id WJ Word Attack
0.873 0.890 0.932 0.877 0.754

Table 2
LANGUAGE! Intervention pre and post test results on WRAT3 expressed in
raw scores (means, standard deviations, gains, t-Tests, significance,
pre and post test percentile scores, percentile gains)

Grade PreWrat PostWrat

 Mean Raw Std. Mean Raw Std.
 Score Dev. Score Dev.

 6 11.8 5.37 15.3 5.26
 7 15.8 6.42 17.9 5.87
 8 16.5 5.78 18.3 4.93
 10 17.1 5.65 19 5.02

Grade Average Raw Signif. Pre

 Raw Gain t-Test Percentile

 6 3.5 12.49 0 0.51
 7 2.1 5.54 0 0.86
 8 1.8 9.38 0 0.69
 10 1.9 3.68 0 0.41

Grade Post Percentile
 Percentile Gain

 6 0.91 0.4
 7 1.39 0.52
 8 0.78 0.09
 10 0.38 -0.03

Table 3
LANGUAGE! Intervention pre and post test results on MAST (short form)
expressed in raw scores (means, standard deviations, gains, t-Tests,
significance, pre and post test percentile scores, percentile gains,
effect size)

Grade PreMASTsh PostMASTsh

 Mean Raw Std. Mean Raw Std.
 Score Dev. Score Dev.

 6 20.3 8.73 24.2 8.98
 7 26.2 9.69 31.5 7.47
 8 27.1 8.64 32 6.63
 10 28.2 7.82 32.6 5.43

Grade Average Raw Signif. Pre
 Raw Gain t-Test Percentile

 6 3.9 8.17 0 11.2
 7 5.3 10.51 0 22.19
 8 4.9 12.11 0 17.43
 10 4.4 4.76 0 3.31

Grade Post Percentile Effect
 Percentile Gain Size

 6 17.36 6.16 0.43
 7 26.23 4.04 0.71
 8 26.17 8.74 0.74
 10 5.02 1.71 0.81

Table 4
LANGUAGE! Intervention pre and post test results on MAST (long form)
expressed in raw scores (means, standard deviations, gains, t-Tests,
significance, pre and post test percentile scores, percentile gains,
effect size)

Grade PreMASTIng PostMASTIng

 Mean Raw Std. Mean Raw Std.
 Score Dev. Score Dev.

 6 30 11.68 34.3 12.09
 7 37.9 13.34 44.57 11.6
 8 39.4 12.4 45.6 10.94
 10 40.8 9.83 46.6 9.32

Grade Average Raw Signif. Pre
 Raw Gain t-Test Percentile

 6 4.3 6.54 0 10.52
 7 6.7 10.65 0 10.46
 8 6.2 10.93 0 5.91
 10 5.8 4.95 0 5.15

Grade Post Percentile Effect
 Percentile Gain Size

 6 15.69 5.17 0.36
 7 19.03 8.57 0.58
 8 13.41 7.5 0.57
 10 11.3 6.15 0.62

Table 5
LANGUAGE! Intervention pre and post test results on Woodcock Johnson
Letter Word Identification expressed in raw scores (means, standard
deviations, gains, t-Tests, significance, pre and post test percentile
scores, percentile gains)

Grade PreWJ Letter PostWJ Letter

 Mean Raw Std. Mean Raw Std.
 Score Dev. Score Dev.

 6 36 7.08 36.42 11.3
 7 38.08 11.17 41.27 8.51
 8 41.8 5.38 43.6 7.85
 10 42.12 5.02 44.78 4.81

Grade Average Raw Signif. Pre
 Raw Gain t-Test Percentile

 6 0.42 0.26 0.8 21.73
 7 3.19 2.64 0.01 27.92
 8 2.7 1.8 0.08 27.55
 10 2.66 8 0 19.04

Grade Post Percentile Effect
 Percentile Gain Size

 6 30.86 9.13 0.04
 7 35.2 7.28 0.37
 8 38.46 10.91 0.34
 10 29.45 10.41 0.55


Adams, M. J. (1995). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Alexander, A. W., Anderson, H. G., Heilman, P. C., Voeller, K. K. S., & Torgesen, J. K. (1991). Phonological awareness training and remediation of analytic decoding deficits in a group of severe dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 193-206.

Calfee, R. C. & Norman, K. A. (1998). Psychological perspectives on the early reading wars: The case of phonological awareness. Teachers College Record, 100, 23-274.

Cantrell, S. C. (1999). The effects of literacy instruction on primary student's reading and writing achievement. Reading Research and Instruction 39, 3-36.

Chall, J. S. (1983). Learning to read: The great debate (3rd ed.). New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

Chander, C. T., Munday, R., Tunnell, J. W., & Windham, R. (1993). Orton-Gillingham: A reading strategy revisited. Reading Improvement, 30, 59-63.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavior Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Donahue, P. L., Voelk, K. E., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzoo, J. (1999). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP) 1998 reading report card for the nation and the states: Executive Summary. [Online]. Available: n1998/1999500.shtml

Foorman,B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.

Gardill, C. M., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 2-17.

Greene, J. F. & Woods, J. F. (1991). J & J Language Readers. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Greene, J. F. (1995). LANGUAGE! A structured Approach. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Greene, J. F. (1996). LANGUAGE! Effects of an individualized structured language curriculum for middle and high school students. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 97-121.

Greene, J. F. (1998). Another chance: Help for older students with limited literacy. American Educator, 22 (1), 74-79.

Grann, D. (1999). Back to basics in the Bronx. The New Republic, 22 (14), 24-26.

Guyer, B. P. & Sabatino, D. (1989). The effectiveness of a multisensory alphabetic phonetic approach with college students who are learning disabled. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 430-434.

Honig, B. (1997). Reading the right way. The School Administrator, 54 (8), 6-15.

Howell, Zucker, & Morehead, (1985). Multilevel Academic Survey Test (MAST)

Idol-Maestas, L. (1985). Getting ready to read: Guided probing for poor comprehenders. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 8, 243-254.

Kennedy, K. M. & Backman, J. (1993). Effectiveness of the Lindamood Auditory Discrimination in Depth program with students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Practice, 8, 253-259.

Lindamood, P. C., Bell, N., & Lindamood, P. (1992). Issues in phonological awareness assessment. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 242-259.

Lindamood, C. & Lindamood, P. (1975). The A.D.D. Program: Auditory Discrimination in Depth. (2nd ed.) Allen, TX: DLM, Inc.

Lyon, G. R. (1998). Why reading is not a natural process. Educational Leadership, 55 (6), 14-18.

Lyon, G. R. (1998, April). Overview of reading and literacy initiatives. Paper presented to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Washington D.C. [Online]. Available: http://

MacDonald, R. H., Manning, L. M., & Leary, S. L. (1999). Working with young adolescents at-risk: lessons learned from Project Enable. The Clearing House, 73, 25-28.

Manning, M. L. (1993). Seven essentials of at-risk programs. Clearing House, 66, 135-138.

Matson, B. (1996). Whole Language or Phonics? Teachers and researchers find the middle ground most fertile. The Harvard Education Letter, 12 (March/April), 1- 5.

Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities: 1976 to 1996. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 197-213.

McGuinness, C., McGuinness, D., & McGuinness, G. (1996). Phono-Graphix: A new method for remediating reading difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 73-96.

Moats, L. C. (1998). Teaching decoding. American Educator, 22 (Jan/Feb), 42-99.

Moje, E. B., Young, J. P., Readence, J. E., & Moore, D.W. (2000). Reinventing adolescent literacy for new times: Perennial and millennial issues. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 400-409.

Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position statement. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,43, 97-112.

Oakland, T., Black, J. L., & Standford, G. (1998). An evaluation of the Dyslexia Training Program: a multisensory method for promoting reading in students with reading disabilities. The Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 140-147.

Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 364-570.

Palinscar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.

Pittner, M. & Coit, D. (1999). Reading programs to improve skills. Media and Methods, 36, 42-44.

Routman, R. (1997). Back to the basics of whole language. Educational Leadership, 54 (5), 70-74.

Sheffield, B. B. (1991). The structured flexibility of Orton-Gillingham. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 41-55.

Shelly, A. C., Bridwell, B., & Hyder, L. (1997). Revisiting the K-W-L: What we knew; what we wanted to know; what we learned. Reading Horizon, 37, 233-242.

Simpson, S. B., Swanson, J. M. & Kunkel, K. (1992). The impact of an intensive multisensory reading program on a population of learning disabled delinquents. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 54-66.

Snider, V. E. (1989). Reading comprehension performance of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 87-96.

Strickland, D. S. (1998). What's basic in beginning reading? Finding common ground. Educational Leadership, 55 (6), 6-10.

Thorndike, R. M. (1997). Measurement of Evaluation in Psychology and Education (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersy: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall. American Educator, 22 (Jan/Feb), 32-39.

Vallecorsa, A., & DeBettencourt, L. U. (1997). Using Mapping procedures to teach reading and writing skills to middle grade students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 173-188.

Wilkinson, G. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test-3. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.

Woodcock, R. W. & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson-Revised: Tests of Achievement. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Wright, D. (1999). Student mobility: a negligible and confounded influence on student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 347-353.

Zigo, D. (1998). Narrative thinking as a strategy among struggling early adolescent readers and writers. Journal of Research in Early Childhood, 31, 56-70.




University of Northern Colorado
COPYRIGHT 2003 Project Innovation (Alabama)
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2003 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Scheffel, Debora L.; Shroyer, Jennifer; Strongin, Dawn
Publication:Reading Improvement
Article Type:Product/Service Evaluation
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jun 22, 2003
Previous Article:Balanced reading for word identification through links: literature titles, instructional procedures, necessary accommodations, and knowledge and...
Next Article:Encouraging literacy for personal development.

Related Articles
Processing of bottom-up and top-down information by skilled and average deaf readers and implications for whole language instruction.
Modified extensive reading for English-language learners.
Adolescent English Language Learners.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters