Printer Friendly

The effects of a summer reading program using simultaneous multisensory instruction of language arts on reading proficiency.

The present study examined the impact of the Simultaneous Multisensory Institute for Language Arts (SMILA) approach on the reading proficiency of 39 students between the ages of 7-11 participating in a summer reading program. The summer reading clinic draws students from the surrounding community which is located in a large urban district in the southern region of the United States. These students voluntarily participated in the 4-week reading program where the main instruction was the SMILA approach. This instructional approach is used to teach specific sound-symbol relationships, accuracy and automaticity of word reading, and oral reading fluency. Analyses of pre- and post- testing of the Word Identification and Spelling Test (WIST) and One-minute reading fluency test scores indicated that students receiving this instructional approach demonstrated significant gains in word reading, sound-symbol knowledge, and oral reading fluency.

Keywords: Multisensory Instruction, Early Literacy, Summer Reading Loss, Reading Fluency

**********

Recent results from our Nation's Report Card, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), revealed that approximately 40% of our fourth-graders are one or more years behind in reading achievement (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2013). While this number remains disappointingly consistent with past assessments, equally frustrating is the persistent disparity by ethnicity group where white students outperform African-Americans and Hispanics by 25 points (230 compared to 205 respectively). Analysis of the nation's 17 largest urban districts shows the percentage of students reaching the Proficient level or better declines by about one-third, with just 23% of fourth-graders and 22% of eighth-graders scoring above the Basic level (NCES, 2010). With these results, it is evident that we are still dealing with a large proportion of students who are struggling with reading in classrooms across the United States.

With large scale efforts at the district, state, and federal levels to tackle the issue of literacy acquisition, and over 3 decades of research to inform reading instruction, why are we not developing more skilled readers in our classrooms? Clearly, there is still more work that needs to be done, especially with our low socioeconomic (SES) population. A helpful start is an in-depth understanding of the converging evidence that has demonstrated the critical role the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Reading: Foundational Skills (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) play in reading success. Secondly, we need new ways of thinking about how to deliver reading instruction focused on these foundational skills to our early and older struggling readers. Reigniting the fervor brought about by the National Reading Panel (2000) 13 years ago on the early reading essentials--phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension--and infusing new instructional approaches may help in delivering evidence-based reading instruction to those most in need of it. Drawing upon the existing evidence supporting multisensory instruction of language arts and analysis of the literature on the essential skills needed for literacy acquisition, we embarked on a study to further explore the potential for this type of instruction to develop automatic and accurate word recognition skills by enhancing sound-symbol knowledge and increasing proficiency in oral reading fluency.

Learning to Read

Learning to read is a complex and multidimensional cognitive process that involves the ability to recognize words in print, create meaning from the text, and the coordination of these two skills so that reading is accurate and automatic. Essentially, a skilled reader must be able to read fluently--the ability to read with accuracy, automaticity, and prosody --in order to focus cognitive energy on reading comprehension, the overall goal of reading (Adolf, Perfetti, & Catts, 2011; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Pikulski & Chard, 2005). A breakdown in any one of these skills, even if this occurs at the word level, can lead to difficulty with the reading fluency and the reading process (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974).

Research in reading has shown that fluent, accurate decoding is a hallmark of skilled reading (Adams, Trieman, & Pressley, 1997; Stanovich & Seigel, 1994). Accurate decoding also referred to as word recognition automaticity is critical because it enables the reader to devote his or her limited attentional resources to the more important task of making meaning from the text (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Logan, 1988; 1997; Perfetti, 1985, 1991; Tunmer & Nicholson, 2011). Ultimately a proficient reader creates a large sight word vocabulary--the ability to recognize decodable and non-decodable words quickly and without effort. Without this skill, according to Ehri (2005), the journey to becoming a successful reader is severely impacted.

Studies have revealed that those who struggle with phonics acquisition, which is instrumental in developing automatic word recognition, are likely to have reading comprehension problems (Wagner & Torgesen, 1987), will not experience the benefits of skilled reading (Beck & Juel, 1995), and will fail to catch up with appropriately developing readers (Stanovich, 1986). For students in the primary grades, accuracy and automaticity in word recognition is a strong predictor of students likely to experience difficulties with reading (Good, Simmons, & Kame'euni, 2001). Therefore, according to Beck and Juel (1995), it is imperative that the attainment of word recognition skills occur early because research has shown this to be an accurate predictor of later skill in reading comprehension. According to the findings of Roberts, Toregesen, Boardman, and Scammacca (2008), older struggling readers can also benefit from word study interventions because they struggle with multisyllabic words, breaking down words in to parts, and using word analysis methods.

Automatic and Accurate Word Recognition

What knowledge and skills do readers need in order to recognize words accurately and automatically in print? According to Adams (1990), a deep and ready working knowledge of letters, spelling patterns, and words, and of the phonological translations of all three enables the reader to automatically and accurately recognize words in print. On appearance it may seem as if a good reader guesses at words or that words are read as whole units. In fact, a skilled reader processes each letter of a word and is able to translate print to speech rapidly and efficiently. The ease in which a reader can complete this translation process allows for attention to comprehension. Efficient and effective translation of this process begins with an understanding of the speech-to-print translation process and the alphabetic principle (Reutzel & Cooter, 2011). It is the conceptual understanding of the alphabetic principle, the systematic and predictable relationship between written letters and spoken sounds which allows a reader to decipher novel words. Using the alphabetic principle as a code represents what Perfetti (1991) calls a "productive process" in contrast to the very limited process of memorizing words. Knowledge of the alphabetic principle and the speech-to-print translation process is learned through development of phonemic awareness, the ability to manipulate sounds in words, and phonics knowledge, the ability to identify the letter-sound relationships.

Decades of research has demonstrated that phonemic awareness and phonics knowledge are essential for skilled reading and successful acquisition of the reading process (Adams, 1990; Gough, 1993; Perfitti, 1985; Share & Stanovich, 1995; Tunmer & Chapman, 1998). Others have noted that phonemic awareness may be one of the best predictors for later literacy acquisition (Moats & Tolman, 2009). A considerable amount of research has demonstrated that training in phonemic awareness during or before reading instruction produces significant reading advantages in reading achievement, especially when combined with letter-sound instruction (Blachman, 2000; Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan, 2001; Goswani, 2000). A study by Korat (2005) revealed that not addressing phonemic awareness for children from low socioeconomic status can lead to difficulties with decoding single words. Phonemic awareness is necessary for understanding and developing phonics knowledge.

In order to discover the relationship between spelling patterns and sound patterns, a reader must be able to segment sounds in spoken words (Gough, 1993). Ehri (2005) demonstrated the importance of ensuring that beginning readers have a strong working knowledge of the spelling system to facilitate orthographic and phonological connections. The question then becomes how do we ensure that our early readers are learning how to employ these skills in the reading process?

Gough (1993) demonstrated that explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics was needed to develop a firm understanding of the alphabetic principle. Training in phonological awareness can help ameliorate one of the core causes of poor reading--phonological processing deficits (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, & Lynn, 1996; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994). Research conducted by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (N1CHD, 1985) demonstrated the value of explicit, structured language teaching for all students. A number of studies have demonstrated that systematic, explicit decoding instruction that emphasized synthetic phonics yielded better results than other instructional methods (Aukerman, 1984; National Reading Panel, 2000; Rayner, Foorman, Perfitti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2002; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994). The converging evidence in the literature has shown that in order to gain meaning from print, readers need to have an understanding of the alphabetic principle, have phonemic awareness, and be supported with explicit and direct instruction of sound-symbol relationships.

A remedial approach with deep historical roots as an intervention for readers with language difficulties (ie. dyslexia) is multisensory instruction for language related skills such as sounds, syllables, words, sentences, and written language. This approach, rooted in the principles of Orton-Gillingham, has demonstrated in clinical studies improvements in reading and spelling in children with literacy difficulties (McIntyre & Pickering, 1995). The work of numerous researchers supports such multisensory instruction as well (Ehri, Heffner, & Wilce, 1984; Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001).

Orton-Gillingham Based Multisensory Instruction of Language Arts

The simultaneous use of visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile sensory modalities has traditionally been used for remedial and intervention instruction for students with learning disabilities and/or dyslexia (Birsh, 2005). Commonly referred to as multisensory instruction, it has evolved to teaching language-related academic skills to support the struggling reader in learning language concepts. The Orton-Gillingham approach employs multisensory techniques to teach language structures sequentially, explicitly, systematically, and cumulatively. The core content for instruction is the structure and use of sounds, syllables, words, sentences, and written discourse (Birsh, 2005). A structured format is used to provide direct instruction in phonemic awareness and application of phonetic rules. Direct instruction begins with simple sound-symbol relationships and logically progresses to phonetic rules and word attack strategies.

There are numerous studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of multisensory teaching for students in clinical settings (Campbell, Helf, & Cooke, 2008; Hoerl & Koons, 1995; McIntyre & Pickering, 1996; Oakland, Black, Standford, Nussbaum, & Balise, 1998; Ogden, Hindman, & Turner, 1989; Vickery, Reynolds, & Cochran, 1987). A few studies on the effectiveness of multisensory instruction of language arts in the general education classroom have been conducted. One such study (Joshi, Dahlgren, & Boulware-Gooden, 2002) conducted in an inner-city first grade classroom that employed the multisensory method known as Language Basics showed that the treatment group made statistically significant gains in phonological awareness, decoding, and reading comprehension while the control group made gains only in reading comprehension. Scheffel, Shaw, and Shaw (2008) evaluated the efficacy of the Institute for Multi-Sensory Education's supplementary Orton-Gillingham based reading program across three schools in a single school district. Alphabetic principle and phonemic awareness skills in the treatment group made significant improvement relevant to the control group. Several versions of the Orton-Gillingham multisensory approach to teaching language arts have been developed. In the present study, the multisensory approach developed and implemented by the Simultaneous Multisensory Institute of Language Arts (SMILA) was investigated. The techniques employed in the SMILA approach are Orton-Gillingham based but this specific approach has not yet been studied.

Method

The present study is specifically focused on the extent to which the Simultaneous Multisensory Institute for Language Arts (SMILA) approach enhances reading proficiency in 39 children between the ages of 7-11 participating in summer reading program located in a large urban city. With this focus in mind, this study seeks to answer the following three research questions regarding the SMILA approach:

R1. What is the effect on student ability to apply word recognition skills?

R2. What is the effect on sound-symbol knowledge understanding?

R3. Do students gain increased proficiency in oral reading fluency?

Implementation

The SMILA approach served as the core instructional lesson for the summer reading clinic. The structured daily format of the SMILA approach was used for every lesson to teach handwriting, phonemic awareness, and new phonetic concepts with integrated practice of previously learned phonetic concepts. Based on the principles of the Orton-Gillingham multisensory approach, SMILA technique engages three modalities for learning with those being the child's tactile or kinesthetic, auditory, and visual modalities to learn language concepts. Core content for instruction in the SMILA approach consists of teaching the structure and use of sounds, syllables, words, sentences, and written discourse. This approach ensures that the delivery of instruction for language structures is explicit, systematic, cumulative, direct, and sequential while integrating the three modalities.

Students participating in the summer reading program were provided with approximately 60 hours of reading instruction during the month of June. Utilizing only the SMILA approach, 3-hour instructional sessions occurred from Monday to Friday for four weeks and were delivered by a trained SMILA instructor. Progress in reading was measured in the following areas: word reading, sound-symbol relationships, and oral reading fluency utilizing a pre- and post-test format.

A SMILA instructor is required to attend three 4-week training courses over the course of three consecutive summers in order to be eligible to teach in the summer program. Each four week course provides 160 hours of training. During the training courses, participants are involved daily in lectures, observations, planning, and application of the format. Participants begin the day with a lecture. Next, they observe a SMILA instructor delivering the SMILA approach to a whole class. Participants then have the opportunity to apply their knowledge while working in a practicum with one to three students. Finally, in preparation for the next day, participants plan a lesson with the support of a SMILA instructor to account for fidelity of implementation.

Participants

Sixty-nine students attended the SMILA summer reading program, all received SMILA reading instruction, and all were administered pre- and posttest assessments. To keep study participants blind to SMILA instructors and assessment administrators, participants were selected after the conclusion of the program. To be selected for the study, students must have scored at the 25th percentile or below on the Fundamental Literacy Index (FLI) of the WIST which was administered upon admittance to the summer reading program. Thirty-nine students met this criteria with the ages ranging between 7.0 and 11.4 (mean = 8.6, sd = 1.13). Of the 39 students, 22 were male and 17 were female. For the study participants the mean standard score on the FLI equaled 71.6(12.6) (3rd percentile) with a range of 52 which reflected a minimum score of 51.0 and a maximum of 103.0. Upon their return to school in the fall, 11 (28%) of the 39 students were to enter the second grade, 10 (26%) the third grade, 12 (31%) the fourth grade, and the remaining 6 (15%) were entering the fifth grade. The summer program draws students from the surrounding community which is located in a large urban district in the southern region of the US which is characterized by low socio-economic households and ethnic diversity. This geographical area has been identified as containing one of the largest areas of concentrated poverty in the country (Berube & Katz, 2005).These students were enrolled by a parent, who provided informed consent, into the voluntary 4-week reading program where SMIL A was the main instructional approach. Teachers in the study consisted of 4 SMILA instructors who have over 10 years of experience delivering the SMILA approach in classroom settings and in the summer reading program. The 39 students were divided into four classes and were taught by one of the four SMILA instructors. Each class consisted of about 15-17 students of similar ages.

Measures

The word identification and spelling test (WIST).

The WIST (Wilson & Felton, 2004) Elementary Version was used as the pre- and posttest assessment to measure reading progress in the specific skill areas of sound-symbol relationships and accuracy and automaticity of word reading. The test authors suggest that the WIST is particularly appropriate for evaluating the progress of students receiving instruction based on Orton-Gillingham methods. Students were individually assessed at the beginning and end of the summer reading program. The WIST is a standardized, nationally normed, and individually administered diagnostic test that assesses fundamental literacy skills of students between the ages of 7 and 18. The WIST consist of three subtests: 1.) Word Identification, 2.) Spelling, and 3.) Sound-Symbol Knowledge with a composite score called the Fundamental Literacy Index (FLI). Scoring for the WIST is based on a mean = 100.0 and a standard deviation = 15.0. Reliability coefficients for the Elementary version range between r = .96 to r = .98, while test-retest reliability for the elementary subtests and composite scores equal or exceed r = .98.

Grade level fluency.

Great Leaps! Narrative Reading Passages were used to assess the pre- and posttest ability of students to read grade level narrative passages. Great Leaps passages have been found in previous studies to be valid for the assessment of oral reading fluency with narrative text (Mercer, Campbell, Miller, Mercer, & Lane, 2000; Paige, 2011). For the assessment, students read each passage aloud in its entirety to obtain a fluency rate. To compute a fluency rate, total reading miscues (omissions, insertions, mispronunciations, and deviations from the text) were subtracted from the total number of words read for each respective passage, then divided by the total number of seconds it took the student to read the passage. This number is then multiplied by 60 and results in a correct-words-per-minute (CWPM) metric.

Assessment Administration

The four SMILA instructors were trained by the study authors in the administration of the pre- and posttest assessments. Because study participants were selected at the conclusion of the summer reading program and participation criteria had not been revealed, the four assessment administrators were blind to the identities of study participants. The results were individually scored by the study authors to ensure scoring reliability.

Results

To determine the effectiveness of the SMILA approach, 39 students were assessed using the WIST on pre- and post- indicators of word identification and sound symbol relationships. Students were also assessed on their ability to orally read a grade-level narrative text. Means and standard deviations of posttest variables are shown in Table 1. Examination of the measured means reveal that posttest scores for both regular and pseudo word knowledge, sound-symbol relationships, pseudo word spelling, and reading fluency exceed those of the pretest scores while the measure for regular word spelling shows a small decrease from the pretest score. Bivariate correlations (Table 2) were measured using Pearson's r and all were significant at p < .01. Large to very large correlations are seen in pretest correlations between word identification indicators, measures of sound-symbol understanding, spelling, and reading fluency, suggesting the extent to which these various measures are interrelated. For example, word identification shares a large correlation with sound-symbol knowledge of r = .60, while the correlation between spelling and word identification is r = .86. The correlation between spelling and sound-symbol reveals a Pearson's r = .73. Finally, the relationship between oral reading fluency and word identification, spelling, and sound-symbol relationships is r = .72, .72, and .54 respectively, suggesting the importance of these indicators to fluent reading.

To assess changes in the ability to read words, a repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted using the measures of regular- and pseudo-word identification. Results in Table 3 show that statistically significant change occurred, F(2,37) = 7.22, p = .002, d = .62, in overall word reading ability with a large effect size. Univariate results show that statistically significant change took place in regular word identification, F(1,38) = 13.30, p = .001, d = .84, however, no significant change was found for the ability to read pseudo words. Changes in spelling (Table 4) were first assessed using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) using the two variables of regular word and pseudo word spelling with results showing that statistically significant change had taken place with a moderate effect size, F(2,37) = 3.60, p = .037, d = .44. For the two univariate tests, a large, statistically significant change occurred in regular spelling, F(1,38) = 6.15, p = .018, d = .57, while no significant change was found for the variable measuring pseudo word spelling. To assess change in student ability to identify sound-symbol relationships, a repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted with results shown in Table 5. Multivariate results revealed that a very large, statistically significant change had occurred, F(2,37) = 30.07, p < .001, d = 1.26. Students made statistically significant change on both measures of regular word sound-symbol relationships with a large effect, F(1,38) = 11.36, p < .01, d = .77, and on pseudo word sound-symbol relationships with a very large effect, F(1,38) = 37.97, p < .001, d = 1.41. To assess differences in students' ability to fluently read narrative text, a t-test of the pre- and posttest means was conducted and results are shown in Table 6.

Discussion

In the present study, the SM1LA approach was employed to enhance reading proficiency by providing direct instruction in the structure and use of sounds, syllables, words, sentences, and written discourse. Essentially, the structured daily format of the SMILA approach provided direct and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, phonetic concepts, vocabulary development, reading comprehension, and practice with oral reading and spelling. This study sought to examine the effect of this specific multisensory approach to language arts on the reading skills of sound-symbol knowledge, word identification, and oral reading fluency. Specific evaluation was placed on these three reading skills in this study because an analysis of the literature has indicated that fluent oral reading is a necessary, albeit not sufficient, for proficient reading. Studies have also revealed that the ability to read fluently calls upon a reader to be automatic and accurate when reading words; and phonemic awareness and phonics knowledge are essential to facilitating this. The present study resulted in increases in regular word identification as well as regular and pseudo-word sound-symbol relationships.

After four weeks of exposure to the SMILA approach, the group of students evaluated in the summer reading program demonstrated significant growth in regular word knowledge, regular and pseudo sound-symbol relationships, and oral reading fluency. Decades of research on the essential skills for beginning readers (Adams, 1990; Gough, 1993; Ehri, 2005; Perfitti, 1985; Share & Stanovich, 1995) provide evidence that word recognition accuracy and automaticity are predicated on a strong working knowledge of letters, spelling patterns, and words, and of the phonological translations of all three (Adam, 1990). The ease in which a reader can complete this translation process allows for fluent reading and ultimately attention to comprehension. The findings of this study are consistent with the converging evidence that an understanding of the alphabetic principle, phonological awareness, and phonics are important and necessary skills for developing fluent readers. Additionally, the results are congruent with other authors who have found that when readers better understand the sound, letter, and spelling patterns of words, reading fluency increases.

A number of studies have demonstrated that systematic, explicit decoding instruction that emphasized synthetic phonics yielded better results than other instructional methods (Aukerman, 2004; National Reading Panel, 2000; Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2002; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1997). The findings of this study are consistent with the literature that students can benefit from understanding the alphabetic principle through explicit and direct instruction of phonemic awareness and phonics as a means of facilitating reading proficiency. However, studies have revealed that the instruction on these domains tends to be inadequate and even contributes to the widespread difficulties in learning how to read (Brady, 2012; Calfee, 1983; Moats, 1994). While the design of this study does not support a causal connection between these variables, the statistical significance of the outcomes suggests that a random occurrence was highly unlikely. The SMILA approach can be a potentially effective method for teaching early and older struggling readers the important and necessary foundational skills needed for successful reading. Students receiving intensive reading instruction through the SMILA approach made gains in all reading competencies assess, save one--regular word spelling. In its current format, it may be an effective approach for countering the summer reading setback (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2012; Mraz & Rasinski, 2007) that most struggling readers face.

We cannot help but wonder if the minimal progress being made in reading achievement among elementary and middle grade students in the United States over the past decade may be due to the lack of appropriate and sufficient instruction in these foundational skills in the early grades. Perhaps a more intentional focus on direct instruction, integrated in a balanced literacy approach, of these foundational skills using the SMILA approach in general education classrooms may lay a more solid foundation for reading fluency and ultimately comprehension. This speculation calls for additional research of the SMILA approach in a classroom setting. SMILA trains teachers how to implement the approach to be implemented in general education classrooms as well as an intervention for readers with specific language difficulties.

This study is not without limitations. For example, the participant sample was not randomly selected. Therefore, we cannot generalize our findings to a similar population and we cannot make any specific causal claims. Also, this study is representative of a single summer reading program in one urban district, suggesting that broader sampling would be beneficial to substantiate these findings. It is clearly evident that more research needs to be conducted on the SMILA approach over longer periods of intervention, in classroom settings, and with different groups of students of varying ages and grade levels. Additionally, the effects of the SMILA approach need to be analyzed for their durability and transferability. Essentially, will students' gains in reading continue to be present after the intervention has ceased?

Future research is needed to resolve these and other questions. However, given the results of the present study, as well as the results of previous research, and the fact that the SMILA approach is based on well-established principles of effective reading instruction, we feel that teachers, literacy educators, reading specialist, and others involved in early reading instruction and helping older struggling readers may benefit from deepening their knowledge on the foundational skills of early reading and utilizing the SMLA approach. The SMILA approach can help teach the CCSS Reading: Foundational Skills (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) and potentially have an impact on putting every child on the path to reading success.

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Adams, M.J., Treiman, R., & Pressley, M. (1997). Reading, writing, and literacy. In J.E. Sigel and K.A. Renninger, eds., Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th edition, Vol. 4: Child Psychology in Pracitce. (ppg. 275-355. New York: Wiley.

Adlof, S.M., Perfctti, C.A., & Catts, H.W. (2011). What research says about assessment and instruction for different types of readers. In J. Samuels & A. Farstrup (Eds). What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction, Fourth Edition (pp. 186-235).

Newark, DE: International Reading Association Allington, R.L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (2012). Summer reading: Closing the rich/poor reading achievement gap. New York: Teachers College Press.

Aukcrman, R.C. (1984). Approaches to reading. New York: Wiley.

Beck, I.L. & Juel, C. (1995). The role of decoding in learning to read. American Educator. 19(2). 21-25. Berube, A., & Katz, B. (2005). Katrina's window:

Confronting concentrated poverty across America. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy.

Birsh, J.R. (2005). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore, Md: Paul Brookes Publishing Co.

Blachman, B.A. (2000). Phonological awareness. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research. Vol. III (pp. 483-502). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Brady, S. (2012). Taking the common core foundational skills far enough. Perspectives on language and literacy, 38(4), 19-24.

Calfee, R. (1983). Book review of dyslexia: Theory and research by F.R. Vellutino. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 69-101.

Campbell, M., Helf, S., & Cooke, N. (2008). Effects of adding multisensory components to a supplemental reading program on the decoding skills of treatment resisters. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 267-295.

Ehri, L.C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading. 9, 167-188.

Ehri, L.C., Deffner, N., & Wilce, L. (1984). Pictorial mnenonics for phonics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 880-893.

Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S., Willow, D., Schuster, B., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction help children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's Metaanalysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287.

Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., & Lynn, A. (1996). Relation of phonological and orthographic processing to early reading: Comparing two approaches to regression-based, reading-level-match design. Journal of Educational Psychology. 88,639-652.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading comprehension. A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.

Good, R.H., Simmons, D.C., Kame'euni, E.J. (2001). The importance of decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257-288.

Goswani, U. (2000). Phonological and lexical processes. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research. Vol. III (pp. 251-268). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Gough, O. (1993). The beginning of decoding. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5181-192.

Hoerl, M., & Koons, D. (1995). Effect of Spalding multisensory phonics instruction on the literacy skills of high school special education students. In C.W. McIntyre and J.P. Pickering (Eds.). Clinical studies of multisensory structured language education. Salem, OR: International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council.

Joshi, R.M., Dahlgren, M., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2002). Teaching reading in an inner city school through a multisensory teaching approach. Annals of Dyslexia.52(\), 229-242.

Korat, O. (2005). Contextual and noncontextual knowledge in emergent literacy development: A comparison between children of low SES and middle SES communities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 20(2), 220-238.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.

Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492-527.

Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the instance theory of automatization. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13(2), 123-146.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McIntyre, C.W. & Pickering, J.S. (1995). Clinical studies of multisensory structured language education. Poughkeepsie, NY: Hamco Corp.

Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102..

Moats, L, & Tolman, C (2009). Excerpted from Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS): The Speech Sounds of English: Phonetics, Phonology, and Phoneme Awareness (Module 2). Boston: Sopris West.

Mercer, C. D., Campbell, K. U., Miller, M. D., Mercer, K. D., & Lane, H. B. (2000). Effects of a grade reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(4), 179-189.

Mraz, M., & Rasinski, T.V. (2007). Summer reading loss. The Reading Teacher, 60(8), 784-789.

National Center for Education Statistics (2010). The nation's report card: Trial urban district assessment reading 2009 (NCES 2010-459). Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

National Center for Education Statistics (2013). The nation's report card: Reading 2013 (NCES 2012-457). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

National Governors Association for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010. Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.

National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (National Institute of Health Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Oakland, T., Black, J., Stanford, G., Nussbaum, N., & Balise, R. (1998). An evaluation of the dyslexia training program: A multisensory method for promoting reading in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 140-147.

Ogden, S., Hindman, S., &Turner, S. (1989). Multisensory programs in the public schools: A brighter future for LD children. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 247-267.

Author. (2011). Testing the acceleration hypothesis: Fluency outcomes utilizing still- versus accelerated-text in sixth-grade students with reading disabilities. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 294-312.

Authors, (in press). Interpreting the relationships among prosody, automaticity, accuracy and silent reading comprehension in secondary students. Journal of Literacy Research.

Perfetti, C. A. (1991). "Representations and awareness in the acquisition of reading competence". In L. Rieben, & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications, pp. 33-44,. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford Press.

Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510-519.

Rayner, K., Foorman, B.R., Perfitti, C.A., Pesetsky D., & Scidenberg, M.S. (2002). How should reading be taught? Scientific American, 286(3), 85-91.

Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2011). Strategies for reading instruction and assessment: Helping every child succeed (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Roberts, G., Torgesen, J.K., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N. (2008). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction with older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research, 23, 63-69.

Scheffel, D., Shaw, J., & Shaw, R, (2008). The efficacy of a supplementary multisensory reading program for first-grade students. Journal of Reading Improvement, 45,3.

Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. Issues in Education, I, 1-57.

Snow, C.E., Bums, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy of Press.

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.

Stanovich, K., & Siegel, L.S. (1994). The phenotypic performance profile of reading-disabled children. A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24-53.

Tunmer, W., & Chapman, J.W. (1998). Language prediction skills, phonological recoding ability, and beginning reading. In R.M. Joshi & C. Hulme (Eds.) Reading and Spelling; Development and disorders (pp. 33-67). Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tunmer. W.E., & Nicholson, T. (2011). The development and teaching of word recognition skill. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 405-431.) New York: Routledge.

Vickery, K,, Reynolds, V., & Cochran, S. (1987). Multisensory teaching approach for reading, spelling, and handwriting, Orton-Gillingham based curriculum, in a public school setting. Annals of Dyslexia, 37, 189-200.

Wagner, R.K. & Torgesen, J.K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin. 101, 192-212.

Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilitiesL New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87.

Wilson, B.A. & Felton, H. (2004). Word identification and spelling test. Pro-ed: Austin, TX.

Theresa Magpuri-Lavell, Ed.D.

Bellarmine University

David Paige, Ed.D.

Bellarmine University

Rosemary Williams

Simultaneous Multisensory Institute of Language Arts

Kristia Akins

Shelby County Schools

Simultaneous Multisensory Institute of Language Arts

Molly Cameron

Shelby County Schools

Simultaneous Multisensory Institute of Language Arts
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for
the Measured Variables

                                      Pretest        Posttest

Variable                      n      Mean(sd)        Mean(sd)

Regular word identification   39   36.97 (28.75)   42.67 (30.44)

Pseudo word identification    39   16.59 (7.39)    17.33 (8.21)

Regular word spelling         39    8.28 (6.68)     8.18 (6.70)

Pseudo word spelling          39   16.77 (17.56)   18.62 (17.99)

Regular sound-symbol          39   40.56 (12.63)   53.31 (11.48)
relationships

Pseudo sound-symbol           39    6.12 (7.90)     9.13 (8.87)
relationships

Oral reading fluency          38   50.60 (28.82)   59.29 (32.56)

Table 2. Bivariate Correlations of the Measured Variables

Variable                               1     2     3     4     5

1. Pre Regular Word Identification     1
2. Pre Pseudo Word Identification      .89   1
3. Pre Regular Word Spelling           .86   .84   1
4. Pre Pseudo Word Spelling            .87   .81   .90   1
5. Pre Regular Sound-Symbol            .60   .63   .73   .68   1
6. Pre Pseudo Sound-Symbol             .78   .67   .81   .80   .66
7. Pre Fluency                         .72   .71   .72   .69   .54
8. Post Regular Word Identification    .97   .89   .85   .85   .62
9. Post Pseudo Word Identification     .87   .95   .80   .75   .59
10. Post Regular Word Spelling         .83   .83   .96   .91   .75
11. Post Pseudo Word Spelling          .86   .84   .91   .95   .69
12. Post Regular Sound-Symbol          .66   .80   .73   .65   .63
13. Post Pseudo Sound-Symbol           .81   .73   .84   .86   .71
14. Post Fluency                       .68   .65   .64   .67   .54

Variable                               6     7     8     9     10

1. Pre Regular Word Identification
2. Pre Pseudo Word Identification
3. Pre Regular Word Spelling
4. Pre Pseudo Word Spelling
5. Pre Regular Sound-Symbol
6. Pre Pseudo Sound-Symbol             1
7. Pre Fluency                         .72   1
8. Post Regular Word Identification    .72   .71   1
9. Post Pseudo Word Identification     .58   .72   .88   1
10. Post Regular Word Spelling         .77   .71   .84   .79   1
11. Post Pseudo Word Spelling          .80   .78   .84   .75   .92
12. Post Regular Sound-Symbol          .56   .48   .71   .71   .01
13. Post Pseudo Sound-Symbol           .90   .70   .80   .64   .82
14. Post Fluency                       .60   .78   .76   .78   .74

Variable                               11    12    13    14

1. Pre Regular Word Identification
2. Pre Pseudo Word Identification
3. Pre Regular Word Spelling
4. Pre Pseudo Word Spelling
5. Pre Regular Sound-Symbol
6. Pre Pseudo Sound-Symbol
7. Pre Fluency
8. Post Regular Word Identification
9. Post Pseudo Word Identification
10. Post Regular Word Spelling
11. Post Pseudo Word Spelling          1
12. Post Regular Sound-Symbol          .59   1
13. Post Pseudo Sound-Symbol           .85   .61   1
14. Post Fluency                       .80   .52   .69   1

Note. All correlations significant at p < .01 (2-tailed).

Table 3. Multivariate and Univariate
Analyses of Variance for Word Identification
Measures

                       Univariate

Multivariate   Regular Word Identification

F(2, 37)                 (1,38)
7.22 **                 13.30 **

Note. Multivariate F ratio generated using Pillai's
statistic.

* p < .01.

Table 4. Multivariate and Univariate
Analyses of Variance for Spelling

                    Univariate

Multivariate   Regular Word Spelling

F(2,37)               F(1,38)
3.60 *                6.15 *

Note. Multivariate F ratio generated using Pillai's
statistic.

* p < .05.

Table 5. Multivariate and Univariate
Analyses of Variance for Sound-Symbol
Relationships

                        Univariate

               Regular Word     Pseudo Word
               Sound-Symbol    Sound-Symbol
Multivariate   Relationships   Relationships

F(2,37)           F(1,38)         F(1,38)
30.07 ***        11.36 **        37.97 ***

Note. Multivariate F ratio generated using Pillai's
statistic.

** p<.01; *** p<.001.

Table 6. Paired Sample t-test for Oral
Reading Fluency

            Pretest        Posttest

Measure      M(sd)          M(sd)       df      t

Oral      50.60(28.82)   50.06(32.97)   37   4.41 **
Reading
Fluency

Note. ** p< .01 (2-tailed)
COPYRIGHT 2014 Project Innovation (Alabama)
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Magpuri-Lavell, Theresa; Paige, David; Williams, Rosemary; Akins, Kristia; Cameron, Molly
Publication:Reading Improvement
Article Type:Report
Date:Dec 22, 2014
Words:6542
Previous Article:Listening across the curriculum.
Next Article:What role does schema play in preparing minority postbaccalaureate students for the reading comprehension section of the Medical College Admissions...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |