Lawrence School Community Seminar · Lawrence School Community Seminar WHY WAIT FOR FAILURE? Early...

Lawrence School Community Seminar

Lawrence School Community Seminar

WHY WAIT FOR FAILURE?

Early Identification, Early Intervention

And Preventing Reading Failure

NUTSHELL SUMMARY OF ENTIRE PRESENTATION

Ø The NICHD research base on the environmental risk factors, on the underlying neurological deficits, and on the instructional deficits that cause reading failure is irrefutable.

Ø Early identification of children who will struggle or fail to learn to read is quick, cheap, easy and accurate.

Ø Early intervention can prevent failure and is up to 16 times faster and more successful than later attempts to remediate.

Ø The most effective teaching practices for intervention have been clearly established by voluminous research.

TONIGHT’S TOPIC WHY WAIT FOR FAILURE

PLAN FOR TONIGHT

A. ACQUAINT YOU WITH RESEARCH BASE

B. REVIEW STEPS IN LEARNING TO READ

C. SOURCES OF READING PROBLEMS

D. BEST APPROACHES FOR PREVENTING READING FAILURE

PROBLEMS WITH MOST ED. RESEARCH

MOST EDUCATION RESEARCH IS UNDERFUNDED:

Ø  Too few students in studies (avg 40) and too short (avg. 6 months) to generalize results

Ø  Most not conducted by the top research scientists

Ø  Research designs often not “scientifically valid” with randomly assigned treatment and control groups

Ø  Lack large replication studies producing same results

Ø  other researchers, in other regions, use same research design, with other students, get same results

Ø  Results are not supported by converging evidence from multiple replication studies

PROBLEMS WITH MOST ED. RESEARCH

IT PRODUCES

“RESEARCH RESULTS”

OR

“RESEARCH FINDINGS”

BUT

NOT

SCIENCE

PROBLEMS WITH READING RESEARCH

RESULT:

READING “RESEARCH”

HAS OFTEN SUPPORTED

CONFLICTING

RECOMMENDATIONS

ON HOW TO TEACH

READING


Ø In field of READING INSTRUCTION, research studies have often seemed to be particularly contradictory.

Ø Reading studies are like Bible verses: you can find one to support any position.


The resulting conflict came to be known as “THE READING WARS”

phonics vs whole language

AFTER NEARLY 50 YEARS OF BITTER AND DESTRUCTIVE CONFLICT, A SOLUTION TO THE READING RESEARCH PROBLEMS WAS FOUND IN THE UNLIKELIEST PLACE

BELIEVE IT OR NOT …….

YOUR FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

SOLUTION TO THE READING RESEARCH PROBLEMS

Ø Over $250 million of Congressional funding

Ø for over 30 years of reading research

Ø by top research scholars at world class research universities & medical centers

Ø administered through the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT (NICHD) v National Academy of Sciences; National Research Council

Ø has solved the reading research problem

NICHD READING RESEARCH

FOR 35 YEARS, NICHD HAS

SUPPORTED TEAMS OF

DISTINGUISHED RESEARCH

SCIENTISTS AT 41 UNIVERSITY AND

MEDICAL RESEARCH SITES IN NORTH

AMERICA, EUROPE, ASIA.


Ø NICHD research has studied normal reading development and reading difficulties continuously since 1965.

Ø In the past 33 years, NICHD scientists have studied the reading development of over 75,000 children and adults.


Ø Many studies have been devoted to understanding the normal reading process, and over 30,000 good readers have participated in studies, some for over 12 years.

Ø ALSO focused on understanding why many children do not learn to read. Over 30,000 individuals with reading difficulties have been studied, some for as long as 16 years.


NICHD studies developed

screening tests that

identify children at risk

for reading failure during

kindergarten and the first

grade.


Ø These tests were used in prevention and early intervention projects at 11 sites in the U.S. and Canada.

Ø Since 1985, nearly 10,000 children (both good and poor good readers) participated in reading instruction studies, and nearly 5,000 have been enrolled in longitudinal early intervention studies in TX, WA, GA, MA, NY, FL, CO, NC, and D.C.

SO WHAT’S THE POINT? ANSWER:

We now have a huge body of widely replicated,

scientifically valid research speaking with one voice

on the key issues of reading instruction

and reading failure prevention.

NICHD READING RESEARCH FINDINGS

WITH CONVERGING RESULTS FROM OVER 100 LONG TERM STUDIES,

WE NOW HAVE A SOLID KNOWLEDGE BASE OF THE: Ø Cognitive, genetic, & neurological

conditions that foster strong reading

Ø Developmental conditions that promote or inhibit reading acquisition

Ø Risk factors that predispose youngsters to reading failure



WE NOW KNOW:

Instructional approaches that work

best, especially for struggling readers

Instructional approaches that DO NOT WORK

for struggling readers



WE NOW KNOW:

Ø Which screening tests and in depth evaluation tests reliably identify students with neurologically based reading problems

Ø Which teaching methods are most effective in remediating reading deficits at the earliest possible time

Additional Evidence Was Supplied by the

NATIONAL READING PANEL In 2000, federal NRP meta-analysis of over

115,000 scientific reading studies reached conclusions supporting NICHD studies in the 5 critical domains of teaching reading:

1. PHONEMIC AWARENESS

2. SYSTEMATIC PHONICS

3. ORAL READING FLUENCY

4. VOCABULARY

5. COMPREHENSION

So if we have all this scientific evidence, why do we still have a

massive reading problem with 40% of American students failing

to learn to read effectively?

Because we still have a massive problem incorporating this

knowledge into the instructional practices employed by our

colleges of education, school districts and teachers.


PLAN FOR TONIGHT





WHAT DOES RESEARCH TELL US ABOUT THE PROCESS OF LEARNING TO READ ?

Ø Reading is translating written symbols into oral language

Ø Learning to read requires mastering a lengthy series of complex neuro-developmental steps

PROCESS OF LEARNING TO READ WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH TELL US?

Ø The brain has several large chunks of neurological turf hardwired for producing and processing oral (spoken) language.

Ø The brain has no elements designed for or hardwired for reading.

PRIMARY LANGUAGE AREAS

PRIMARY READING AREAS


Learning to read is a process of rewiring the brain – recruiting neurons and building new neural networks – in areas already devoted to performing other neural activity such as talking and interpreting oral language.

IT IS VERY TOUGH WORK!


Ø NICHD studies show that all

learning readers go through the same series of skill development steps

Ø Some can master steps so easily or intuitively that they appear to have “skipped” the step

Ø Struggling readers break down at one or more steps due to easily identifiable neurological deficits

LETS TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT

THE NEURO-DEVELOPMENTAL

TASK

AT EACH STEP,

AND AT THE ROLE

THAT THE STEP

PLAYS IN READING

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS Ø Comes from Greek “phono” meaning

“sound” phonological = “sound system”

Ø The term “phonological awareness” refers to the ability to auditorily distinguish separate clumps of sounds or individual sounds within the continuous stream of spoken language

Ø Does not refer to the process of discriminating separate sounds in reading printed language

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS IS:

Ø Knowing that the continuous stream of sounds in oral language can be divided into smaller components

Ø Knowing how to segment the continuous speech stream into •  sentences •  phrases •  words •  syllables •  phoneme clusters •  individual phonemes

PHONEMIC AWARENESS IS:

Ø  the capacity to distinguish individual sounds in spoken words

Ø  the capacity to segment individual sounds in spoken words

Ø  the capacity to identify individual sounds in spoken words

PHONEMIC AWARENESS IS:

Ø  the understanding that SPOKEN words can be divided into individual phonemes

Ø  the understanding that individual phonemes can be blended into words

PHONEMIC AWARENESS SIGNIFICANCE: Ø The most common problem in

learning to read is presented by the asymmetry between ª  the continuous, connected, blended nature of

sounds in the speech stream

ª  and the separated, disconnected, discreet nature of sounds (phonemes) as represented by letter symbols

Ø Phonemes, words, phrases are compressed in speech with no spaces between them

Ø The “maresydoats” effect

EFFECT OF LOW PHONEMIC AWARENESS

Ø  A child who lacks the capacity to detect, segment, and manipulate the individual sounds (PHONEMES) in spoken words CANNOT learn to link those individual sounds to written letters.

Ø  RESULT: they cannot DECODE words by “sounding them out” but must try to remember and identify whole words by their appearance

Ø  Remember “maresy-doats”


Ø If low phonemic awareness is not improved by explicit instruction and practice, the child will fail to learn how to sound out or spell words.

Ø All subsequent steps in learning to read will be impaired.

PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING:

Ø Is using phonemic awareness skill to perceive, segment, and manipulate the sub-units of oral language Ø examples: Rosner Test of Auditory Awareness; “elision” subtest in CTOPP

Ø The critical element in linking speech sounds to printed symbols, i.e., learning to sound out (read) words and learning how to spell words


Ø If poor phonological processing is not improved by explicit instruction and practice, the child will fail to learn how to sound out or spell words.

Ø All subsequent steps in learning to read will be impaired.

DECODING & ENCODING (PHONICS)

Ø Decoding = “sounding out” words Encoding = spelling words

Ø Phonics = system of rules that determines how individual WRITTEN LETTERS and groups of letters represent the sounds of SPOKEN WORDS.

Ø Decoding and encoding rely on phonics, i.e., the

rules that govern how written letters represent sounds

Ø Lack of phonics mastery impairs the ability to learn the decoding and encoding systems.

ORTHOGRAPHIC WORD RECOGNITION

The capacity to recognize a word instantly based on its configuration.


Ø  The capacity to recognize a word instantly based on its configuration.

Ø  A capacity that must be built upon an experiential foundation of skillful decoding (phonics).

Ø  Cannot be built by starting out to memorize the shapes of unfamiliar words (whole word/whole language)

Ø  Lack of orthographic word rec. makes reading halting, laborious; prevents development of fluency, prosody, and comprehension.


READERS CAN NOT START HERE

BUT

TO BE GOOD, READERS MUST END UP

HERE

FLUENCY: RAPID AND ACCURATE ORAL READING

Ø Fluency is the capacity to deploy a subskill, rapidly and accurately, without conscious thought or effort, in the performance of a higher level skill.

Ø In reading, it is recognizing (or decoding) words automatically so all attention and effort is focused on comprehending meaning.

Ø Lack of fluency severely limits comprehension of complex text

FLUENCY & “RAPID NAMING”

Ø “RAPID NAMING” is the neurological capacity to retrieve known linguistic information from memory rapidly and accurately

Ø Students may know and remember the sound each symbol makes, but if they retrieve that knowledge too slowly, decoding is too slow, and automatic word recognition (fluency) does not develop.

FLUENCY & “RAPID NAMING”

Ø  Without fluency, students guess

at words, insert wrong words in the text, skip words, alter meaning.

Ø  Without fluency, comprehension is impaired; the more complex the text the greater the impairment.

READING COMPREHENSION

Ø The ultimate goal of reading instruction.

Ø Each of the previous steps is necessary, but not sufficient in itself.

Ø Reading comprehension entails many additional components beyond previous “steps”

Ø A deficit in any one of those components will impair comprehension


PLAN FOR TONIGHT





NICHD RESEARCH FINDINGS: THE PREVALENCE OF READING PROBLEMS

READING DEMOGRAPHICS: The 60/40 split

Ø 60% learn to read reasonably well regardless of instructional method

Ø 20% struggle to learn and never read with ease or fluency

• don’t read for pleasure

• fall steadily behind in fluency and vocabulary and comprehension strategies

Ø 20% read below 4th grade level


U.S. READING DEMOGRAPHICS

Approximately 50 million school children

§  60% (30 million) learn to read fairly well

§  20% (10 million) poorly/with difficulty

§  20% (10 million) fail to learn to read


CLEVELAND (CDMA) OHIO READING DEMOGRAPHICS

Approximately 500,000 school children

60% (300,000) learn to read fairly well

20% (100,000) read poorly/with difficulty

20% (100,000) fail to learn to read

NICHD RESEARCH FINDINGS: THE SOURCE OF READING PROBLEMS

RISK FACTORS Ø  Genetic factor - parents or other close

blood relatives with reading and spelling difficulties = high risk (85%)

Ø  Delayed or difficult acquisition of oral language

Ø  Early hearing impairment such as results from chronic ear infections

Ø  Inadequate oral language or literacy exposure Ø  Uncommon in independent schools except

for ESL

#1 CAUSE OF READING PROBLEMS : NEUROLOGICAL DEFICITS IN KEY ELEMENTS OF

LANGUAGE PROCESSING AREAS OF THE BRAIN

Ø  phonemic awareness deficit

Ø  phonological processing deficit

Ø  rapid automatic naming deficit

Ø  phonological memory deficit


#2 CAUSE OF READING PROBLEMS

Ø  Inadequate preservice teacher education on reading instruction and problems

Ø  Lack of district commitment to proven instructional methods

Ø  Lack of district commitment to early identification and intervention

Ø  District commitment to “remedial” methods that don’t remediate



PLAN FOR TONIGHT





3 KEYS TO PREVENTING READING FAILURE

1ST KEY: EARLY IDENTIFICATION

2ND KEY: EARLY INTERVENTION

3RD KEY: RESEARCH PROVEN INSTRUCTION THAT REMEDIATES NEURO-BASED READING PROCESSING DEFICITS

3 KEYS TO PREVENTING READING FAILURE

1. EARLY IDENTIFICATION

2. EARLY INTERVENTION

3. RESEARCH PROVEN INSTRUCTION THAT REMEDIATES NEURO-BASED READING PROCESSING DEFICITS

1ST KEY: EARLY IDENTIFICATION ~ THE BIG QUESTION ~

CAN WE IDENTIFY THE CHILDREN WHO

WILL STRUGGLE TO READ BEFORE THEY FAIL?

ANSWER:

YES!

EARLY IDENTIFICATION

HOW DO WE DO IT

?

EARLY IDENTIFICATION: STEP 1

ASSESS FOR THE RISK FACTORS THAT PREDISPOSE STUDENTS TO READING PROBLEMS At enrollment, obtain and make a record of info from parents on risk factors:

Ø Genetic factor: parent or other immediate blood relative with reading and spelling difficulties = high risk (85%)

Ø Delayed or difficult acquisition of oral language

Ø Early hearing impairment such as results from chronic ear infections (otitis media)

Ø Inadequate English literacy exposure (language other than English spoken or read at home?) Ø  Risley: the 20 - 40 million gap

Use reliable assessments such as the PAR (Predictive Assessment of Reading) or

the CTOPP (Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing)

to screen for the presence of the common neurologically-based processing deficits known to cause reading problems such as :

Ø phonemic awareness deficit

Ø phonological processing deficit

Ø phonological memory deficit

Ø rapid automatic naming deficit

EARLY IDENTIFICATION: STEP 2

NICHD: THE PREDICTIVE VALUE OF PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS

Ø  “The lack of phonological awareness is the most powerful determinant of the likelihood of failure to learn to read.” (Adams, 1990; Moats & Foorman, 1997)

Ø  “Phonological awareness is more highly correlated to early reading success than tests of general intelligence, reading readiness, and listening comprehension.” (Stanovich, 1994)

Ø Screening tests of phonological awareness skills in grades K & 1 predict with 95% accuracy who will have difficulties learning to read. (Lyon, 1997; California State Dept. of Ed., 2000)

3 KEYS TO PREVENTING READING FAILURE ��

��

KEY #2��

EARLY INTERVENTION

EARLY INTERVENTION KEY #2

THE RULE IS:

DON’T WAIT!

INTERVENE WITH

RESEARCH PROVEN INSTRUCTION AS SOON AS SCREENING

OR SLOW PROGRESS

IDENTIFIES A PROBLEM!

EARLY INTERVENTION:

KEY TOOLS: EARLY IDENTIFICATION SCREENS Ø PAR - Predictive Assessment Of Reading

Ø CTOPP - Comprehensive Test Of Phonological Processing

Ø DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators Of Basic Early Literacy Skills)

CAN BE USED FOR: Ø early identification of fluency deficits in core skills

Ø early intervention, goal setting, intervention decision making

Ø  intervention progress monitoring

NICHD INTERVENTION STUDIES:

“early intervention efficiency” Ø At K-1st-2nd, 1 trained teacher working

with a group of 4 students for 30 minutes a day can remediate skills to grade level in 1 year. (teacher time req. - 30 min./day)

Ø At 5th grade, it will take 16 times the personnel time to obtain the same result: 1 teacher working 2 hours per day with each of the 4 students individually. (teacher time req. – 8 hours/day)

3 KEYS TO PREVENTING READING FAILURE ��

��KEY #3��

��

USE RESEARCH PROVEN

INSTRUCTION

RESEARCH PROVEN INSTRUCTION

NICHD intervention studies clearly show that the only reliably effective instruction for students at risk for reading failure is the • explicit • intensive • systematic • multisensory

• diagnostic & prescriptive

teaching of each skill set in the developmental reading sequence below.

WHAT HAS BEEN

SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO

WORK?

RESEARCH PROVEN INSTRUCTION Explicit, intensive, systematic, multisensory, diagnostic/prescriptive instruction of each skill set in the developmental reading sequence is provided by such programs as:

Ø Lindamood-Bell’s LiPS program Ø Orton-Gillingham Ø OR O-G Based Programs such as: •  Lawrence’s “CODE BREAKERS” system •  Wilson Reading System •  Road To The Code •  Language! •  Spire •  Alphabetic Phonics •  Herman Method •  Lexia Reading software

KEY FACTORS IN APPLYING RESEARCH PROVEN INSTRUCTION EFFECTIVELY

1. TRAINING OF INSTRUCTOR Ø ask about instructor certification

level

2. FREQUENCY OF LESSONS Ø 3 time per week minimum

3. DURATION OF LESSONS Ø 45 minutes per lesson minimum

  Fewer lessons or less time not sufficient to produce neural network growth needed to remediate deficits

RESEARCH PROVEN INSTRUCTION:

THE CRUCIAL QUESTION

Will more intensive application of the same instruction provided in traditional reading programs work for the child with one or more of these neurological deficits in their sound processing systems?

ANSWER:

NO!

RESEARCH PROVEN INSTRUCTION: KEY CONSIDERATION

IF SCHOOL IS USING INTERVENTION ASSISTANCE TEAM (IAT)

OR

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI)

WAIT NO MORE THAN SIX WEEKS FOR TEST DATA SHOWING SKILL

IMPROVEMENT

IF NO IMPROVEMENT, INSIST ON SWITCH

RESEARCH PROVEN INSTRUCTION: THE KEY CONSIDERATION

IF SCHOOL IS USING READING RECOVERY

OR

LEVELED LANGUAGE INTERVENTION

OR

“BALANCED APPROACH”

MY ADVICE:

REJECT IT, INSIST ON SWITCH.

RESEARCH IS CLEAR: THEY DON’T WORK FOR DYSLEXIC CHILDREN

RESEARCH PROVEN INSTRUCTION ~ NEXT QUESTION ~

WHY DON’T THEY WORK?

ANSWER: Because traditional instructional methods assume that the students start with the phonemic awareness,

the phonological memory, the phonological processing, and the rapid retrieval needed to learn to

read relatively easily.

RESEARCH PROVEN INSTRUCTION

To put it another way, traditional

approaches work best with the 60%

of students who will learn to read

relatively easily and well without

intensive remediation of the neuro-

processing deficits causing the

reading problems.

RESEARCH PROVEN INSTRUCTION WHAT IS SO DIFFERENT IN RESEARCH PROVEN INSTRUCTION?

Ø Starts by assuming students may need help to develop underlying neurological sound processing capacities first.

Ø Uses diagnostic tests to pinpoint deficits.

Ø Uses methods proven to remediate underlying deficits that block the acquisition of reading skill.

Ø Uses frequent measures of progress to judge effectiveness of interventions.

SUMMARY Ø The NICHD research base on the environmental

risk factors and on the underlying neurological deficits which cause reading failure is irrefutable.

Ø Early identification of children who will struggle or fail to learn to read is quick, cheap, easy and accurate.

Ø Early intervention can prevent failure and is up to 16 times faster and more successful than later attempts to remediate.

Ø The most effective teaching practices for intervention have been clearly established by voluminous research.

THE END

Lawrence School Community Seminar · Lawrence School Community Seminar WHY WAIT FOR FAILURE? Early...

Documents

Transcript of Lawrence School Community Seminar · Lawrence School Community Seminar WHY WAIT FOR FAILURE? Early...