Best Practices for Students Diagnosed

¶ … Best Practices for Students Diagnosed With a Learning Disability in Reading

The objective of this study is to make a review of research-based best practices for students diagnosed with a learning disability in reading.

The significance of this study is the synthesis of literature that will be produced by this study and the knowledge that will be added to the already existing knowledge base in this area of study.

The methodology of this study is of a qualitative nature and will be conducted through an extensive review of literature in this area of study.

Research findings have demonstrated that best practices exist in the instruction of students diagnosed with learning disabilities in reading. This work reviews those best practices in what is a synthesis of the findings in this area of study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The work of Torgesen, Houston, Rissman, and Kosanovich (2007) entitled: "Teaching all Students to Read in Elementary School" states: "Reading comprehension is a very complex skill. Its most essential elements involve: (1) skill in reading text accurately and fluently; (2) sufficient background knowledge and vocabulary to make sense of the content; (3) skill in using reading strategies that improve understanding or repair it when it breaks down; (4) ability to think and reason about the information and concepts in the text; and (5) motivation to understand and learn from text. (p.1) it is additionally stated by Torgesen, Houston, Rissman, and Kosanovich that there are three 'critical elements' of a reading program in the elementary school that is effective: (1) Consistently implemented, high quality initial classroom instruction and follow-up small-group instruction that is well-differentiated according to student needs; (2) Use of student performance data to guide instruction and allocate instructional resources; and (3) Resources to provide interventions for struggling readers. (2007, p. 4)

The work of Fletcher (2002) entitled: "Researchers Support Early Intervention for All Children with Reading Difficulties" relates that experts in the field of education and literacy, at the national level "have found research evidence that challenges federal policy for making children eligible to receive some special education services. Currently, a child must score substantially higher on intelligence tests than on achievement tests, without exhibiting their other traits that might cause academic difficulties to qualify for special education resources in reading. A meta-analysis published in the summer 2002 issue of the American Educational Research Journal questions the use of this criterion in addressing reading difficulties of children." (p.1) Fletcher states that the meta-analysis of this issue "centers on the question of whether the needs of learning disabled children, who have been identified because of discrepancy between their intellectual potential and their levels of achievement, differ from the needs of children who do not demonstrate such a discrepancy but experience, nevertheless, difficulties in reading." (2002, p.1) Fletcher relates that there were 320 potential studies reviewed and after a process of careful construction 46 studies were chosen which make a comparison of "IQ-discrepant and IQ-consistent groups." (2002, p.1) Researchers report that there is an "...overlap between poor readers identified as learning disabled and those not so identified" which is of a substantial nature. Furthermore, it is stated that "little external validity exists for the differentiation of reading disability on the basis of IQ-discrepancy." (Fletcher, 2002, p.1) the solution is stated to be the careful assessment of "reading and reading-related skills in students for whom there is a concern about reading." (Fletcher, 2002, p 1)

The work of Jones (2005) entitled: "Meta-Analysis of Reading Interventions for Students with Learning and Emotional Disabilities" states that the development of "effective literacy skill has become an increasingly critical skill in today's information age. Students with emotional/behavioral disorders (E/BC) routinely lack these skills and are not taught how to read effectively. The field of special education needs more comprehensive and specific information about how to most effectively teach reading skills to students with E/BD." (p.1) in fact, no issues has garnered the amount of attention as has "teaching of reading." (Harris, Sipay, 1980; in Jones, 2005, p. 2) the work of Kantrowitz, Underwood and Wingert (2000) relates that "mass literacy is a relatively new social goal." (in Jones, 2005, p. 1) the work entitled: "Teaching Reading is a Rocket Science: What Expert Teachers of Reading Should Know and Be Able to Do" states "Well-designed controlled comparisons of instructional approaches have consistently supported" the following components and practices for instruction in reading: (1) Direct teaching of decoding, comprehension, and literature appreciation; (2) Phoneme awareness instruction; (3) systematic and explicit instruction in the code system of written English; (4) daily exposure to a variety of texts, as well as incentive for children to read independently and with others; (5) Vocabulary instruction that includes a variety of complementary methods designed to explore the relationships among words and the relationships among word structure, origin, and meaning; (6) Comprehension strategies that include prediction of outcomes, summarizing, clarification, questioning, and visualization; and (7) Frequent writing of prose to enable a deeper understanding of what is read. (p. 8)

It is also related in the work entitled: "Direct Instruction" a publication of the Division for Learning Disabilities and Division for Research of the Council for Exceptional Children that direct instruction "is one specific model of teacher directed explicit instruction. It is distinguished from other approaches to explicit teaching or direct instruction by its emphasis on both the importance of instruction and the importance of curriculum design." (Current Practice Alerts, 1999, p.1) it is stated that centric to direct instruction are the following elements: (1) teachers are responsible for student learning; and (2) curriculum design is a critical variable in student achievement. (Current Practices Journal, 1999, p. 2) Stated as the goal of direct instruction is the acceleration of student learning through "maximizing efficiency in the design and delivery of instruction." (Current Practice Alerts, 1999, p.2) Efficiency is stated to be achieved "when students generalize beyond the specific material in the lesson." (Current Practice Alerts, 1999, p.2) the direct instruction curriculum has principles of design based on the theory of Engelmann of learning and generalization which holds that: (1) the student does not learn something first in a concrete sense and then generalize to a larger set even when the initial learning is a generalization; (2) generalization can be taught explicitly and systematically by using examples and non-examples to communicate critical samenesses among sets of exemplars; and (3) generalizations represent efficiency. (Current Practice Alerts, 1999, p.2) Direct instruction has been successfully used in children with learning disabilities.

The work entitled: "Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read" phonemic awareness instruction is critical in the initiative to teach reading. Phonemic awareness is: "the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate individual sounds - phonemes - in spoken words." (2003, p.10) Also stated is that phonemic awareness is important because: (1) it improves children's word reading and reading comprehension; and (2) it helps children learn to spell. (2003, p. 10) Phonemic awareness can be developed through the following activities: (1) identify phonemes; (2) categorize phonemes; (3) blend phonemes to form words; (4) segment words into phonemes; (5) delete or add phonemes to form new words; and (6) substitute phonemes to make new words. (Put Reading First: The Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read, 2003, p. 10) Phonemic awareness instruction is most effective: (1) when children are taught to manipulate phonemes by using letters of the alphabet; and (2) when instruction focuses on only one or two rather than several types of phoneme manipulation." (Teaching Children to Read, 2003, p. 10)

The National Reading Panel reports the following phonics instructional approaches: (1) Analogy Phonics -- Teaching students unfamiliar words by analogy to known words (e.g., recognizing that the rime segment of an unfamiliar word is identical to that of a familiar word, and then blending the known rime with the new word onset, such as reading brick by recognizing that -ick is contained in the known word kick, or reading stump by analogy to jump); (2) Analytic Phonics -- Teaching students to analyze lettersound relations in previously learned words to avoid pronouncing sounds in isolation; (3) Embedded Phonics -- Teaching students phonics skills by embedding phonics instruction in text reading, a more implicit approach that relies to some extent on incidental learning; (4) Phonics through Spelling -- Teaching students to segment words into phonemes and to select letters for those phonemes (i.e., teaching students to spell words phonemically); and (5) Synthetic Phonics -- Teaching students explicitly to convert letters into sounds (phonemes) and then blend the sounds to form recognizable words." (Report of the National Reading Panel, 2006, p. 1)

The work of Thompson, Morse, Sharpe and Hall entitled: "Accommodations Manual: How to Select, Administer, and Evaluate Use of Accommodations for Instruction and Assessment of Students with Disabilities" (2005) states that accommodations for student with reading disabilities and difficulty in decoding are those as follows:

1) Instruction Accommodations for Presentation: Screen reader; Human reader, Audiotape or CD, Videotape.

2) Assessments Accommodations for Presentation: Human reader, Audiotape or CD, or Screenreader. (Thompson, Morse, Sharpe and Hall, 2005, p.40)

The work of Vaughn, Levy, Coleman and Bos (2002) entitled: "Reading Instruction for Students with LD and EBD" published in the Journal of Special Education repots a synthesis of "previous observation studies conducted during reading with students with learning disabilities (LD) and emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD)." (p.1) a systematic process of review of research conducted between 1975 and 2000 is stated to have "yielded a total of 16 studies 11 independent samples) that met all preestablished criteria." (Vaughn, Levy, Coleman and Bos, 2002, p. 1) Finding from the study include: (1) There was substantial time allocated for reading instruction, though the time varied based on whether students were in special education or general education or both; (2) students were provided more individual and group instruction in special education; (3) the quality of reading instruction was low, overall, with excessive time allocated to waiting and limited time allocated to actual reading of text; and (4) independent seatwork and worksheets consumed large amounts of time allocated for reading." (Vaughn, Levy, Coleman and Bos, 2002, p. 1)

The work of Stanberry and Swanson (2008) entitled: "What the Science Says: Effective Reading Interventions for Kids with Learning Disabilities" relates the most important outcome in reading instruction in word recognition is that "students learn to recognize real words, not simply sound out 'nonsense' words using phonics skills." (p. l) the most effective instruction for improvement of word recognition skills in students is stated by Stanberry and Swanson (2008) to be that of "direct instruction...[which]...refers to teaching skills in an explicit, direct fashion. It involves drill/repetition/practice and can be delivered to one child or to a small group of students at the same time." (p.1) Stated as the three instruction components "most effective in increasing word recognition skills in students with learning disabilities" are those as follows: (1) sequencing; (2) segmentation; and (3) advanced organizers. (Stanberry and Swanson, 2008, p.1) in sequencing, the teacher: (1) Breaks down the task, (2) gradually recodes prompts or cues; (3) sequences short activities; and (4) uses step-by-step prompts. (p. 1) in segmentation, the teacher: (1) breaks down the targeted skills; (2) segments or synthesizes component parts. (Stanberry and Swanson, 2008, p.1) in advanced organizers the teacher: (1) directs children to look over material prior to instruction; (2) directs children to focus on particular information; (3) provides students with prior information about tasks; and (4) tells students the objectives of instruction upfront. (Stanberry and Swanson, 2008, p.1)

The 'Current Practice Alerts' Journal reports in the work entitled: "Reading Recovery: Use Caution" that Reading Recovery (RR) is an early literacy intervention that provides one-to-one tutoring to children who perform at the lowest levels in their class after one year of school reading instruction." (2002, p.1) This was developed by Marie Clay, in New Zealand "to interrupt the cycle of reading failure in the first years of school before problems become more severe." (Current Practice Alerts, 2002, p.1) Reading Recovery was introduced into the U.S. In 1985 and is now available in all fifty of the U.S. states and is utilized in providing reading instruction to approximately 150,000 children each year. Reading Recovery is an intervention that is short-term and last approximately twenty weeks and is reported to result in "various levels of success" by students. This program is designed specifically for LD students however, the only qualifier for a student to take part in Reading Recovery is their classroom teacher's referral. There is not a "predetermined sequence with specified lessons" used by teachers in Reading Recovery. Instead, the teachers utilize "ongoing analysis of the child's reading and writing behaviors to plan individualized instruction." (Current Practice Alerts, 2002, p.1) it is related by the Current Practice Alert article that "books are leveled according to text characteristics that provide varying amounts of support for developing readers, including the number of lines of text on a page, picture support, repeated patterns, high-frequency words, language and vocabulary complexity and text structure." (Current Practice Alerts, 1999, p.2) During the Reading Recovery lesson the teacher: (1) listens to the child read familiar books to promote literacy; (2) takes a running record assessment of text reading; (3) provides a brief lessons targeting letter identification and word patterns; (4) scaffolds the child's knowledge of the alphabetic principle as he/she writes a familiar story; (5) cuts up the child's sentence for the child to reassemble, and (6) scaffolds the reading of a new book after a brief introduction. (Current Practice Alert, 2002, p.2) the work of Matthew K. Burns entitled: "Research-Based Academic Interventions" reports a review of research syntheses and states that five common components were found that are research-based academic interventions: (1) correctly targeted; (2) explicit instruction; (3) appropriate challenge; (4) opportunities to respond and (5) immediate feedback with contingent reinforcers. (Burns, VanderHeyden, and Boice, in press, in Burns, nd, p.1)Burns states that interventions that are found to be effective are those which are "matched to the student's current learning stage." (nd, p.1) the work entitled: "Interventions for Adolescent Struggling Readers: A Meta-Analysis with Implications for Practice" relates that older students "with learning disabilities (LD) benefit from reading intervention when it is appropriately focused." (p.1) the work of Torgesen et al. (2007) entitled: "Academic Literacy Instruction for Adolescents: A Guidance Document from the Center on Instruction" made identification of six factors that are held to be critical to the proficiency in reading in late elementary, middle and high school levels: (1) Fluency of text reading; (2) vocabulary, or the breadth and depth of knowledge about the meaning of worlds; (3) Active and Flexible use of reading strategies to enhance comprehension; (4) Background, or prior knowledge related to the content of the text being read; (5) higher level reasoning and thinking skills; and (6) Motivation and engagement for understanding and learning from text. (in Scammacca, 2007, p. 5)

Scammacca, et al. (2007) states implications of practice from findings of the study as follows: (1) adolescence is not to late to intervene, and older students who participate in interventions can benefit; (2) older students with reading difficulties benefit from interventions focused both at the word level and at the text level; (3) This meta-analysis suggest that teaching comprehension strategies to older student with reading difficulties is associated with an overall effect equivalent to a gain of about one standard deviation; (4) Older students with reading difficulties benefit from improved knowledge of word meanings and concepts; (5) Word-study interventions for older students with reading difficulties are associated with small-to-moderate gains, even on standardized outcome measures; (6) Interventions provided by both researchers and teachers are associated with positive effects; (7) for older readers, average gains in reading comprehension are smaller than gains in other reading and reading-related areas; (8) Additional research that uses measures that more closely mirror typical group-administered reading assessments is needed; and (9) Older students with learning disabilities (LD) benefit from reading intervention, when it is appropriately focused. (Scammacca, et al., 2007,p. 13)

Torgesen, Houston, Rissman, and Kosanovich (2007) state the following grade levels and targets of instruction and methods used for instruction:

1) Kindergarten

Phonemic awareness;

Phonics;

Learning to recognize a small set of high frequency words 'by sight';

Vocabulary; and Oral language comprehension. (p. 6)

2) First Grade

Phonics/word analysis;

Fluency;

Vocabulary; and Reading Comprehension.

3) Second Grade

Phonics/word analysis;

Fluency;

Vocabulary; and Reading Comprehension.

4) Third Grade

Word analysis;

Fluency;

Vocabulary; and Reading Comprehension.

5) Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Grades

Fluency;

Vocabulary; and Reading Comprehension. (Torgesen, Houston, Rissman, and Kosanovich, 2007, p. 6)

The "Position Paper of the Learning Disabilities Association of America" (2001) states that in 1996 it was expressed that the Learning Disabilities Association's position is "that to effect a significant increase in reading achievement for all people the following elements must be in place: (1) a variety of methods for teaching reading in schools (in regular and special education) and in adult literacy programs, (2) intensive teaching of reading, written language, and spelling in elementary and secondary schools, (3) screening and diagnostic programs to identify students with reading disabilities, (4) evaluation of program effectiveness that goes beyond mandated periodic testing, (5) teacher certification requirements for elementary, secondary and special education teachers include substantive courses in reading methodologies, (6) individualized reading programs for students with learning disabilities, and (7) a strong commitment to research which will identify causes/prevention of reading failure and effective interventions. (p. 1) Additionally the Learning Disabilities Association states support for the "current efforts at both the federal and state levels to strengthen reading instruction in the early school grades by: (1) improving teacher competence in teaching reading, (2) using careful diagnostic reading assessments, (3) providing reading instruction that is research-based; and (4) implementing data-based evaluation of student reading achievement. (Learning Disabilities Association of America, 2001, p. 1)

The work entitled: "LD Talk: Reading and RTI" published by the National Center for Learning Disabilities reports an interview between Dr. Sheldon Horowitz, the Moderator, and Dr. Sharon Vaughn and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek in April 2007 in which Vaughn and Wanzek state: "Torgesen (1996) specified that how special education differs from general education for students with LD is that it is more (a) explicit, (b) intensive, and - supportive. (p. 1) Additionally Vaughn and Wanzek state: "we know that students benefit from systematically provided and research-based interventions in reading." (2007, p.1) Vaughn and Wanzek state that tracking of student data is important in planning instruction and then providing feedback to students. Stated as one of the issues "in prevention and early identification of reading problems is the timing of referral for special education services." (2007, p.1) Vaughn and Wanzek state that for the 'Response-to-Intervention' (RTI) model to be implemented effectively the following are necessary: (1) Reliable and valid measures that are sensitive to intervention and can be administered multiple times; (2) Validated intervention protocols for targeted outcomes such as reading decoding and comprehension, and (3) School-level models delineating a coordinated system of screening, intervention, and placement. (2007, p.1)

The work of Block and Pressley (2002) relates that the basic principles of comprehension strategy instruction are those as follows: