Dyslexia Intervention Case Study: Second-Grade Student

Introduction and Student Background

The student (age 8) is a second-grade child who was first recognized by his first-grade classroom teacher as having operational difficulties with reading and writing tasks, despite demonstrating greater-than-average intelligence on testing and observation. He was subsequently referred to the school reading specialist. The specialist determined that the student was likely dealing with dyslexia. Follow-up consultations with parents and the student's kindergarten and first-grade teachers, combined with the results of a screening instrument — the Dyslexia Early Screening Test, Second Edition (17th MMY) — produced an operational diagnosis.

At the start of his second-grade year, the student was in clear need of additional assessment and intervention. Work with him began in the first quarter of the year, starting with a formal assessment and followed by the implementation of intervention specifically designed to teach whole-word reading and writing skills through intensive syllabic instruction.

Assessment Methods and Findings

The first assessment conducted was the Yopp-Singer Test of Phonemic Segmentation (see Appendix 1), administered to determine the level of intervention needed and the skill level already attained. Although the student generally falls into an age group that has moved past pre-reading skills and is working toward independent reading status, his assessment results — particularly in written form — indicated that his weaknesses were more foundational, rooted in pre-reading skills. Given that his strengths lie in oral learning, oral testing was the most appropriate means of establishing a baseline against which difficulties in written skills could be compared.

The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Second Edition (WIAT-II) was then administered to assess the student's reading and writing challenges at an operational level. This instrument is particularly effective at identifying connectivity issues related to linking syllables to form whole words and addresses both oral and written skill domains. Based on the results of both assessments, along with an additional review and consult by the school reading expert, it was determined that the student was lagging in phonemic awareness. This deficit was likely due in part to the fact that he found reading and writing tasks difficult from an early age and therefore tended to disengage even during pre-reading skills lessons in kindergarten. As McCray, Vaughn, and Neal note, children are easily diverted from tasks they find difficult or demanding; the classroom environment, assessment tools, and learning materials must therefore engage students sufficiently to sustain their motivation throughout the learning process (2001, p. 17).

Review of Literature on Phonemic Awareness

Although assessment tools are frequently debated, a growing body of evidence suggests that core pre-reading skills awareness determines not only when a child will read independently but also whether — and when — early intervention in inclusive settings is needed to support progress as a pre-reader and later as an independent reader. One class of assessments designed for very young children and focused on pre-reading skills is phonemic awareness testing. According to Yopp and Yopp, reading research indicates that children who score low on phonemic awareness assessments lack the pre-reading skills necessary to become independent readers (2000, p. 130). Kamii and Manning further establish that phonemic awareness is considered the single most telling long-term indicator of student reading ability (2002, p. 38).

The Yopp-Singer Test of Phonemic Segmentation is used theoretically as a pre-test to respond to classroom observations of low phonetic awareness. Its value lies in its ability to reveal specific limitations so that targeted intervention strategies can be put in place to help students who are lagging in essential pre-reading skills learn the phonemic segments they need for reading. Students who fail to demonstrate marked improvement after intervention can then be identified for more directed instruction, enabling them either to overcome their difficulties or to enter programs that address significant organic or environmental barriers to independent reading. To understand fully the role of phonemic awareness assessment, one must at least briefly examine the concept itself and the debate surrounding it, as Villaume and Brabham do effectively (2003, p. 478).

According to Adams, educators long believed that letter recognition and the understanding that print is read (in most languages) from left to right were the most important indicators of reading readiness. While these two concepts are important, they reflect rote memory tasks — a model of learning that is now clearly outmoded (1994, p. 16). Lancy identifies a clear disconnect in this older model: it treats reading as learned purely through print recognition, with no spoken component, which is plainly a fallacy (1994, p. 29). Spear-Swerling and Sternberg support this position as well (1996, p. 22).

When phonemic awareness is incorporated into the equation, the picture becomes one of an independent learner who code-switches to form new words for understanding. Fielding-Barnsley stresses that it appears most effective to combine phonemic awareness with strong letter knowledge in coding exercises, both to elicit and later to predict independent reading skills (1997, p. 85).

Bradley and Bryant suggest that phonemic awareness assessment creates the developmental basis for predicting success in reading in late kindergarten and first grade. The value of pre-reading skill is clear, and much of its development occurs even before children begin school. There is, however, a subset of children who have not received adequate exposure to pre-reading experiences at home — experiences as simple as being read to or spoken to regularly by adults. These children may have a natural interest in literacy but have not been exposed to sufficient reading stimulus to draw them into the collective processes required to begin understanding how reading works (Bradley & Bryant, 1991, p. 38).

Kindergarten represents, for many children, their first structured exposure to the coding systems that underpin an entire later skill set. This is clearly supported by the research reviewed here and by numerous other experts. The student in this case was at a particular disadvantage because he passed through kindergarten and most of first grade under the assumption — shared by teachers and parents alike — that he was simply lagging slightly in interest rather than in ability. His above-average observable intelligence, combined with what appeared to be a lack of interest in reading and writing, led his kindergarten teacher to seek out topic-specific materials to engage him. It was not until the beginning of first grade that his teacher noticed that even when offered materials tailored specifically to his expressed interests, he still disengaged and appeared uninterested whenever reading or writing were involved. It was at this point that he was referred for assessment.

The student appeared to labor under the common misconception that each word must be learned as an independent, isolated unit — as if each word were its own test — which made him increasingly uncomfortable with reading material and more fearful of the task, a fear he displayed as disinterest. According to Rayner and Pollatsek, as well as Ashmore, Farrier, Paulson, and Chu, students who are unaware that each word can be broken down into component parts — parts that carry cross-referential meaning applicable to other words — are left feeling overwhelmed and convinced they will never "get it." Yet observing children as they independently develop coding skills to decode novel words is a remarkable experience. Once a child accepts the perception of a word as a set of independent parts, they realize they can approach any novel word — even a very long one — as an object to be broken down by sound (Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989, p. 60; Ashmore, Farrier, Paulson & Chu, 2003, p. 33).

Without this perception, however, children encounter a significant stumbling block and can, sadly, lose interest in reading, decoding novel words, and learning in general. It must also be noted that perceptual limitations are not the only source of reading difficulties. As Allor stresses, assessment is the most effective means of determining whether students are failing to acquire the skills needed to read simply because of a lack of perceptual ability to segment words, or whether there is an organic reason for that inability:

"It is widely accepted that the most common type of reading problem for students with reading disabilities, or dyslexia, is their inability to accurately and fluently identify printed words (Ehri & Wilce, 1983; Gelzheiser & Clark, 1991; Torgesen & Wagner, 1998). Additionally, researchers generally agree that this inability is a primary cause of comprehension problems in elementary-aged children as well as older children who continue to struggle with decoding (Stanovich, 1991). For this reason, it is critical to ascertain the causes of word reading difficulties in order to identify these problems and provide appropriate instruction as early as possible." (Allor, 2002, p. 47)

Spear-Swerling and Sternberg note that the fundamental reason children must be screened for pre-reading difficulties is that, once a child is expected by grade level to perform certain tasks, it may be too late to help them recover pre-reading interest and ability (1996, p. 122). Santi, Menchetti, and Edwards discuss how the importance of early assessment is further complicated by the contemporary educational trend toward outcome accountability: not only do individual children need early skill development, but later students may benefit from — or be disadvantaged by — the performance records of those who came before them (2004, p. 189).

McCray, Vaughn, and Neal stress that reading is so foundational to a child's academic progress that it represents one of the most necessary focal points of instruction (2001, p. 17). Oral instruction has a role in learning, but without independent reading ability the child will be lost amid confusing text. Bradley and Bryant further note that learning is a cumulative process: once a person acquires phonemic awareness and alphabet recognition and eventually learns to read, the breadth of their phonological skills can widen almost exponentially across a lifetime (1991, p. 37). Santi, Menchetti, and Edwards offer a relevant directive for classroom practice: "Teachers need to focus on ways to reinforce positive academic behaviors while explicitly correcting inaccurate responses in a supportive manner. Lessons with this type of feedback will increase students' reading level while maintaining their motivation and desire to learn" (2004, p. 189).

References

Adams, M. J. (1994). Phonics and beginning reading instruction. In F. Lehr & J. Osborn (Eds.), Reading, language, and literacy: Instruction for the twenty-first century (pp. 3–19). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Allor, J. H. (2002). The relationships of phonemic awareness and rapid naming to reading development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(1), 47.

Ashmore, R. A., Farrier, M. J., Paulson, L. H., & Chu, X. (2003). The effects of phonemic awareness drills on phonological awareness and word reading performance in a later learned alphabetic script. Reading Improvement, 40(1), 33.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1991). Phonological skills before and after learning to read. In S. A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman (pp. 37–44). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1997). Explicit instruction in decoding benefits children high in phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(1), 85–98.

Kamii, C., & Manning, M. (2002). Phonemic awareness and beginning reading and writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17(1), 38.

Lancy, D. F. (Ed.). (1994). Children's emergent literacy: From research to practice. Praeger Publishers.

Los Angeles County Office of Education: Teams Educational Resources. (n.d.). Yopp-Singer Test of Phonemic Segmentation.

McCray, A. D., Vaughn, S., & Neal, L. V. (2001). Not all students learn to read by third grade: Middle school students speak out about their reading disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 17.

Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Santi, K. L., Menchetti, B. M., & Edwards, B. J. (2004). A comparison of eight kindergarten phonemic awareness programs based on empirically validated instructional principles. Remedial and Special Education, 25(3), 189.

Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Off track: When poor readers become "learning disabled." Westview Press.

Villaume, S. K., & Brabham, E. G. (2003). Phonics instruction: Beyond the debate. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 478.

Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. H. (2000). Supporting phonemic awareness development in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 130.

Appendix 1: Yopp-Singer Test of Phonemic Segmentation

Children are given the following directions upon administration of the test:

"Today we're going to play a word game. I'm going to say a word and I want you to break the word apart. You are going to say the word slowly, and then tell me each sound in the word in order. For example, if I say 'old,' you should say 'oooo-llll-d.'" (The teacher says the sounds, not the letters.) "Let's try a few words together."

The practice items are ride, go, and man. The teacher should assist the child with each sample item — segmenting the item for the child if necessary and encouraging the child to repeat the segmented words. The child is then given the 22-item test. If the child responds correctly, the teacher says, "That's right." If the child gives an incorrect response, the teacher corrects it by providing the appropriate response. The teacher circles the numbers of all correct answers.

If the child breaks a word apart incorrectly, the teacher provides the correct answer according to the following examples:

The child's score is the number of items correctly segmented into all constituent phonemes. No partial credit is given. For instance, if a child says "/c/ – /at/" instead of "/c/ – /a/ – /t/," the response may be noted on the blank line following the item but is counted as incorrect. Correct responses require accurate articulation of each individual phoneme in the target word.

A blend contains two or three phonemes, each of which should be articulated separately. For example, item 7, grew, has three phonemes: /g/ – /r/ – /ew/. Digraphs such as /sh/ in item 5 (she) and /th/ in item 15 (three) are each single phonemes; item 5 therefore has two phonemes and item 15 has three. If a child responds with letter names rather than sounds, the response is coded as incorrect and the error type is noted on the test sheet.

Students who obtain high scores (segmenting all or nearly all items correctly) may be considered phonemically aware. Students who correctly segment some items are displaying emerging phonemic awareness. Students who can segment only a few items — or none at all — lack appropriate levels of phonemic awareness. Without intervention, students scoring very low on this test are likely to experience significant difficulty with reading and spelling.

Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation
Student: [Student]    Date: _______________
Score (number correct): _______________

Directions: "Today we're going to play a word game. I'm going to say a word and I want you to break the word apart. You are going to tell me each sound in the word in order. For example, if I say 'old,' you should say /o/ – /l/ – /d/." (Administrator: Be sure to say the sounds, not the letters, in the word.) "Let's try a few together."

Practice items (assist the child in segmenting these items as necessary): ride    go    man

Test items (circle those items that the student correctly segments; incorrect responses may be recorded on the blank line following the item):

(Source: Yopp-Singer Test of Phonemic Segmentation, Los Angeles County Office of Education: Teams Educational Resources)