#RB-SP-B05. Sound Partners Research Base

Transcription

1 #RB-SP-B05 Sound Partners Research Base

2 Research Base for Sound Partners Introduction Large numbers of students have reading problems that threaten their school success. In 2000, 37 percent of fourth graders performed below the basic level of reading achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading test (Donahue et al., 2001). Schools across the U.S. are struggling with how to best teach reading to students with learning difficulties. Research on the long-term consequences of reading difficulties supports early identification and intervention for poor readers. Students who are poor readers in first-grade are almost certain to remain poor readers at the end of fourth grade (Juel, 1988), and first-grade reading achievement strongly predicts 11 th- grade reading achievement (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997). When students at risk for reading failure are identified early and provided with intensive, explicit instruction, schools can reduce the number of students who are identified with reading disabilities (Dickson & Bursuck, 1999; O Connor, 2000). Many schools lack the teacher resources to provide the intensive, individual reading assistance needed by these struggling beginning readers. Schools often look to non-teacher tutors to meet this need. Mounting evidence supports the efficacy of well-designed tutoring interventions for beginning readers. One area of research identifies features of effective tutoring in early reading skills, including: (a) direct letter-sound instruction, (b) reading in texts that introduce words with spelling patterns previously taught in phonics instruction, (c) intensity of intervention, (d) use of lesson plans, (e) phonics-based word study, and (f) writing (Invernizzi, Rosemary, Juel, & Richards, 1997: Juel, 1996). Wasik s (1998) review indicated that effective volunteer tutoring programs feature structured tutoring sessions with instruction in letter-sound relations, writing, word analysis, reading and rereading text, and tutor training. A meta-analysis (Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 2000) of 29 treatmentcontrol studies of one-to-one tutoring programs for elementary students at-risk for reading failure, identified characteristics of effective programs, including trained tutors. Interventions for younger students were more effective than interventions serving older students. Sound Partners is a supplementary program supported by rigorous evidence on early reading intervention, including effective tutoring instruction. Sound Partners targets beginning readers, when tutoring interventions are found to be most effective. The one-on-one tutoring approach is a highly effective means of helping students who struggle with reading (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Juel, 1996; Wasik, 1998; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). The tutoring lessons reflect principles of effective instructional design, and guided learning and practice. Research and instructional principles that support the major components of the Sound Partners program are described below. 2

3 Research Rationale Instructional Design Sound Partners possesses several features of good instructional design for students encountering challenges and problems in learning to read: Mediated scaffolding- Tutor training addresses the need for mediated scaffolding to adjust instructional support for individual student needs (Gunn, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1998). Strategic integration- Instructional components are linked to help students make connections between areas of literacy knowledge. For example, letter-sound correspondence is integrated with phonemic decoding and encoding; letter-sound correspondence is linked with storybook reading (Dixon, Carnine, & Kameenui, 1992). Judicious review- The lessons have been field tested and designed to provide adequate review for students with a range of reading needs. Each lesson component provides repeated opportunities to practice discrete skills that students are learning (e.g., letter-sound correspondences, phonemic segmentation, phonemic decoding) (Dixon, Carnine, & Kameenui, 1992; Kameenui & Carnine, 1989). The individual lesson components offer ample opportunities for word identification in (a) context-free, as well as connected text, conditions (Juel, 1989; Stanovich, 1980); (b) carefully selected storybooks with a low rate of introduction of novel words (Barr, 1984; Gambrell, Wilson, & Gantt, 1981) to increase motivation and minimize error rates which influence reading progress; (c) varied contexts for word recognition practice, to avoid drill and to promote transfer of writing/spelling skills in various situations (Walker & Buckley, 1972); (d) task variation and pacing through short skill sessions within lessons and changes in tasks over the course of the intervention, to decrease boredom and promote motivation (Friedman & Medway, 1987; Samuels, 1988); (e) explicit correction procedures for tutors to follow; and (f) ongoing systems for student progress feedback, as well as metacognitive reminders to increase student awareness of task purpose and applications (Cunningham, 1990). Lesson Component: Letter-Sound/Beginning Sound Instruction Letter recognition is the best predictor of beginning reading achievement (Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Chall, 1967), and speed and fluency in naming letters strongly correlate with beginning reading achievement (Biemiller, ; Blachman, 1984). Even before students begin to read, they use their knowledge of letter names to learn the links between phonemes and graphemes (Treiman & Rodriguez, 1999; Treiman, Weatherston, & Berch, 1994), and to learn letter sounds (Treiman, Tincoff, Rodriguez, Mouzaki, & Francis, 1998). Effective instruction in the alphabetic principle includes modeling of individual letter sounds by the teacher that is repeated by the student (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989; Cunningham, 1990; Lie, 1991; Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988; 3

4 O Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1992; Smith, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1998). Research suggests that letter-sound instruction should feature: (a) instruction of the most common sounds for the consonants and vowels, (b) introduction of the most common letter sounds before less common letter sounds, (c) separation in time of introduction of letters and sounds that are easily confused, and (d) focus on use of lower case letters. Foorman, Francis, Novy, and Liberman (1991) found that the amount of letter-sound instruction is related to first graders' reading and spelling individual growth curve analysis showed that children with more letter-sound instruction had higher growth rates for reading regular and exception words. Research supports the benefits of combining phonological awareness instruction and lettersound correspondence instruction (Adams, 1990; Ball & Blachman, 1991; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1991; Ehri & McCormick, 1998; Foorman et al., 1997; National Reading Panel, 2000; Simmons & Kameenui, 1998; Stanovich, 1986; Vandervelden & Siegel, 1997; Vellutino, 1991). Sound Partners includes explicit instruction in letter-sound relationships at a reasonable pace and sequence (introducing from two to four letter-sound relationships per week). High utility letter-sound relationships are taught early in the program, permitting students to read words quickly. Visually and aurally similar sounds and letters are not introduced simultaneously. Letter-sound instruction is followed by a phonemic awareness activity. Lesson Component: Phoneme Segmenting A body of research suggests that phonemic segmentation is a strong predictor of beginning reading (Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Taylor, 1997; Kaminski & Good, 1996; O Connor & Jenkins, 1999; Snider, 1997; Spector, 1992, Wagner, Torgesen, Rashotte, Hecht, Barker, et al., 1997; Yopp, 1988). Both the standard Reading Recovery and Iversen and Tumner's (1993) modified Reading Recovery group utilized the Elkonin (1973) sound boxes to teach children to isolate onset and rime portions of words, a phonological awareness skill that helps students discover the alphabetic principle (Goswami & Bryant, 1992; Bowey & Francis, 1991; Treiman, 1991). Iversen and Tumner (1993) hypothesized that higher use of this segmenting technique in their U.S. study accounted for greater progress in phonemic segmentation skills attained by the U.S. Reading Recovery group versus their New Zealand group. Levy, Bourassa, and Horn (1999) found that poor readers showed the best generalization to reading new words and non-words when they were taught to read words using phoneme segmentation, rather than whole word or onset-rime word reading methods. Ball and Blachman s (1991) research supports the modeling of sounds together with a concrete representation of phonemes in a word: Sound Partners provides a sequence of instruction in phoneme segmenting that begins with segmenting three-phoneme (consonant-vowel-consonant) words, and progresses to four-phoneme words with consonant blends. The lessons use visual cues to help students understand how to segment phonemes by pointing to an 4

5 Elkonin box (a graphic box divided into three or four parts to which the student points when segmenting, putting only one sound in each box). Lesson Component: Phoneme Blending Phonological synthesis, or blending, is the ability to combine individual phonemes to make a word, and children's performance on this task is highly correlated with their early reading skills (Fox & Routh, 1984; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992). Research supports instruction that integrates letter-sound correspondence and phonological awareness instruction (Davidson & Jenkins, 1994; Fox & Routh, 1984; O Connor, Jenkins, & Slocum, 1995; Oudeans, 2003), and that includes both phoneme segmenting and phoneme blending (Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Davidson & Jenkins, 1994; Fox & Routh, 1984; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992). Fuchs et al. (2001) demonstrated the benefits of combined phonological awareness and decoding instruction on spelling and word reading measures. Oudeans (2003) research supports an integrated sequence for linking letter-sound instruction with instruction in phoneme blending and segmenting that involves print: The phoneme blending activities in Sound Partners incorporate the following features of research-based design: use of words that include the most common letter sounds; use of words that include only letters that have been previously introduced; explicit tutor instruction in connections between letter sound instruction and blending tasks; and, storybook exposure to words that include only or primarily previously introduced letters (Chard, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1998). Blending begins with continuous sounds that are easier to blend than stop sounds. Visual cues (an arrow under the word) are provided when the student is first learning to blend the sounds. Tutors are trained to have the student blend the sounds continuously (stretch them out) rather than stop between sounds, so that students are most likely to recognize the blended word. Lesson Component: Written Spelling Practice Pre-readers who are trained to segment and spell become better at reading unfamiliar words and segmenting and spelling than controls (Ehri & Wilce, 1987). Instruction that helps children internalize spelling, including invented spelling, helps children become aware of sounds and spellings of words (Ehri, 1989). O'Connor and Jenkins (1995) found that adding spelling instruction to code-based reading instruction for kindergartners with developmental delays significantly improved their spelling and word reading in comparison to a control group. This suggests that children most at-risk for reading failure may need the explicit instruction in the alphabetic principle that spelling tasks provide. Research supports the benefits of explicit, intense instruction, practice in letter-sound correspondence and application to decoding and spelling for the students most in need of extra instruction (Blachman, 1994; Felton, 1993; Lovett, 1994). Even with very young writers, there is evidence (Clarke, 1989; Ehri, 1988; Liberman, Rubin, Duques, & Carlisle, 1985; Treiman, 1985) that their use of invented spelling in writing contributes to their phonemic awareness and understanding of the alphabetic 5

6 principle the greatest benefits accrue to low performing students. Training studies indicate that the motor act of writing contributes to superior spelling performance compared to use of letter tiles or computer (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990; Hulme & Bradley, 1984): Similar to the design of the blending activities, the Sound Partners spelling activities reflect the following research-based features: use of spelling words that include the most common letter sounds; words that include only previously taught letters; and, tutor integration of letter-sound and phoneme-segmenting practice to support spelling (Chard, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1998). Tutors are trained to reinforce students phonetic spellings and to scaffold student spelling of difficult sounds. All spelling tasks are completed with pencil and paper. Later lessons that introduce two-letter combinations (blends, digraphs, vowel teams) include instruction and tutor guidance to help students become aware of these highly regular spelling patterns in written English. Tutors remind students to re-read all of their written words. Lesson Component: Storybook Reading in Decodable Texts Many training studies have clearly demonstrated that the most powerful early reading interventions feature training in phonological and phonics skills in combination with opportunities to apply these skills to the reading task (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Blachman, Tangel, Ball, Black, & McGraw, 1999; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Fuchs, Fuchs, et al., 2001; Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994; Mathes, Howard, Allen, & Fuchs, 1998; O Connor, Fulmer, Harty, & Bell, 2001; Slavin, Madden, Karweit, Livermon, & Dolan, 1990; Torgesen et al., 1999). Research on features of effective reading instruction suggests that exemplary teachers select text to match student needs (Allington, 2002; Rankin-Erickson, & Pressley, 2000). In her study of third- through fifth-grade students with low reading skills, O Connor (2002) found that students tutored with texts matched to their reading ability gained more in word reading, decoding, and fluency skills as compared to students tutored with grade-level texts. Chard, Simmons, and Kameenui (1998) recommended that research-based instruction in word recognition integrate phonological recoding of words into storybook reading as early as possible. Further, research suggests the value of decodable text for this reading practice, particularly during the initial stage of reading acquisition when it supports practicing letter-sound connections (Foorman, Fletcher, & Francis, 1997). Juel and Roper- Schneider (1985) reported that students in a decodable text group developed significantly stronger decoding skill and read more words not directly taught in the basal series as compared to students who used a basal series that featured high frequency words and more irregular words. Mesmer (in press) found that text decodability supported the application of letter-sound relations for first graders at the partial alphabetic stage of word recognition and enabled students to progress to the full alphabetic phase (Ehri & McCormick, 1998). 6

7 One of the key features of Sound Partners is the close match between the phonics instruction and the reading practice in the decodable Bob books. By the middle of the program (lesson #50), students spend half of the 30-minute tutoring session on oral storybook reading. In the first third of the Sound Partners lessons, when scaffolding with decodable text may be most supportive, 85% of the unique words are decodable, and decodability decreases to 72% in the second third of the lessons. The decodable Bob books are also engaging and often humorous and have been enjoyed by tutors and students alike. Length of the Program Sound Partners includes over 100 lessons, more than most first-grade students and tutors will typically complete within one intervention year (about 20 weeks of instruction). This enables tutors to continue working with students who need more than one year of intervention. Recent findings on first-grade reading interventions provide two arguments for long-term individual support. Non-response to phonological skills interventions is a concern across intervention studies. Vellutino et al. (1996) found that 33% of students continued to score below the 30 th percentile after one semester of individual tutoring. O Connor (1992) reported that 10% of first graders who received one-to-one interventions failed to benefit significantly. Torgesen (Torgesen Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997; Torgesen Wagner, Rashotte, Rose, et al., 1999) reported that 10% to 39% of students did not respond to intervention (i.e., scored below the 30 th percentile on word attack or word identification measures at post-test). We found that 22% of students who received Sound Partners continued to score below the 25th percentile at post-test on spelling and word reading (Vadasy, Jenkins, & Pool, 2000). These students appear to require sustained intervention in early reading skills from either a tutor or reading specialist. Summary With Sound Partners, students receive explicit and systematic instruction in letter-sound relationships, decoding strategies, and carefully coordinated spelling instruction. Students have daily opportunities to practice accurate and fluent reading in decodable stories that feature the letters and sounds they are learning. Letter-sound relationships are introduced at a reasonable pace, with extensive practice opportunities and cumulative review of previously-taught relationships. Decoding instruction is explicit, with guided practice, scaffolding, and modeling. Tutors are provided with mastery tests to monitor student progress and to identify areas for additional review and practice. Progress reports are also included to help tutors communicate with classroom teachers and parents. Sound Partners has been tested in conjunction with varied classroom reading programs and complements the classroom teacher s regular reading instruction. Sound Partners training prepares paraprofessional tutors to adjust their pace of instruction and to provide additional review, scaffolding, and modeling, based on each student s needs. 7

8 References Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Allington, R. L. (2002). What I ve learned about effective reading instruction: From a decade of studying exemplary elementary classroom teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1988). Phoneme segmentation training: Effect on reading readiness. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, Ball, E.W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 24, Barr, R. (1984). Beginning reading instruction: From debate to reformation. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.). Handbook of reading research (pp ). New York, NY: Longman. Biemiller, A. ( ). Relationship between oral reading rates for letters, words, and simple text in the development of reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 13, Blachman, B.A. (1994). What we have learned from longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading, and some answered questions: A response to Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, Blachman, B.A. (1984). Relationship between rapid naming and language analysis skills to kindergarten and first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, Blachman, B.A., Ball, E.W., Black, R.S., & Tangel, D.M. (1994). Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner-city classrooms. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, Blachman, B.A., Tangel, D.M., Ball, E.W., Black, R., & McGraw, C.K. (1999). Developing phonological awareness and word recognition skills: A two-year intervention with low-income, inner-city children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, Bowey, J.A., & Francis, J. (1991). Phonological analysis as a function of age and exposure to reading instruction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12,

9 Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R.. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the child s acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Chard, D., Simmons, D., & Kameenui, E. (1998). Word recognition: Instructional and curricular basics and implications. In D.C. Simmons & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Clarke, L.K. (1989). Invented versus traditional spelling in first graders writing: Effects on learning to spell and read. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, Cohen, P., Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A metaanalysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, Cunningham, A. (1990). Explicit vs. implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, Cunningham, A., & Stanovich, K.E. (1990). Early spelling acquisition: Writing beats the computer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, Cunningham, A., & Stanovich, K.E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability. Developmental Psychology, 33, Davidson, M., & Jenkins, J.R. (1994). Effects of phonemic processes on word reading and spelling. Journal of Educational Research, 50, Dickson, S.V., & Bursuck, W.D. (1999). Implementing a model for preventing reading failure: A report from the field. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14, Dixon, R., Carnine, D., & Kameenui, E.J. (1992). Curriculum guidelines for diverse learners. Monograph for the National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators. Eugene: University of Oregon. Donahue, P.L., Finegan, R.J., Lutkun, A.D., Allen, N.L., & Campbell, J.R. (2001). The nation s report card: Fourth-grade reading. Available at (should indicate date downloaded from site) 9

10 Ehri, L.C. (1988). Movement in word reading and spelling: How spelling contributes to reading. J. Mason (Ed.). Reading and writing connections. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Ehri, L.C. (1989). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ehri, L. C., & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14, Ehri, L.C., & Wilce, L.S. (1987). Does learning to spell help beginners learn to read words? Reading Research Quarterly, 22, Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, Felton, R.H. (1993). Effects of instruction on the decoding skills of children with phonological processing problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J.M. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Novy, D.M., & Liberman, D. (1991). How letter-sound instruction mediates progress in first-grade reading and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, Fox, B., & Routh, D.K. (1984). Phonemic analysis and synthesis as word attack skills: Revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, Friedman, D.E., & Medway, F.J. (1987). Effects of varying performance sets and outcome on the expectations, attributions, and persistence of boys with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20,

11 Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Thompson, A., Otaiba, S. Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, M., & O Connor, R E. (2001). Is reading important in reading readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, Gambrell, L.B., Wilson, R.M., & Gantt, W.N. (1981). Classroom observations of taskattending behaviors of good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Research, 24, Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gunn, B.K., Simmons, D.C., & Kameenui, E.J. (1998). Emergent literacy: Research bases. In D.C. Simmons & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics (pp. 2-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hulme, C., & Bradley, L. (1984). An experimental study of multisensory teaching with normal and retarded readers. In R. Malatesha and H. Whitaker (Eds.), Dyslexia: A global issue (pp ). The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Ninjhoff. Invernizzi, M., Rosemary, C., Juel, C., & Richards, H. (1997). At-risk readers and community volunteers: A 3-year perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, Iverson, S., & Tunmer, W.E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, Juel, C. (1996). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, Juel, C. (1991). Cross-age tutoring between student athletes and at-risk children. Reading Teacher, 45, Juel, C. (1989). The longitudinal study of reading acquisition: Graders 1-4. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first to fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, Juel, C., & Roper-Schneider, D. (1985). The influence of basal readers on first-grade reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 20,

12 Kameenui, E.J., & Carnine, D. (Eds.). (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Columbus, OH: Merrill-Prentice Hall. Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R.H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, Levy, B.A., Bourassa, D.C., & Horn, C. (1999). Fast and slow namers: Benefits of segmentation and whole word training. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, Liberman, I.Y., Rubin, H., Duques, S., & Carlisle, J. (1985). Linguistic abilities and spelling proficiency in kindergarteners and adult poor spellers. In D.B. Gray and J.F. Kavanagh (Eds.), Biobehavioral measures of dyslexia (pp ). Parkton, MD: New York Press. Lie, A. (1991). Effects of a training program for stimulating skills in word analysis in firstgrade children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, Lundberg, I, Frost, J., & Petersen, P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, Mathes, P.G., Howard, J.K., Allen, S.H., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Peer-assisted learning strategies for first-grade readers: Responding to the needs of diverse learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, Mesmer, H.A. (1999). Scaffolding a crucial transition using text with some decodability. The Reading Teacher, 53, Mesmer, H.A. (in press). Text decodability and the first-grade reader. Reading and Writing Quarterly. Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M., & Taylor, S. (1997). Segmentation, not rhyming, predicts early progress in learning to read. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, National Reading Panel Report, (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. O Connor, R.E. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15,

13 O Connor, R.E., Bell, K., Harty, K., Larkin, L., Sackor, & Zigmond, N. (2002). Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades: A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, O Connor, R.E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K., & Bell, K. (2001). Total awareness: Reducing the severity of reading disability. Presented at American Educational Research Conference, April, Seattle, WA. O Connor, R.E., & Jenkins, J.R. (1999).The prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, O Connor, R.E., Jenkins, J.R., Leicester, N., & Slocum, T. (1993). Teaching phonological awareness to young children with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, O Connor, R.E., & Jenkins, J.R. (1995). Improving the generalization of sound/symbol knowledge: Teaching spelling to kindergarten children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 29, O Connor, R.E., Jenkins, J.R., & Slocum, T.A. (1995). Transfer among phonological tasks in kindergarten: Essential instructional context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, Oudeans, M.K. (2003). Integration of letter-sound correspondences and phonological awareness skills of blending and segmenting: A pilot study examining the effects of instructional sequence on word reading for kindergarten children with low phonological awareness. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, Rankin-Erickson, J.L., & Pressley, M. (2000). A survey of instructional practices of special education teachers nominated as effective teachers of literacy. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, Samuels, S.J. (1988). Decoding and automaticity: Helping poor readers become automatic at word recognition. The Reading Teacher, 41, Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (Eds.). (1998). What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Livermon, B.J., & Dolan, L. (1990). Success for all: First-year outcomes of a comprehensive plan for reforming urban education. American Educational Research Journal, 27, Smith, S. Simmons, D.C., & Kameenui, E.J. (1998). Phonological awareness: Research bases. In D.C. Simmons & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.). What reading research tells us 13

14 about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Snider, V.E. (1997). The relationship between phonemic awareness and later reading achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, Spector, J.E. (1992). Predicting progress in beginning reading: Dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, Stanovich, K.E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, Torgesen, J.K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, Torgesen, J.K., Morgan, S., & Davis, C. (1992). The effects of two types of phonological awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1997). The prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., & Garvan, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, Treiman, R. (1991). Phonological awareness and its roles in learning to read and spell. In D.J. Sawyer and B.J. Fox (Eds.), Phonological awareness in reading: The evolution of current perspectives (pp ). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Treiman, R. (1985). Phonemic awareness and spelling: Children s judgments do not always agree with adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39, Treiman, R., & Rodriquez, K. (1999). Young children use letter names in learning to read words. Psychological Science, 10,

15 Treiman, R., Tincoff, R., Rodriquez, K., Mouzaki, A., & Francis, D. (1998). The foundations of literacy: Learning the sounds of letters. Child Development, 69, Treiman, R., Weatherston, S., & Berch, D. (1994). The role of letter names in children s learning of phoneme-grapheme relations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, Vadasy, P.F., Jenkins, J.R., & Pool, K. (2000). Effects of a first-grade tutoring program in phonological and early reading skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, Vandervelden, M.C., & Siegel, L.S. (1997). Teaching phonological processing skills in early literacy: A developmental approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, Vellutino, F.R. (1991). Introduction to three studies on reading acquisition: Convergent findings on theoretical foundations of code-oriented versus whole-language approaches to reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., Rashotte, C.A., Hecht, S.A., Barker, T.A., Burgess, S.R., Donahue, J., & Garon, T. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, Walker, H.M., & Buckley, N.K. (1972). Programming generalization and maintenance of treatment effects across time and across settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, Wasik, B. (1998). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, Wasik, B., & Slavin, R.E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, Yopp, H.K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23,