<%BANNER%>

Effectiveness of a Multisensory, Orton-Gillingham Influenced Approach to Reading Intervention for High School Students w...


PAGE 1

EFFECTIVENESS OF A MULTISENSORY, ORTON-GILLINGHAM INFLUENCED APPROACH TO READING INTERVEN TION FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH READING DISABILITY By SALLYANN GIESS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by SallyAnn Giess

PAGE 3

To my family, especially my nephe ws Richard and Michael Ferguson.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people were instrumental in the co mpletion of my degree. I first must acknowledge my supervisory committee member s, who each contributed in their own way to my professional, personal, and academic growth. Linda Lombardino taught me so much that it is difficult to pi n-point just a few things. She has a never-ending supply of time, energy, and enthusiasm. Her dedication to all her students, to her career and to the research community has inspired me to model my own career after hers. Bonnie Johnson has a unique way of guiding my thinking; during our conversations and discussions she has encouraged me to rely on my own reasoning and problemsolving skills to become a more critical thinker. Her kind words have helped me in my personal life, as well. Lori Altmann offered many invaluable s uggestions on working with my research assistants and conducting my research. She is always willing to help. Because Dr. Altmanns area of specialty differs from mine, I learned how to explain my research in clear and practical terms. As my outside committee member, Cynthia Gr iffin allowed me to tie my interests in special education to reading disabilities. He r faith in my ability to carry out a treatment study was instrumental in my choi ce of a disserta tion project. Debbie Butler, Idella King, Casey Mobley, and Addie Pons (the administrative and clinical staff at the University of Florida) helped me in many wa ys. Whenever I needed

PAGE 5

v anything (a question answered; something fa xed, copied, or mailed; assistance dealing with payroll problems) they always had the an swer. I will miss stopping in their offices to say hello and chat. I would also like to thank Dr. Scott Griffiths for honoring me with an Alumni Fellowship that made my studi es possible. I also thank Dr Sam Brown, chairman of the Communication Sciences and Di sorders Department; and Dr. Chris Sapienza, who was instrumental in bringing me to the University of Florida. I would not have been able to comp lete my degree without completing my dissertation. First, I must thank Susan Barton, who devel oped the Barton Reading and Spelling System and who was willing to share her reading program with the University of Florida Speech and Hearing Clinic. I am very thankful I found a warm reception for my project from the staff and students at DeSoto Charter School, especially Mary Malo, the director. Mary made sure my reading tutors had a place to work and allowed us open use of her school. My dissertation would not ha ve been possible without the support and cooperation of each and every person at De Soto. Likewise, I was lucky enough to find 6 dedicated graduate clin icians who were willing to be reading tutors. Without the work and dedication of Erin Boyne, Dana Griffi s, Erin Kux, Jennifer Rashkind, Sabrina Shephard, and Kathrine Wagner, I would not ha ve been able to complete my dissertation. Finally, I must thank my research assistants Lindsey Harper and Avigail Oren, who were instrumental in helping me collect data. Finally, I must acknowledge my fellow students. In particular I am thankful for the special friendship I have with Claudia Morelli and David Efros whose constant encouragement and support have been invalu able to me. Gerianne Gilligan is an

PAGE 6

vi inspiration and role model to me as a cla ssmate, friend and professional. I am also thankful for the friendship and support of Cynthia Puranik, Judy Wi ngate, Cynthia Core, and Lori Love. I honestly do not think I could ha ve made it this far without them. I am to have known and worked with Maisa Hajtas, Ja eock Kim, Peter Park, Nadia Abdulhaq and Lisa Pinissi. Finally, I must thank three special friends outsi de the University of Florida who are instrumental to my happiness. Tamara Martin, Kathy Chase, and Debra Bloomgarden contributed to my growth and c onfidence. I know they will continue to do so in the future. I have enjoyed many years of education in my lifetime and I can honestly say that the 4 years I have spent at the University of Florida have by far been the most valuable to me. I believe I have grown as a person and a professional and look forward to a long and prosperous career as a professor.

PAGE 7

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................xi ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Background of the Study..............................................................................................1 Rationale and Purpose..................................................................................................6 Research Questions.......................................................................................................7 Hypotheses....................................................................................................................8 Significance..................................................................................................................9 Limitations..................................................................................................................12 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................................................13 What Makes Reading Instruction Effective?..............................................................13 Phonological Core of Reading Disability...................................................................14 Defining the Core Deficit in Reading Disability.................................................15 Connecting the Phonological Core to Intervention.............................................18 Multisensory Approach..............................................................................................20 Commercial Orton-Gi llingham Approaches.......................................................23 Empirical Studies of Multisensory Approaches..................................................24 The Older Reading Disabled Student.........................................................................33 Summary.....................................................................................................................34 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................36 Instructional Setting....................................................................................................36 Participant Recruitment..............................................................................................37 Reading Tutor Recruitment and Selection..................................................................38 Operational Definition of Variables...........................................................................39 Research Instrumentation...........................................................................................39

PAGE 8

viii Participant Selection...................................................................................................40 Instructional Method...................................................................................................41 The Barton Reading and Spelling System...........................................................41 Levels of instruction.....................................................................................42 Teaching strategies.......................................................................................43 Lesson Format.....................................................................................................45 Levels, lessons, and procedures in the Barton Reading and Spelling System.......................................................................................................46 Tutor screening.............................................................................................54 Tutor training................................................................................................55 Student screening.........................................................................................56 Barton pretests..............................................................................................57 After-school reading program......................................................................58 Data-Collection Procedures........................................................................................59 Lesson Plans........................................................................................................59 Tracking Sheets...................................................................................................59 Reading and Spelling Probes...............................................................................59 Inter-observer agreement............................................................................................60 Treatment of the Data.................................................................................................62 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................63 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................83 Overview of Findings.................................................................................................83 Discussion of Research Findings................................................................................86 Beyond Phonological Awareness Training................................................................88 Critical Components of the Barton Reading and Spelling System.............................90 Barton Pretest......................................................................................................90 Stimulus Materials...............................................................................................93 Meaningful Remedial Reading Programs for Older Students....................................93 Limitations and Future Directions..............................................................................98 Clinical Implications.................................................................................................100 Conclusions...............................................................................................................101 APPENDIX A DESOTO CHARTER SCHOOL MISSION STATEMENT....................................102 B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) PROTOCOL....................................105 C INFORMED CONSENT..........................................................................................109 D STUDENT SCREENING ANSWER SHEET.........................................................112 E BARTON PRETESTS FOR BOOKS 13 (ADAPTED FROM BARTON 2000)...114

PAGE 9

ix F BOOK 2 LESSON PLANS, CO NSONANTS AND SHORT VOWELS (ADAPTED FROM BARTON 2000)......................................................................127 G DATA COLLECTION SHEET................................................................................159 H BOOK 2 READING AND SENTENCE PROBES..................................................161 I INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT FORM............................................................163 J TEST SCORE RESULTS ON DEPE NDANT VARIABLE MEASURES.............164 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................171 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................179

PAGE 10

x LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Content of Multisensor y Instruction (IMSLEC, 2001)............................................22 2-2 Principles of Multisensory Instruction (IMSLEC, 2001).........................................22 3-1 Reading-intervention group characteristics..............................................................41 3-2 Control group characteristics...................................................................................41 3-3 Mean Pre-test scores.................................................................................................41 3-4 Barton System Levels...............................................................................................43 3-5 Procedures and Levels in the BRSS.........................................................................54 4-1 t test for independent samples at pretest for dependent variables............................66 4-2 ANCOVA for dependent variables..........................................................................67 4-3 Reading-intervention group: t test for nonindependent samples..............................72 4-4 Control group: t test for nonindependent samples...................................................72 4-5 Reading-Intervention Group Mean, Media n, Mode, Range at Pretest and Posttest.74 4-6 Control Group Mean, Median, Mode, and Range at Pretest and Posttest................74 4-7 Greater than 3-month increase in gr ade-equivalent score by percentage.................80 J-1 Pretest and Posttest sc ores for treatment group on Letter-Word Identification (WJ III Achievement subtest)................................................................................165 J-2 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Letter-Word Identification (WJ III Achievement subtest)........................................................................................165 J-3 Pretest and Posttest sc ores for treatment group on Spelling (WJ III Achievement subtest)...................................................................................................................166 J-4 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Spelling (WJ III Achievement subtest)...................................................................................................................166

PAGE 11

xi J-5 Pretest and Posttest sc ores for treatment group on Word Attack (WJ III Achievement subtest).............................................................................................167 J-6 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Word Attack (WJ III Achievement subtest).............................................................................................167 J-7 Pretest and Posttest sc ores for treatment group on Sound Awareness (WJ III Achievement subtest).............................................................................................168 J-8 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Sound Awareness (WJ III Achievement subtest).............................................................................................168 J-9 Pretest and Posttest sc ores for treatment group on Sight Word Efficiency (TOWRE subtest)...................................................................................................169 J-10 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Sight Word Efficiency (TOWRE subtest)...................................................................................................................169 J-11 Pretest and Posttest sc ores for treatment group on Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (TOWRE subtest)..................................................................................170 J-12 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (TOWRE subtest)...................................................................................................170

PAGE 12

xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Difference in mean standard scores for Letter-Word Id. ..........................................68 4-2 Difference in mean standard scores for Spelling. .....................................................68 4-3 Difference in mean standard scores for Word Attack. ..............................................69 4-4 Difference in mean standard scores for Sound Awareness. ......................................69 4-5 Difference in mean standard scores for Sight-Word Efficiency. ..............................70 4-6 Difference in mean standard scores for Phonemic Decoding Efficiency. ................70 4-7 Book 2 number of lessons to complete & Basic Reading Skills..............................75 4-8 Book 1 Number of lessons to complete & Basic Reading Skills.............................75 4-9 Progress of participants-lowest BRS pretest standard score 7, 18, 10, 14, 12.........78 4-10 Progress of participants-highest BRS standard scores 20, 13, 11, and 16...............78 A-1 DeSoto High School brochure. A) Front. B) Back..............................................103 D-1 Student Screening Answer Sh eet A) Page 1. B) Page 2........................................112

PAGE 13

xiii Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EFFECTIVENESS OF A MULTISENSORY, ORTON-GILLINGHAM INFLUENCED APPROACH TO READING INTERVEN TION FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH READING DISABILITY By SallyAnn Giess May 2005 Chair: Linda L. Lombardino Major Department: Communicatio n Sciences and Disorders Our primary goal was to examine the effectiveness of a multisensory, OrtonGillingham influenced approach to readi ng intervention for high school students with reading disability. We tested the effect of a packaged reading-intervention approach on the reading subskills of lette r-word identification, spelling, word attack, sound awareness, speed of sight-word reading, and speed of phonemic decoding (nonsense words). Participants were 18 high school students attending a charter sc hool for language and reading difficulties. We chose 9 participan ts for the treatment group based on a cut-off score criterion; the remaining 9 students served as the control group. The independent variable was participation in the reading-intervention program. The independent samples t test showed that the pretest scores for the control group were significantly higher than pret est scores for the treatmen t group. Results of the ANCOVA showed no significant differences between group s at posttest. When we controlled for pretest scores, participants in the reading-intervention gr oup consistently made greater

PAGE 14

xiv gains than participants in the control group, although posttest scores remained higher for the control group. A t -test for nonindependent matched samples was significant (p < .05) for treatment participants’ posttest scores for Word Attack Descriptive analysis showed that the participants in the treatment group mo re frequently demonstr ated a greater than three month growth in posttest grade-equivale ncy scores compared to the participants in the control group. Correlation analysis also reve aled that performance on the pretest, as measured in standard scores, was not a good predictor of starting point in the Barton Reading program, but was a better pr edictor of amount of progress made. We developed recommendations and s uggestions for further study. Remedial reading-intervention programs are not m eant to replace daily literacy instruction. Therefore, it is important to consider how r eading instruction is approached overall for struggling older readers. Fina lly, further study using more ri gorous experimental design with randomized control groups is needed.

PAGE 15

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background of the Study Reading is a skill that serves us throughout life, yet it is a skill that many people take for granted. For most children, readi ng is acquired effortle ssly as they progress through the early school years and it serves as the primary mechanism used to acquire knowledge throughout their education (Ada ms, 1990; Moats, 2000, Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Snowling & Bishop, 2000). Childre n’s literacy skills grow rapidly during the elementary school years. They begin with an understanding of the alphabetic principle of letter-sound correspondences a nd progress to understanding prefixes and suffixes, as they decode unfamiliar word s (Burns, Griffin, & Snow, 1999). Children continue to refine their comprehension sk ills as they move from answering simple questions related to picture texts to id entifying cause and eff ect in narrative and expository literature (Burns, Griffin, & S now 1999). As children reach the end of elementary school, they are able to take pa rt in oral presentations, read from nonfiction text, and “publish” their own original writing (Burns, Griffin, & Snow, 1999). Reading in the adolescent years brin gs new demands for the reader. While adolescents have usually mast ered the fundamentals of word analysis and recognition, they continue to learn about the Latin a nd Greek origins of words and expand their vocabularies as they become more sophisti cated readers (Curtis, 2002). Adolescents bring their acquired knowledge and experience to learn from the text they read and acquire new ways to learn from text (Curtis, 2002). Students must be able to problem solve, read from

PAGE 16

2 different perspectives, and reflect on and an alyze reading material (Curtis, 2002). Adults continue to rely on their reading skills for keeping pace with advan ces in their profession, staying informed of current news, an d engaging in reading for pleasure. Clearly, reading is an activ ity and ability that evolve s throughout th e lifespan. Of specific interest in our study is the ad olescent reader. The relationship between adolescents and their experience with readi ng can be conceptualized on a continuum. On one end are adolescents who enj oy reading and do so with ease, can identify their favorite authors, and engage in readi ng as a leisure activity. In the middle are those teenagers who do not voluntarily read for pleasure and only engage in reading as a necessity, yet are able to read fluently and accurately. On the other extreme end of the continuum are adolescents for whom reading is a constant st ruggle and a frustrating experience, so much so that reading is considered an area of disability (Curtis, 2002) Adolescent students arrive at this extreme end of th e continuum through various routes. Typically, students with reading difficulty have struggled academically throughout school, often just barely passing each grade leve l. Some of these students never received good reading instruction and experienced poor environmental conditions in childhood (Hart & Risley, 1995; Snow, Burns, & Gr iffin, 1998; Snowling & Bishop, 2000). Some have a specific learning disa bility in reading, often calle d dyslexia (Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004). Finally, there are those students whose difficulty with reading is part of a broader learning disabili ty; these readers are sometimes referred to as language-learning disabled (Catts, Hogan, & Fey, 2003) or garden-v ariety poor readers (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Stanovich, 1988). Even when a reading disability has been diagnosed early in a child’s life and early in tervention has been provi ded, the intervention

PAGE 17

3 may not have targeted the unde rlying cause of the readi ng deficit (Apel & Swank, 1999; Lyon, 1998). Early struggles with the readi ng process that go unaddressed or are not successfully remediated often precipitate a ne gative attitude toward reading in the middle and high school years (L yon, 1998; Stanovich, 1986). Our study focused on students with dyslex ia and students considered languagelearning disabled or garden-var iety poor readers. An individu al with dyslexia or specific reading disability is clinically defined as one who has average intelligence, does not have general learning difficulties, and whose read ing problems cannot be explained by outside factors such as poor instructi on, lack of opportunity to lear n, sensory acuity deficits, or neurological factors (Velluti no et al., 2004). When reading is defined as the output of decoding plus linguistic comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), individuals with dyslexia or specific reading disability ar e typically those whose language skills for comprehension are intact in spite of poor word reading (Shaywitz, 2003). Shaywitz (2003) referred to this as the paradox of dyslexia good (often very good) reading comprehension skills but an unexpected weakness in reading single words. However, extreme difficulty achieving basic reading skills is not exclusive to the cluster of characteristics called dyslexia. As Aaron, Joshi, and Williams (1999) note, not all reading disabilities are alike and there ar e those students whose difficulties manifest beyond written language and in clude difficulty with spoken language as well (e.g., comprehension, discourse, syntax, semantics). These students have been referred to as language-learning disabled (Catts, Hogan, & Fey, 2003) or garden-v ariety poor readers (Stanovich, 1988; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). Regardless of the terminology used to describe the student who experiences excepti onal difficulty with reading, there remains a

PAGE 18

4 cohort of students who have weak phonologi cal awareness or phonol ogical coding skills characterized by deficient word identifica tion, word attack, spelling, and reading in general (Vellutino et al., 2004). This has been associated with a phonological core model of reading disability (Mo rris et al., 1998; Stanovich, 1988, 1998; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Vellutino et al., 2004). Br iefly stated, this means th at children with reading disabilities have a poor representation in the reading centers of the brain of sound-letter correspondences (Vellutino et al., 2004). Identifying the core of the problem of r eading disability is the first step to designing effective treatment. For adolescents early identification and prevention are no longer relevant issues. The focus of attention at this stage is on r eading intervention and remediation. Typically, remedial reading progr ams are offered in addition to a student’s regular education; they are meant to supplem ent the reading instruction that takes place during the school day. Multisensor y instruction is one type of remedial intervention that has been used successfully with individuals of all ages (Guyer & Sabatino, 1989; Joshi, Dahlgren, & Boulware-Gooden, 2002; Oakland, Black, Stanford, Nussbaum, & Balise, 1998) and is the focus of our study. Multisensory instruction has its roots in the Orton-Gillingham (O-G) Approach (Gillingham & Stillman, 1965) and is the ba sis of a number of remedial reading programs, such as Alphabetic Phonics, the Herman Approach, the Slingerland Approach, the Spalding Approach, and the Wilson A pproach (Colony, 2001). In this context, “multisensory” refers to the use of the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic senses (VAT) in the remediation of reading di sability. In 2001, The Internatio nal Multisensory Structured Language Education Council (IMSLEC) published a compilation of clin ical studies of

PAGE 19

5 multisensory structured language instruction for students with reading disability. They specified both the content and strategies used in multisensory structured language programs. The International Multis ensory Structured Language Education Council recommends that instruction include c ontent in phonology and phonological awareness, sound-symbol association, syllables, mor phology, syntax, and semantics. Phonology is the study of sounds. Phonological awareness is an inclusive term that refers to all levels of awareness of the sound structure of words. Phonemic awareness is a specific term and an important aspect of phonologica l awareness that refers to th e ability to notice, identify and manipulate phonemes (Shaywitz, 2003). Sound-sy llable association is the awareness of the sounds in the English language and their correspondence to the letters that represent the sounds (McI ntyre & Pickering, 2001). A syllable is a unit of oral or written language with one vowel sound (McIntyre & Pickering, 2001). Morphology is the study of how the smallest units of meaning are combined to form words. Structured language instruction must include th e study of base words, root s, and affixes (McIntyre & Pickering, 2001). Finally, syntax includes gr ammar and the mechanics of language; and semantics is concerned with the meaning of a linguistic message (McIntyre & Pickering, 2001). Multisensory structured language programs us e instructional stra tegies that follow core principles described as 1) simultaneous and multisensory; 2) systematic and cumulative; 3) direct; 4) diagnostic teach ing to automaticity; a nd 4) synthetic and analytic.

PAGE 20

6 Simultaneous multisensory teaching employs the primary learning pathways in the brain (visual, auditory, kine sthetic, and tactile) simultaneous ly, to enhance memory and learning. Systematic instructi on requires that instruction begin with the most basic elements of language and progress to the mo re complex elements. Each step builds on one previously learned and is constantly review ed. Direct instruction means that each rule and concept is explicitly taught and not le ft to inference. Diagnostic teaching to automaticity refers to using instructional strategies that are based on each student’s individual needs and teaching language rules and concepts to the point of automaticity. Synthetic phonics instruction pr esents parts of the word and requires the student to blend the sounds into a whole; analytic phonics instruction works from the whole word and teaches how the word can be broken into its component sounds. Rationale and Purpose Adopting a remedial reading program for district-wide school use is a common practice. While these programs are most ofte n founded on “proven” pr inciples of reading instruction, little empirical re search exists on the effectiven ess of specific programs. The Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) website offers information on 19 intervention and remedial programs for stude nts above third grade used in counties throughout Florida (FCRR, 2002-2003). However, as reported by the FCRR website, the research support for these programs varies a nd ranges from no empirical evidence to only one program with one efficacy study published in the Annals of Dyslexia The program with a published study supporting its effectiv eness was a multisensory approach called Phono-Graphix. Many of the intervention and remedial programs reviewed by FCRR on this website have undergone only a preliminary or beginning level of research and offer a similar minimal level of support for efficacy.

PAGE 21

7 The primary goal of the current study was to report on the efficacy of a readingintervention approach for high school students with reading disability. The researcher was interested in whether high school student s with reading disability who receive an explicit and systematic multi-sensory, phoni cs-based, Orton-Gillingham influenced approach to reading intervention made clinica lly significant gains in their reading skills. The Barton Reading and Spelling System (Barton, 2000), is a new commercially available multisensory remedial reading pr ogram that meets the content and function criteria identified by the International Multisensory St ructured Language Academic Counsel. It is an Orton-Gillingham influenced system designed for one-on-one tutoring of children, teenagers, and adults who struggle with reading, spelling, and writing, due to dyslexia or a learning disabil ity. Despite the soundness of th e principles upon which the Barton Reading and Spelling System is f ounded, there is limited empirical data supporting the effectiveness of the program as a remedial reading program. The specific reading skills of interest we re letter-word identification, wo rd attack, sound awareness, spelling, and reading fluency. A secondary purpose was to investigate student’s individual patterns of perfor mance after screening and brief, intensive treatment. Research Questions Research question 1: Do high school students assigned to a multisensory readingintervention group make greater improvement on posttest scores compared to students who do not receive such intervention on th e following variables: 1) letter-word identification 2) word attack 3) spelling 4) sound awareness 5) speed of sight-word recognition 6) speed of nonsense-word decoding?

PAGE 22

8 Research question 2: Do individual participants s how significant differences from pretest-posttest scores for 1) letter-word identification; 2) word attack; 3) spelling; 4) sound awareness; 5) speed of sight-word r ecognition; and 6) speed of nonsense-word decoding? Research Question 3: Does Basic Reading Skill pr edict 1) starting point for tutoring; and 2) number of lessons to complete a Barton level? Research question 4: Do more participants in th e reading-intervention group than participants in the control group achieve a greater than expected three month gain in grade-equivalent score from pr etest to posttest for 1) letter-word identification; 2) word attack; 3) spelling; 4) sound aw areness; 5) speed of sight-w ord recognition; and 6) speed of nonsense-word decoding? Hypotheses The research questions were generate d in response to several hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Based on the phonological core m odel to reading, students with reading disability who are assigned to a reading-intervention program based on low pretest scores and who receive a multisensor y, Orton-Gillingham influenced approach to intervention will make greater improvement on po sttest scores when compared to a group of students who did not receive the interv ention because of higher pretest scores on measures of reading skill. Hypothesis 2: A student who participates in th e reading-intervention program will achieve higher posttests scorers compared to his/her pretest scores as a result of a one-onone multisensory treatment program. Hypothesis 3a : A participant in the reading-intervention group who started with lower pretest standard scores on the dependent variable reading measures will perform

PAGE 23

9 more poorly on the Barton pretest and star t at a lower Barton book and lesson. In contrast, a participant in the reading-in tervention group who achieved higher pretest standard scores on the dependent variable reading measures will progress farther on the Barton pretest, thus starting at a higher Barton book and lesson. Hypothesis 3b: A participant in the reading-in tervention group who shows more severe reading disabili ties as defined by pretest standa rd scores will complete fewer books and lessons in the Barton Reading and Spelling System than a participant in the reading-intervention group who shows less seve re reading disabiliti es as defined by the same pretest standard scores. Hypothesis 4 : A greater percentage of participants in the reading-intervention group as compared to participants in the control group will increase their grade equivalent scores by more than thr ee months from pret est to posttest. Significance Although estimates vary on the prevalence of reading disability, the numbers are alarming no matter how they are calculate d. For example, Fletcher and Lyon (1998), reporting 1998 figures from the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD), estimated the prevalence of reading disability at 20% of schoolage children. In another report, based on da ta from the National Center for Educational Statistics, Lyon (2003) estimated that approx imately 38% of fourth-grade students were reading below a basic level a nd predicted that th ey would continue to have reading difficulty without systematic and focused intervention. Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz, and Fletcher (1996) reported that 74% of children who we re poor readers in third grade remained poor readers in ni nth grade.

PAGE 24

10 In recent years, the combined influences of political, societal, and educational factors have focused attenti on on the reading skills of young children during their early school years and on the methods used to teach young children to read. In fact, in 1997 the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) was formed to assess the status of the researchbased knowledge behind various methods for teac hing children to read and to identify the necessary components of eff ective reading programs (Ehri et al., 2001). Similarly, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 there has been an emphasis on fostering young children’s pre -reading skills in an effort to prevent later reading difficulties. An improvement in statewide reading ach ievement test scores for elementary school students in the State of Florida offers some evidence that these efforts may be paying off, at least for young children. For ex ample, one Florida county recently reported that approximately 70% of thirdand fourth -grade students scored at grade level or higher on the Florida Comprehensive Achi evement Tests (FCAT) for 2004 (James, FCAT Scores, 2004). Average reading scores on the FCAT also increased from 2003 to 2004 for the elementary grades (James, 2004) Unfortunately, olde r children in middle and high school are not experi encing the same kinds of ga ins in their FCAT reading scores (James, 2004a, 2004b). Only about 50% of seventhand eighth-grade students scored at grade level on the reading porti on of the 2004 FCAT and this percentage was lower from the previous year. Young children in the elementary grades ma y be faring better for several reasons. Based on extensive reviews of educational re search studies, the NRP identified five key components of effective reading instruction: a) phonemic awareness, 2) phonics, 3)

PAGE 25

11 fluency, 4) vocabulary, 5) text comprehensi on. It is likely that teachers are providing young children with more and systematic read ing instruction that incorporates these components. Finally, consistent and reliable evidence shows that early difficulties in spoken language predict later difficulties with written langua ge (i.e. reading) (Snowling, Adams, Bishop, & Stothard, 2001; Snow ling & Bishop, 2000; Stothard, Snowling, Bishop, Chipchase, & Kaplan, 1998). Hence, the trend is for early id entification and early intervention for reading disabili ties with children who have a history of spoken language deficits. In spite of these educational stri des, early identification and prevention of reading disabilities has little a pplicability to the older stude nt who continues to struggle with reading. With this popul ation, the focus of attention in evitably changes to that of remediation and the choice of a remedial read ing program to best address the students’ needs. Considering the potential for emotional, so cietal, and monetary repercussions of reading disability, it is imp erative that empirically base d studies be conducted that investigate the outcome of students with reading disability who undergo a readingintervention program. There is some evidence that students who struggle with reading in middle and high school may be receiving more attention. For ex ample, in a State of the Union Address on January 28, 2004, President Bush announced a proposal to create a $100 million readingintervention program for middle and high sc hool students (Robelen & Bowman, 2004). Recently, the governor of the State of Flor ida announced a Middle Grades Reform Act requiring that a higher priority be placed on reading in schools where more than 25% of students test below grade le vel on the FCAT (James, 2004b). Clearly, there is a call for

PAGE 26

12 empirically-supported reading-in tervention programs that a ddress the needs of older students with reading disability. Limitations Our study had two main limitations: 1) the short duration of the reading intervention and 2) lack of randomization of subjects. The high school students who participated in this study have experienced a long history of read ing disability. It’s a certainty that it will take more than the 2 or 3 months that were available for the intervention to establish long-lasting gains in their reading ski lls. The other major limitation was the lack of randomization of s ubjects to the experimental and control groups. Given the professional a nd ethical responsibility to make the reading program available to all students who qua lified, we decided to treat all the eligible students in the semester in which the reading program wa s available. Older students with reading disability have been shown to make signi ficant progress in their reading skills after receiving remedial-reading intervention based on multisensory approaches that stress the foundations of written language structure (Moats, 2001, 2004; Torgesen et al., 2001).

PAGE 27

13 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Our purpose was to report on the efficacy of a multisensory reading-intervention approach for high school students with readi ng disability. First we briefly discuss the necessary components of skilled reading. The primary focus and remainder of the chapter is devoted to two areas. We reviewed studies related to the phonol ogical core model of reading disabilities is provided. We described the multisensory approach to remedial reading intervention and discussed the rese arch on multisensory reading-intervention approaches. The chapter ends with a brief disc ussion of the issues that are pertinent to older students with reading disabilities. What Makes Reading In struction Effective? In 1998, the National Research Council (NRC) “identified and summarized the research literature relevant to the critical skills, environments and early developmental interactions that are instrumental in the acquisition of beginning reading skills” (p.2) (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Building on that work, the National Reading Panel (NRP) conducted an evidence-based analysis of the experimental and quasi-experimental research literature on how crit ical reading skills are most effectively taught (NRP, 2000). Their findings were reported in the Report of the National Reading Panel (2000). The National Reading Panel (2000) identifie d five major areas that are keys to successful reading instruction: 1) alphabetics 2) fluency, 3) comprehension, 4) teacher education and reading instruc tion, and 5) computer technolog y and reading instruction. Alphabetics includes instruct ion in phonemic awareness and phonics, fluency addresses

PAGE 28

14 the ability to read aloud with accuracy, sp eed, and proper expression, and comprehension includes instruction in vocabulary, text co mprehension, and comprehension strategies (NRP, 2000). Among these five key areas of instruction, phonological awareness has received the most attention (Ehri et al., 2001). Phonological Core of Reading Disability There is now converging eviden ce that the core deficit in reading disability is at the level of phonological awareness and letter-sound decoding (Bus & Ijzendoorn; Ehri et al., 2001; Fletcher et al., 1994; Foorman et al., 1997; Morri s et al., 1998; Scanlon & Vellutino, 1997; Shaywitz et al., 1999; St anovich, 1988, 1993; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997; Vellu tino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004). Shaywitz (2003) describes phonolog ical awareness as an inclus ive term that “…includes all levels of awareness of the sound structure of words. It also is used to refer to the earliest stages of developing an awareness of the parts of words, such as sensitivity to rhyme or noticing larger parts of words su ch as syllables” (p.144). Letter-sound decoding is the process of converting the written symbol s on the page to the smallest unit of speech sounds called phonemes (Shaywitz, 2003). In a recent summary of what has been lear ned about dyslexia in the past 4 decades, Vellutino et al. (2004) reviewed the support behind a number of theories that have been proposed as the underlying cause of dyslexia. Ci ting findings from the research literature, Vellutino et al. found that ther e is “…growing consensus that the most influential cause of difficulties in learning to read is the fa ilure to acquire phonological awareness and skill in alphabetic coding” (p.12). More speci fically, weak phonological coding has been identified as the central cause of reading di sability in most impaired readers (Archer, Gleason, & Vachon, 2003; Ehri et al., 2001; Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003; Ramus

PAGE 29

15 et al., 2003; Vellutino et al.). Phonological coding is “…the ab ility to use speech codes to represent information in the fo rm of words and parts of word s” (Vellutino et al. p.12). Defining the Core Deficit in Reading Disability Stanovich (1988, 1993) and Stanovich and Siegel (1994) developed the Phonological-Core Variable-Diffe rence Model to describe the cognitive characteristics of children with dyslexia. In the Phonological-C ore Variable-Difference (PCVD) model, Stanovich (1988, 1993) and Stanovi ch and Siegel (1994) posit that all poor readers have a phonological deficit. Stanovich’s (1988) mode l rests on the assump tion of specificity. This model assumes that a child with dyslexia has a learning disability that is reasonably specific to reading and localized in the phonolog ical core, and require s that the deficits displayed by the child with dyslexia not extend too far into other domains of cognitive functioning (Stanovich, 1988), such as pragma tic language skills and problem-solving skills. Stanovich (1988) went on to add that the disruption in th e phonological core is relatively dissociated from intelligence. Accordingly, in defining dyslexia the International Dyslexia Association points out that dyslexia is a specific reading disability characterized by a specific deficit in the phonological component of language that is unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003). The use of measures of cogniti ve ability to aid in identifying or diagnosing specific reading disability and the role of cognitive ability in the Phonological Core Variable Difference model warrants further discussion. Stanovich (1988) and Stanovich a nd Siegel (1994) used the term variabledifference in the PCVD model to describe the performance contrasts between readers with and without an aptitude-achievement discrepancy outside the phonological domain. Such a distinction is often used to identify ch ildren for reading research studies (Fletcher

PAGE 30

16 et al., 1994) Individuals are id entified as having specific read ing disability or dyslexia based on an unexpected gap between intelligence quotient and reading level, the latter being unexpectedly low given one ’s expected ability. In cont rast, individuals are often identified as garden-variety poor readers for purposes of research studies when there is not a gap between reading achievement a nd intelligence quotient. Although this distinction in identifying participants as read ing disabled has receiv ed much criticism in the reading research literatu re (Fletcher et al., 1994), it is frequently used by school districts to determine eligibility for services While reading disability seems to be be st characterized by impairment in the phonological core, there is eviden ce of variability around this core (Morris et al., 1998; Stanovich & Siegel, 1993; Ve llutino et al., 2004). For example, in a large scale study using cluster analysis, Morris et al. (1998) identified seven subtypes of reading disability. While all subtypes shared impairments in phonological processing, two of the seven subtypes were characterized by impairment in cognitive skills as well; individuals in this subtype were categorized as garden-variety poor readers (Morris et al., 1998). The seven reading-disabled subtypes iden tified by Morris et al. (1998) c onsisted of the two subtypes with impaired cognitive ability reflected in deficient language skills, four with weaknesses in phonological awaren ess and variations in short-term memory and rapid naming skills, and one subtype with impaired verbal and nonverbal measures associated with rate and accuracy of oral reading. Morri s et al. (1998) conclude d that their results were consistent with the PCVD mo del proposed by Stanovich (1988, 1993). The importance of the phonologi cal core of readi ng and its central role in reading disability persists as disa bled readers get older (Bruc k, 1992; Shaywitz et al., 1999;

PAGE 31

17 Wilson & Lesaux, 2001). In a longitudinal study, Shaywitz et al. (1999) reported on the outcome in adolescence of young children di agnosed as dyslexic. Three groups of subjects for the outcome study were sele cted from the large-scale Connecticut Longitudinal Study when they were in Gr ade 9 (Shaywitz et al., 1999). One group of children met the criteria for persistent read ing disability in Grade 2 through Grade 6. These adolescents met either the discrepancy definition or low-achievement definition of reading disability for four of five years in Grade 2 through Grade 6. The other group did not meet either criteria and was divided in to average and superior readers based on a standardized reading score. The 9th grade students were assessed on cognitive skills, including phonological awareness, academic skills, and intellectu al skills. Shaywitz et al. (1999) found that the deficits in phonological coding that were present in th e early school years for the group with persistent reading di sability still characteri zed the older readers in adolescence. Bruck (1992) corroborated th e persistence of phonologica l processing deficits and dyslexia into adulthood. She studied two popul ations of dyslexics. The first sample included children between the ages of 8 and 16 years whose word recognition scores were substantially below their intelligence level. The second sample consisted of adults between the ages of 19 and 27 years who were diagnosed as dyslexic in childhood based on poor word recognition skills and whose word -recognition scores ranged from Grade 1 to Grade 12 as adults. Four control groups we re selected from good readers in Grades 1 through 3 and from a sample of college st udents. These two clinical samples of individuals with dyslexia and the four control groups of normal readers were matched separately for age level and reading level and were tested on a battery of phonological

PAGE 32

18 awareness skills. Bruck (1992) found that phoneme awareness did not develop as a function of age or reading level for childre n with dyslexia and th at there was little development of this skill between childhood and adulthood. Connecting the Phonological Core to Intervention Although a solid link between deficits in phonolog ical awareness sk ills and reading disability has been establis hed in the literature, interv ention that targ ets phonological awareness skill alone is not sufficient in re mediation of reading disability (Bus & Ijzendoorn, 1999; Ehri et al., 2001; Harm, McCa ndliss, & Seidenberg, 2003; McCandliss, Beck, Sandak, & Perfetti, 2003). An interv ention study by McCandliss et al. (2003) illustrates this point. McCandliss and his colleagues (2003) deve loped an intervention called WordBuilding that taught children with deficien t decoding skills how to attend to and manipulate each grapheme position within a word using lettered tiles. This was done through a procedure of progressive minimal pairing of words that differed only by one grapheme. Children in the 1st grade who had deficient decoding, word identification, and phonological awareness skills were randomly a ssigned to either th e treatment group or the control group. Interestingly, pre-intervention assessment re vealed that the children could decode the first letter in a pseudoword but not letters in the medial or final position. The children who received the Word-Building intervention made significant improvements on a formal word attack test and on a pseudoword decoding task, but not on their word identification skills. McCandliss et al. (2003) attribut ed this mixed finding to the nature of the word identification task which required reading irregular words that do not follow the rules of English. Thus, enhanced grapheme-phoneme decoding skills did not transfer to more accurate reading of irregular words.

PAGE 33

19 In another study, Harm, McCandliss, and Se idenberg (2003) developed a simulated model of two reading interventions, one involving only phoneme manipulation and one involving phoneme-grapheme manipulation, in an effort to determine what made the Word-Building (McCandliss et al., 2003) intervention successful. Their readingintervention simulation model wa s based on earlier work of Harm and Seidenberg (1999) whose simulated acquisition of phonological knowledge was based on a connectionist framework and explained through a series of computations involving orthographic, phonologic, and semantic information. Harm and Seidenberg (1999) postulated that words and nonwords are processed in the same way, by presentation of orthographic pattern input that in itiates or activates weighted c onnections throughout an attractor network. They hypothesized that developmental dyslexia resulted from damage to the network. For a full account of the theoretical framework of the Connectionist Model and the attractor networks see Seidenberg & McClelland (1989) and Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg, and Patterson (1996). Harm, McCandliss, and Seidenberg (2003) proposed the mapping theory as an explanation for successful inte rvention and argued that phon ological awareness activities needed to go beyond phoneme manipulation to at tain effectiveness for children who have begun to read. Harm et al. (2003) believed th at the key component to the success of the Word-Building intervention was teaching the child to build a new word with letter tiles by changing a single letter tile in the previous word in combination with reading the progressively changing word. This techni que was thought to place pressure on the orthographic-to-phonological system to form mappings more sensitive to the internal components or parts of words (Harm et al. 2003). To validate the mapping theory, Harm

PAGE 34

20 et al. applied the same word-building techni que (McCandliss et al., 2003) to a computer simulated model. Five simulations were created: a normal simulation with intact phonological representations, an impaired simu lation, and three simulations that were remediated early in reading in struction, after 10,000 reading tria ls (i.e., early in reading), and after 100,000 reading trials (i.e., later in reading). Harm et al. found that the wordbuilding intervention that targeted the relationship between print and sound was successful at the onset of literacy traini ng, early in reading, a nd later in reading. The mapping hypothesis predicted th at letter-sound ma pping changes the orthographic-to-phonological ma pping, making it more componential, and impacting the reading skills of older children with read ing disability. Such children have already formed poor orthographic-to-phonological mappi ngs and need to do more to change the phonological system by creating new orthograp hic-to-phonological mappings (Harm et al., 2003).Transforming one word into anot her word through simultaneous graphemephoneme manipulation is one way to create these new mappings. If orthographic-to-phonologi cal mapping, activated by word -building activities, can improve word reading ability beyond the time of early reading instruction, it is reasonable to expect that activating multiple senses will produce even stronger mappings in the reading system. Such is the premise of multisensory reading instruction which calls on visual, auditory, and tactile-kinesthetic modalities in remediation techniques. Multisensory Approach The multisensory approach to remedial trai ning for students with reading disability has its origins in the work of Samuel T. Orton, known as the “father of dyslexia” (Colony, 2001). Two of Orton’s colleagues, Bessie Stillman and Anna Gillingham, worked with Orton to develop the Ort on-Gillingham-Stillman Approach (commonly

PAGE 35

21 referred to as the O-G method) to readi ng intervention and today there are numerous multisensory intervention approaches that are modified versions the O-G method (Richardson, 2001). The multisensory approach is based on the integration of the visual, auditory, and tactile-kinesthetic sensor y organs (Gillingham & Stillman, 1997). The student starts by learning i ndividual sounds and then usi ng the sounds to build words (Gillingham & Stillman, 1997). As the student builds words, he/she also builds close associations between what is seen in print (v isual), what is heard (auditory), and what is felt orally as the sounds of the letters are pr oduced (tactile sensati ons in the mouth) and the letters are printed (kinesthetic sensations in the large muscle movements) (Gillingham & Stillman, 1997). In 2001, the International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council (IMSLEC) published its first compilati on of research articles titled, Clinical Studies of Multisensory Structured Language Educati on for Students with Dyslexia and Related Disorders (McIntyre & Pickering, 2001). What distinguishes multisensory structured approaches to reading intervention from other approaches is the cont ent (what is taught) and the principles of instruct ion (how it is taught) (McInt yre & Pickering, 2001). Table 21 and Table 2-2 provide a su mmary of the content and pr inciples, respectively, of multisensory instruction. Sound-symbol association must be taught in two directions, visual to auditory, where the student sees a letter and hears the sound that it makes, and auditory to visual, where the student hears a sound and identi fies the correspondi ng letter. Syllable identification includes teaching six basic types of syllables according to the O-G approach, closed, vowel-consonant-e, open, consonant-le, r controlled, and diphthong.

PAGE 36

22 Finally, instruction in morphology includes teaching how morphemes are combined to form words and identifying base words and affixes. Table 2-1. Content of Multise nsory Instruction (IMSLEC, 2001) Content component Definition 1. Phonology Study of phonemes, the smallest unit of sound that can be recognized as being distinct from other sounds in a given language. 2. Phonological Awareness Unders tanding of the internal linguistic structure of words 3. Sound-Symbol Association Knowledge of the sounds of the English language and their correspondence to the letters which represent those sounds. 4. Syllable Identification Ability to identify a syllable as a unit of oral or written language with one vowel sound. 5. Morphology Study of morphemes, the smallest unit of meaning in a language. 6. Syntax The set of princi ples that dictate the sequence and function of words in a sentence, including instruction in principles of grammar. 7. Semantics The meaning c onveyed by written and spoken language. Table 2-2. Principles of Multi sensory Instruction (IMSLEC, 2001) Principle component Definition/Explanation 1. Simultaneous Instruction All learning pathways of the brainvisual/auditory and kin esthetic/tactile-are used to enhance learning and memory 2. Systematic Organization of material must follow the logical order of the language, beginning with the most basic elements and proceeding to more difficult elements. 3. Cumulative New steps are b ased on those already learned and old rules are constantly reviewed and woven into new teaching. 4. Direct Instruction All concepts and rules are taught directly and to proficiency. 5. Diagnostic Teaching Teaching is based on continuous assessment of the student’s needs and progress. 6. Analytic Phonics Students break a whole sentence into words or a word into its component letters or sounds. 7. Synthetic Phonics Students learn how to blend individual words into a sentence and individual letters and sounds into a word.

PAGE 37

23 Commercial Orton-Gillingham Approaches Students of Orton have developed multisen sory reading interventions based on the Orton-Gillingham Method. Among the more well-known methods are the Slingerland Multisensory Approach, the Spalding Method, Alphabetic Phonics, the Herman Approach, and the Wilson Approach (McInt yre & Pickering, 2001). Each of these commercially available programs uses a multisensory explicit phonics approach that emphasizes visual and auditory feedback for s ounds and tactile-kinesthe tic input of letter formation (Alexander & Slinger-Constant, 2004). However, the specific content of each varies slightly program to program. For exam ple, Alphabetic Phonics focuses only on the most probable spellings of each sound while Orton emphasized all possible spellings of speech sounds (Cox, 2001). Alphabetic Phonics in cludes benchmark measures tied to its curriculum; this allows the tutor to use cr iterion-referenced test s to assess student progress (Cox, 2001). The Herman Approach in cludes several unique tactile-kinesthetic exercises (Herman, 2001). In bli nd writing, students are blind-fo lded as they trace letters on the table to the beat of a metronome. Bima nual writing requires the student to write letters on the chalkboard with both hands si multaneously. The Slingerland Multisensory Approach is a classroom adaptation of the O-G Approach that can be used with any reading text (White, 2001). The Wilson Reading System is appropriate for older students, Grade 5 through adulthood and includes a spec ific sequence of 12 steps; each one must be mastered before moving on to the next step (Wilson, 2001). Although there are differences in the strategies and components of each of these programs, they all stress the importance of focusing on the strengths of the child, acknowledging his/her successes and building on these successes to produ ce confident and able readers.

PAGE 38

24 Empirical Studies of Mu ltisensory Approaches At a recent conference of the Internati onal Dyslexia Association (November 2004), Lyon stated that literacy inst ruction and literacy interven tion programs should be based on converging scientific evid ence and focus directly on th e components identified by the NRP as being instrumental to reading, 1) phonemic awareness, 2) phonics, 3) vocabulary, 4) fluency, and 5) comprehension. Accordi ng to Lyon (2004), a study is deemed to be scientific when 1) there are a clear set of testable questions; 2) methods are appropriate to answer questions and falsify competing hypothese s; 3) there is an e xplicit link between a theory and previous research; 4) data are ex amined systematically and with appropriate tools; and 5) data are available for review a nd criticism. In order for researchers to claim effectiveness for an intervention program a nd to generalize results to other populations, they must randomly assign participants (both students and teachers) to treatment and no treatment conditions. Given limitations of various resources su ch as time, money, and personnel, the above criteria are hard to meet. It is important to rec ognize that valuable information can also be gained from quasi-experimental re search designs, although results do not offer empirical evidence of treatment efficacy. In fact, many of the studi es reported on by the International Multisensory Structured La nguage Education Council (2001) are quasiexperimental in design (Alexander & Sli nger-Constant, 2004). Studies of reading interventions based on multisensory approaches that utilized both quasi-experimental and experimental design have been reported in peer-reviewed journals as well (Brooks & Weeks, 1998; Foorman et al.,1997; Guyer & Sabatino, 1989; Joshi, Dahlgren, & Boulware-Gooden, 2002; Oakland, Black, Stanford, Nussbaum, & Balise, 1998; Shaywitz et al., 2004; Thorpe & Borden, 1985; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997).

PAGE 39

25 A number of researchers have investigat ed the effect of using a multisensory teaching approach with children (Foorman et al., 1997; Joshi, Dahlgren, & BoulwareGooden, 2002; Oakland, Black, Stanford, Nussb aum, & Balise, 1998; Shaywitz et al., 2004; Thorpe & Borden, 1985; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997). Joshi et al. (2002), Oakland et al. (1998), and Foorman et al. (1997) implemented multisensory treatment approaches based on adaptations of Alphabetic Phonics (Cox, 1985). Joshi, Dahlgren, and Boulware-Gooden ( 2002) compared the reading progress of 1st grade children who were taught reading skills through Language Basics: Elementary a multisensory approach based on Alphabeti c Phonics (Cox, 2001) and 1st grade children who were taught reading with a basal readi ng program. The children in this study were not identified as having a reading disability or being at ri sk for reading disability. Pre and post test measures were taken on the childre n’s phonological awarene ss, word attack and reading comprehension. Joshi et al. (2002) found that the 1st grade children taught with the multisensory O-G-based approach made significant gains on post test measures of phonological awareness, word a ttack, and reading comprehens ion while the control group children made significant gains only on reading comprehension. Joshi et al. (2002) attributed the superior performance of the treatment group to the systematic and explicit inst ruction in synthetic phonics taught in the multisensory approach. However, their study had severa l methodological flaws that limited their findings. First, the study took pl ace in different classrooms in different schools; this introduced uncontrolled variables such as classroom dynamics, teacher experience, and administrative support. Second, the participants were not randomly chosen or assigned to a treatment or control group; however the sp ecific method of partic ipant selection and

PAGE 40

26 group assignment was not e xplained. Finally, the childre n in this study were not identified as reading disabled nor considered at risk for reading disability. Therefore, effectiveness of treatment cannot be generali zed to children with reading disability. Oakland et al. (1998) commented on problem s of weak experimental design in reading disability resear ch in their study of the Dyslexia Training Program (DTP). The DTP, an adaptation of Alphabetic Phonics (Cox, 2001), is a remedial reading program that uses multisensory teaching to promote r eading in students with reading disability. Oakland et al. (1998) investig ated the effectiveness of th e DTP in improving the reading and spelling achievement over a 2-year period of 4th grade students with reading disability. Twenty-two students with dyslexia served as the treatment group and received reading instruction with the DTP; twenty-six st udents also identified as dyslexic served as the control group and received the reading in struction normally provided in their school. Diagnosis of dyslexia was based on a 15-point discrepancy between full scale IQ and word recognition. Oakland et al. (1998) meas ured gains on reading comprehension, word recognition, spelling, monosyllabic p honological decoding, and polysyllabic phonological decoding. Compared to the cont rol group, the DTP group made significant progress over the two year period on read ing comprehension, word recognition, and polysyllabic phonological decoding. Several qualities of this study offer moderate empirical evidence of treatment effectiveness. First, the part icipants in the control and tr eatment groups were matched on intelligence, reading achievement, gender, age, grade, and socioeconomic status. However, participants were not randomly a ssigned to the treatment or control groups.

PAGE 41

27 Rather, students identified as dyslexic by one clinic were designate d the treatment group and students identified by a nother clinic were designated the control group. Second the treatment was sufficiently long (two years) to allow generalization to long-term application in school settings (Oakland et al., 1998). Howeve r, the researchers were not able to control for supplementary reading in struction outside the DTP or the quality of reading instruction provided in the re gular classroom to the control group. Foorman et al. (1997) investigated th e effectiveness of a synthetic phonics program, an analytic phonics program, and a sight-word reading program for 114 children in Grade 2 and Grade 3 with readi ng disability. The reading interventions took place in a traditional public school classroom setting. The synthetic phonics intervention was modeled after Alphabetic Phonics (Cox, 2001). Children were pr eviously identified by their school district as learning disabled and were further identified as reading disabled for the study if their combined word attack and word identification score was less than or equal to the 25th percentile. Across groups, participants were not matched for IQ score, initial decoding scores, socioeconom ic status (SES), age, gender, or ethnicity and group make-up varied on these characteristics. In the synthetic phonics program, letter-s ound associations were taught directly through visual, auditory, and kinesthetic sensory input a nd followed a systematic approach that proceeded from simple to complex rules. In the analytic phonics approach, onset-rime analysis was the core skill taught ; this intervention included discussion of word meaning, writing of sentences using the target rime, and choral reading. In the sight-word program, students were taught 150 words by pairing spoken words with printed words or pictures.

PAGE 42

28 Foorman et al. (1997) found that the s ynthetic phonics group outperformed the analytic phonics group in phonological and or thographic processing and word reading. the sight-word group in phonologi cal processing. However, when SES, ethnicity, gender, and VIQ were added to a grow th-curve analytical model, the only treatment effect to remain significant was the superior performa nce of the synthetic phonics group compared to the sight-word group in phonological proces sing (Foorman et al., 1997). Teachers who participated in this study volunteered for one of the thre e treatment groups, thus group assignment was not random. Furthermore, results were confounded by demographic variables such as SES and verbal IQ. Finall y, the length of the study may not have been long enough to realize major gains in young children with re ading disability. This is a problem Oakland et al. (1998) cite d and addressed in their study. Continuing the theme of reading-interventi on programs with children, Shaywitz et al. (2004) investigated the effects of a multisensory, phonologically-based reading program (experimental intervention) on the brain activation patterns of children with reading disability. Brain activation pattern s of participants engaged in a letteridentification task were measured before a nd after intervention usi ng functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Children were cons idered reading disabled if they had a standard score of 90 or below on either a test of word identification or word attack and on the average of both tests (Shaywitz et al., 2004). Over an eight-month period, children identified with reading disability received either an experimental intervention or a community intervention. Children with norma l reading ability participated in a community control group. Childre n with reading disability in the community intervention received whatever intervention was commonl y provided in their sc hool setting, including

PAGE 43

29 resource room, special education, or speech-language services. No child in the community intervention group did received a systematic, explicit, phonics-based intervention comparable to the one used in th e experimental interven tion (Shaywitz et al., 2004). The experimental intervention included instruction on sound-symbol association, phoneme analysis and blending by manipulation of letter cards or tiles, dictated spelling words (students repeated the word before sp elling it and were encouraged to stretch out the sounds of the word before spelling it) and oral reading of stories. The group receiving the experimental in tervention made significant ga ins on their reading fluency compared to the community intervention group but not compared to the community control group. The fMRI results showed increa sed activation in left hemisphere regions for the experimental intervention group and the community control group immediately after intervention (Shaywitz et al., 2004). Shaywitz et al. (2004) concluded that the provision of an intensive phonologically-bas ed reading intervention, that used multisensory techniques, brought about brain act ivation patterns in children with reading disability that resembled t hose of typical readers. Unfortunately, like previous studies, so me methodological w eaknesses interfere with generalization of results. Children in this study were recruited from different populations. The children in the experimental intervention were recruited from a school district in one state. Children in th e community intervention group and community control group were recruited from anothe r state from referral sources such as pediatricians’ offices and community orga nizations. Thus, participants were not randomly assigned to the treatment groups and control group. There were other

PAGE 44

30 confounding variables as well. For example, becau se children attended school in different states, reading curricula in the classroom may have varied widely and could not be controlled. Also, it is not known what kind of, if any, extracurricular reading activities children in the community cont rol group participated in. Despite the confounding variable s noted in the study by Shay witz et al. (2004), it is promising that fMRI results showed neurobi ological changes in children who received the phonologically-based treatment one year af ter the treatment ended. In fact, similar findings of neural changes afte r phonological training in children as well as adults have been reported in the literat ure (Aylward et al., 2003; Ed en et al., 2004; Simos et al., 2002). For example, Eden et al. (2004) used fM RI to take brain images of adults with dyslexia. Before intervention, the adults with dyslexia exhi bited phonological and physiological (i.e., brain activity) deficits compared to adults that did not have dyslexia. One half of the adults with dyslexia receive d training in a phonologi cal manipulation task Following the intervention, the adults with dyslexia who receiv ed the phonological training demonstrated improvements in phonologi cal processing and increased activity in the same left-hemisphere regions engaged by normal readers (i.e., pa rietal cortex). The non-tutored adults with dyslexia di d not exhibit such changes. Only a few studies have examined the effectiveness of multisensory approaches with older students with learning disabil ity (Brooks & Weeks 1998; Guyer & Sabatino 1989). Brooks and Weeks (1998) compared the responses of adolescent students with different cognitive profiles on different stra tegies for teaching spelling. Students who had scores below the 20th percentile on a graded word spelling test but whose cognitive status was average or above were considered dysle xic. Students whose IQ scores were one

PAGE 45

31 standard deviation below the mean were cons idered slow learners and were matched for age with the dyslexic students. The control group consisted of children with normal IQ scores who were matched on spelling age to the dyslexic participants. Participants were taught spelling words using one of three teaching methods, a phonics method, a visual/semantic teaching method, and a tr acing method. Brooks and Weeks (1998) hypothesized that students with dyslexia would learn less well in a phonics-based method that was dependent on phonemic skills that characterize their weakness in phonological awareness. They predicted that the spelling of the students with dyslexia would improve more with the visual/semantic teaching me thod than the phonics method and the spelling of the slow-learners would improve mo re with the phonics method than the visual/semantic method. In the phonics method, students listened as the teacher sounded out and pointed to each letter of a word. In the visual/semantic method, students examined printed words to find smaller words within the given word (e.g., tramp in trampoline ). In the tracing method, students used their index finger to trace over the letters of a word as if writing the word. Intervention lasted a total of three weeks with each participant practicing one method per week. Before instruction with each method, teachers obtained a baseline measure of words spelled correctly. The sp elling method was taught Tuesday-Thursday; on Friday the participants spelled their practice words with no teaching. Different words were used in each teaching method. Brooks and Weeks (1998) found that the students with dyslexia learned significantly more wo rds with the visual/semantic method that required visualizing the word, recalling the co mposition of the word, and pointing to the smaller words while naming the words. Subj ecting all participants to each of the

PAGE 46

32 treatment conditions allowed Brooks and Weeks (1998) to investigate which group learned best under which condition. However, by exposing all participants to each condition, it is not possible to determine if it was the treatment itself or the order of treatments that made the difference in spelling skills. Also, the treatment was short in duration and it is possible that classroom t eachers would not continue to differentiate spelling instruction for the dyslexic and slow -learners. Finally, furt her investigation is needed to determine if improved spelling ski lls transfers to other written language tasks such as word identification and word attack. Citing a lack of literature addressing reading intervention with older reading disabled students, Guyer and Sabatino (1989) examined the improvement in reading skills of college students with learning disa bility assigned to one of three conditions. They were particularly interested in whether college students with le arning disability who were exposed to a multisensory O-G approach would make more progress in reading compared to students who were taught with a nonphonetic approach or who received no intervention. Thirty college students were selected randomly from a college’s tutorial program for students with learni ng disability. Students were considered learning disabled if they showed a discrepancy of more than one standard deviation between their ability and achievement scores on an IQ test. The multisensory techniques used in the O-G approach included lessons in syllable division, breaking down words in to component sounds and blending sounds into words, teaching specific decoding and encoding ru les, and teaching reading, spelling, and handwriting simultaneously. Students in the nonphonetic approach followed a basic-skills reading series that focused on comprehensi on and literature appreci ation and taught them

PAGE 47

33 how to analyze stories for main idea and supporting information; however, no attention was given to word attack skills. Pre a nd post tests that assessed word recognition, spelling, and word attack were administer ed. Guyer and Sabatino (1989) found that the students who received instruction in the O-G multisensory approach achieved statistically significant gains in their reading scores comp ared to students in the other two conditions. The random selection of part icipants from the tutorial program was a strength of this study. However, the researchers did not state how they assigned participants to treatment groups, thus making replication of the study difficult. It is encouraging that college students made positive gains on tests of word recognition, spelling, and word attack in the short five-week duration of the study. A longer intervention study would allow researchers more time to target issues particularly important to a college population such as heavy reading loads, advanced-level text and frequent writt en assignments, as well as investigating the long-te rm success of the intervention. The Older Reading Disabled Student As the above discussion has illustrate d, much is known about the effective components of reading instru ction, the phonological core of reading disability, and successful techniques to reading interven tion. However, as re ported by the National Association of Educational Progress (2002), the average performance of 8th grade readers remained flat from 1998 to 2002 and declined for 12th graders. The same components of effective reading instructi on identified by the NRP (2000) can be applied to reading instruction in the adolescent years, keepi ng in mind the educational demands of middle and high school and the history of reading fa ilure experienced by ol der struggling readers (Kamil, 2003).

PAGE 48

34 It has been almost twenty years since Stanovich (1986) described the downward spiral faced by older students w ith reading disability. This down ward spiral starts early in the reading acquisition cycle, when deficien cy in phonological awaren ess skills combines with a lack of exposure to print resulting in lack of reading practice for a young child (Stanovich, 1986). The downward spiral continues as the child brings poor fluency skills reflected in reduced automaticity and speed to reading material that is too difficult (Stanovich). Children who start off reading we ll develop good vocabul aries, continue to read and build their vocabularies, and hence c ontinue to enhance thei r reading skills. In contrast, children with inadequate vocabularie s, reflecting inadequate exposure to print, read slowly, without enjoyment, and read less, leading to an impoverished vocabulary which further inhibits growth in reading. St anovich (1986) refers to this frequently observed pattern as th e Matthew Effect These negative experiences may translate in to negative attitudes toward self and school as well as negative patterns of behavi or that develop after years of failure with reading; such attitudes and patterns can be difficult to change (Denti & Geurin, 2004). Clearly, teenagers who struggle with reading difficulty presen t different challenges than those posed by young children (Heck & Deshler, 2003). Summary The review of the literature in this ch apter has presented a case for reading intervention based on the O-G multisensory approach. Interventions based on this approach are thought to be part icularly effective because they target the core component implicated in reading disability, phonol ogical awareness and letter-sound decoding. However, many gaps exist in the literature supporting multisensory approaches. First, few research studies meet the strict criteria fo r scientific rigor in establishing empirical

PAGE 49

35 support for specific interventions as id entified by Lyon (2004). Vigorous empirical studies often do not lend themselves easily to the parameters of educational settings. Second, few well designed studies have examined the effectiveness of using a multisensory approach with older reading disabled students. The purpose of our study was to address these issues by carrying-out a well-designed reading intervention using a multisensory approach for high school students with reading disability

PAGE 50

36 CHAPTER 3 METHODS The purpose of our study was to determine the effects of a multisensory readingintervention approach on the reading skills of students with reading disability. We measured several areas of stude nts’ reading skills to determin e their basic reading level. We measured reading skills for word identification, word decoding, spelling, sound awareness, and word identification and decoding of nonsense words under timed conditions. A systematically assigned contro l group design (Tuckman, 1999) was used to establish reading-intervention and control groups. Participan ts were assigned to the reading-interventio group based on low pretest scores. Students who achieved higher pre-test scores were assigned to the control group and did not receive the treatment. The research methods presented in this sec tion are addressed under the headings of instructional setting, recruitment and selec tion of participants and reading tutors, dependent and independent variables, inst rumentation, reading program details and implementation, and treatment of the data. Instructional Setting The reading-intervention program took place at a charter high school in Alachua County, Florida. The school is a public char ter school for high school students with reading and language difficulties; as a charter school, no tuition or fees are required to attend the school. Grades 9 and 10 were en rolled in 2003 and Grade 11 was added in 2004. The reading and language difficulties of the students include word decoding, reading comprehension, oral expression, aud itory processing, and written expression.

PAGE 51

37 The charter school offers students a standa rd diploma; however, other options are available. The student/teacher ratio is lo w and class sizes are small. During the 20042005 school year, there were five faculty memb ers and 30 enrolled students. In addition, two part-time speech-language pathologists a nd a part-time occupational therapist serve the school. The following is the mission statem ent of the school, as provided in the school’s promotional brochure: …High School is the first public char ter high school in Alachua County specifically for reading and language ch allenged students. …is dedicated to implementing innovative learning strategies designed to meet the individual talents and needs of all our students. The school is committed to assessing students on an individual basis by maintaining low stude nt/teacher ratios, sm all classes, and by using assistive technologies. The school will work to help the student continue to make reading gains, and to build confiden ce and self esteem wh ich are essential for success outside of school (charter school brochure, Appendix A). Participant Recruitment The University of Florida Institutiona l Review Board (IRB-02) approval (UFIRB Protocol # 2003-U-844) (Appendix B) was received to recrui t participants and conduct the research. At the end of August, 2004, the researcher presented an overview of this research study to the parents of the student at the charter school during the school’s open house. The researcher explained the nature of the multisensory phonics approach, the duration of the reading inte rvention, and the time, days, and location of the program. Parents who expressed interest in the reading intervention were given a Parent Consent form to sign (Appendix C). Parents had the option of signing and returning the consent form at the open house or taking it home to consider and return ing it to school with their child. Parents who took the consent form home were given two weeks in which to return the form and were told to have their child gi ve the consent form to the school’s director. Once the return deadline occurred, the director contacted the researcher and gave her the

PAGE 52

38 consent forms. Using the described procedures consent was obtained for twenty students to participate in the study. All students at the charter school were poten tial participants if they returned a signed consent form. A student’s enrollment at the charter school assumed the presence of a reading or language difficulty and an agr eement to a behavioral contract if warranted by the school’s director. Assessm ent to determine eligibility for the reading-intervention program took place over a one-week period at the charter school. The researcher administered all tests used to determine par ticipant eligibility All potential participants were given pure-tone hear ing screenings to confir m normal hearing status. Twenty students returned signed consen t forms and were considered potential participants. Of these twenty students, 14 we re classified according to Alachua County School’s Exceptional Student E ligibility (ESE) as Specific Learning Disabled, two were classified as Other Health Impaired, three did not have an ESE classification, and one student had recently been declassified as Emotionally Handicapped, but possibly Learning Disabled. Six of the 14 students with Specific Learning Disability status were also classified as Speech-Language Im paired. Experimental and control group participants’ ESE classifications are provided in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. Reading Tutor Recruitment and Selection Reading tutors were recruited from first year graduate students in the Department of Communication Disorders and Sciences at th e University of Florida (UF). In August of the 2004-2005 academic year, a UF Speech and H earing Clinic orientation was held for all incoming graduate students. At this orientation, supervising Speech-Language Pathologists described their clinic placements, including this researcher’s readingintervention program/doctoral dissertation a nd the requirements to become a reading

PAGE 53

39 tutor. Six first year graduate students chose the reading-intervention program as their first choice for their first placement and thus becam e the reading tutors (assuming they passed the Barton Tutor Screening, described below). All reading tutors were females; two had clinical experience at the unde rgraduate level, one was currently employed as an SLP in the Alachua County Schools, and three had no previous clinical experience. Tutor screening and training is described below under Program Implementation. Operational Definition of Variables The primary hypothesis tested in this study is that high school st udents with reading disability who are assigned to a readingintervention group based on low pretest reading scores and who receive a multisensory OrtonGillingham influenced approach to reading intervention will make stronger improvements on posttest reading scores compared to a control group of students who do not receive intervention. The dependent variables were selected subskills of reading ability measur ed both pre-intervention and post-intervention by formal standardized tests. The independent variable was partic ipation in an OrtonGillingham influenced simultaneously multisensory explicit and systematic phonics approach. Research Instrumentation Pretest and posttest measurement included The Woodcock Johnson III Achievement Test (WJ III-Ach, Woodcock, Mc Grew, & Mather, 2001) and the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE, Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). The WJ IIIAch was used to determine participant eligibil ity. To qualify as reading disabled for this study, students were required to demonstrate below average ability in single word spelling, single word reading, word attac k, or phonemic awareness as determined by scores of one or more standard deviations below the mean (standard score of 85) on at

PAGE 54

40 least two basic reading skills subtests of the WJ III-Ach, that included Letter-Word Identification which was used to measure word identification skills through letter identification and word pronunciation; Spelling which was used to measure skill in spelling spoken words correctly; Word Attack which was used to measure skill in applying phonic and structural analysis ski lls to the pronunciation of unfamiliar printed words, and Sound Awareness which was used to measure phonemic awareness skills and consisted of four parts, Rhyming, Deletion, Substitution, and Reversal. The TOWRE was given to measure ability to pronounce both sight words ( Sight Word Efficiency subtest) and nonwords ( Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest) accurately and fluently in timed conditions. Participant Selection The experimental group consisted of 9 stude nts who qualified to participate in the after-school reading-interventi on program. The control group consisted of nine students; six students who did not meet eligibility crit eria based on the pretest scores and three students who meet pretest eligibility criteria but could not participate due to schedule conflicts. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 describe students in the readingintervention group and control group, including assigned participant number, gender, grade, chronol ogical age at pretest, and ESE classification. Id entification numbers were a ssigned consecutively by grade level and alphabetically by surn ame within each grade level. Hence, the first student in Grade 9 with the first last name alphabeti cally was given identification number 1. The numbers continued consecutivel y and alphabetically through Gr ade nine and number 6; numbering continued in Grade 10 with iden tification number 7 assigned to the student whose last name occurred first alphabetically in that grade. Table 3-3 consists of mean

PAGE 55

41 test scores of the experimental group and the control group on the pre-test assessment battery. Table 3-1. Reading-interven tion group characteristics Id. # 7 10 11 12 13 14 16 18 20 Gender M M F M F F F M F Grade 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 CA (Years;Months) 15;11 15;4 16;4 15;1115;515;2 16;2 17;5 16;7 ESE Class SLDa SLDNoneSLD SLIb SLI OHIc SLD SLD SLI SLD Table 3-2. Control group characteristics Id. # 2 3 4 6 8 9 15 17 19 Gender M M M F F F M M F Grade 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 CA (Years;Months) 15;3 16;1014;8 15;1115.1115;4 16;8 17;9 16;3 ESE Class SLD SLD SLI SLDSLD SLI None SLD SLI SLD SLD None Notes: Student # 1 and student #5 did not participate. aSLD = Specific Learning Disability (primary classification). bSLI = Speech Language Impaired (additional exceptionality). cOHI = Other Health Impaired (primary classification). Table 3-3. Mean Pre-test scores. Experimental Group (N = 9) Control Group (N = 9) WJIII Achievement Test Letter-Word Identification 69.22 90.88 Spelling 64.11 90.88 Word Attack 76.77 89.22 Sound Awareness 74.66 90.33 Basic Reading Skills 74.11 90.44 TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency 45.55 82.44 Phonemic Decoding Efficiency 59.66 83.66 Instructional Method The Barton Reading and Spelling System The Barton Reading and Spelling System (BRSS) is an Orton-Gillingham influenced, simultaneously multisensory, explicit, and systematic phonics program

PAGE 56

42 created by Susan Barton. The meaning of each of these components is given on the Barton website (Barton 2000). The BRSS employs simultaneous multisensory instruction by appealing to the student’s visual, auditory, tact ile, and kinesthetic senses in the learning process. Tutors teach, and students practice, rules of written lang uage one at a time until a rule is stable in both reading and spelling, then a new rule is introduced. Hence, this program uses direct, explicit instruction. The Barton pr ogram is systematic and cumulative in that tutors start by teaching very basic rules as a foundati on of written language and build upon these rules until a student is able to apply these rules automatically and fluently when reading and spelling. Old rules are reviewed as new ones are taught. This systematic and cumulative process is meant to help a student understand that ther e is logic behind the rules of the English language. The Bart on program employs both synthetic phonics, where a student builds words from individual sounds and letters, a nd analytic phonics, where a student learns how to break longer wo rds into its components letters and sounds. Finally, tutors practice diagnostic teachi ng; they continuously assess a student’s knowledge of the rules and ability to apply th e rules. The tutor engages the student in a dialogue asking the student to ex plain why a particular rule affects how a word is spelled and pronounced. When a student makes a mistak e, the tutor guides the student with dialogue to figure out where the mistake occu rred and how to correct the mistake. Levels of instruction The Barton Reading and Spelling System c onsists of ten levels presented in separate books, each of which is designed to teach different reading and spelling rules of the English language (Table 3-4). Each level is broken down into lessons and each lesson is further broken down into procedures. The protocol within a pr ocedure alternates

PAGE 57

43 between spelling and reading exercises, with the tutor either dictating words for the student to spell or building words with tiles for the student to read. All levels contains between ten and fourteen lessons with the exception of Level 1 and Level 2, which are both considerably shorter. Similarly, most le ssons contain about fifteen procedures with the exception of the lessons in Level 1 and Level 2, which have fewer procedures. The levels are ordered sequentially and increas e in difficulty. While some students may possess enough phonemic awareness to skip Le vel 1, Barton warns against skipping more than the first level. The level at which a st udent begins the Barton program is determined by a pre-test administered by the tutor. Table 3-4. Barton System Levels Barton Levels Name of Level 1 Phonemic Awareness 2 Consonants and Short Vowels 3 Closed and Unit Syllables 4 Multi-Syllable Words and Vowel Teams 5 Prefixes and Suffixes 6 Six Reasons for Silent E 7 Vowel-R’s 8 Advanced Vowel Teams 9 Influence of Foreign Languages 10 Latin Roots and Greek Combining Forms Teaching strategies The tutor teaches reading and spelling ru les using multisensory procedures. With the exception of Level 1, the procedures are re petitive from level to level and lesson to lesson, increase in difficulty within a leve l, and build upon the information taught in previous lessons. A description of the terms and steps used in the multisensory delivery is presented here. Step 1-Tutor dictates word. The tutor gestures to herself with her hand each time she dictates a word to the student.

PAGE 58

44 Step 2-Student repeats word The tutor gestures with her hand to the student each time the student repeats a word. Step 3-Touch and say The student taps each tile, starting with the index finger, and says the sound represented by the tile. In the initial sessions, th e tutor demonstrates this process for the student. Step 4-Tapping a vowel sound A specific procedure is used to tap the vowel sound. Using a two-syllable key word to re present the short vowel sound, the student begins by tapping the index finger on the tabl e while saying the onset/vowel sound; next the student taps the middle finger on the table while saying the rime. Th is is repeated two times and the student ends by tapping out the vowel sound with the index finger three times. For example for the short vowel sound of i and the key word itchy the student would start tapping with the index finger and say i tap with the middle finger and say i tchy repeat this two times, and finish with tapping the i three times with the index fingeri tchy, i tchy i i i Step 5-Slowdown step The tutor makes a swooping motion with her dominant/writing hand towards the student as the student repeats th e dictated word. The tutor starts the swoop at the st udent’s left shoulder, brings her arm down toward the table in an arc, and moves her arm upward toward s the student’s right should to finish the swoop. Step 6-Slowly blend the sounds The student runs his/her index finger along the table, below the tiles used to spell the wor d, in a half-circle/u shape while slowly saying the word on the tiles.

PAGE 59

45 Step 7-Say it fast like a word After the student has sl owly blended the word, he/she draws the index finger in a line belo w the tiles and says the word using a normal speaking rate. Step 8-Finger spelling Starting with the thumb of the non-writing hand and moving from left to right, the student holds up one finger per sound to spell the word on his/her fingers. Lesson Format A systematic teaching method is used throughout the Barton Reading and Spelling System. To introduce a new spelling, readi ng, or syllable division rule, the tutor builds words with tiles that illustra te the rule and guides the st udent through dialogue so the student believes he/she has discovered the ru le on his/her own. Once a rule has been introduced, the tutor and student practices by building and reading a variety of words to which the rule applies. The tutor always asks the student if there ar e any sounds or letters the student needs help with. If the student is sure of his/her wor k, the student reads the word, phrase, or sentence to make sure all the words are correct. If the student does not pick up an error on his/her own, the tutor draw s the students attention to the word and asks the student to double-check his/her work on that particular word. The tutor never tells the student he/she is wrong or has made a mistake. Instead, the tutor accepts the responsibility for errors (Oh, I must have said that in correctly, let me say it again,) and the tutor and student engage in a problem-solving exercise to find the error. When writing sentences, the tutor always asks the student if he/she remembered to start the sentence with a capital le tter and ended the senten ce with punctuation.

PAGE 60

46 Levels, lessons, and procedures in the Barton Reading and Spelling System In our study, all participants completed Levels 1 and 2; all participants began Level 3, but only two participants (# 3 and # 13) completed Level 3. These two participants were just beginning Level 4 at the conclu sion of the reading intervention. Only the lessons and procedures (Table 3-5) sp ecific to these levels are presented. Level 1: Phonemic Awareness In the first level, the student is taught that each sound is represented by a single tile, that di fferent color tiles de signate consonants and vowels, and that by manipulating the tiles, the student can manipulate the sounds in a word or syllable to create new words and syllables. Level 1 Lessons and Procedures Level 1 consists of five lessons that begin with single syllable vowel (V)-c onsonant (C) combinations, in cluding VC, CV, CVC, VCC, and CCV, and end with real words. Blank red tiles represent vowel sounds and blank blue tiles represent consonant sounds. The proce dures begin simply, with the break apart procedure in which the tutor dictates a syllable such as AK (VC), the student repeats the word, says it slowly, pulls down one tile per sound, and then touches each tile while saying the corresponding sound. The break-apart procedure becomes progressively more difficult as additional steps are added to this base procedure. For example, in the breakreplace procedure, after the student complete s the touch and say, the tutor instructs the student to make a new syllable by changing one tile as designated by the tutor. The break-replace-remove procedure adds an additio nal step in which the tutor instructs the student to remove a designate d tile after the student has completed the break-replace procedure. The student also practices comp aring two words that differ in only one tile/sound. The tutor builds two words and uses the touch and say strategy for each sound until the student identifies the different sound/tile.

PAGE 61

47 Level 2: Consonants and Short Vowels In the second level of the Barton Reading and Spelling System, the tutor introduces twenty-one consonants of English, five vowel sounds, and five digraphs (two c onsonants that make one sound, such as sh ). Lettered tiles are used instead of the blank tiles used in Level 1 while vowels and consonants continue to be represente d by red and blue tiles respectively. Level 2 Lessons and Procedures There are five lessons in Level 2. In the first four lessons, one vowel sound and a group of consonants are introduced; only the short sound of the vowel is used. In Lesson 5, the tutor teaches the five digraphs and final vowel sound. For the first lesson, the tuto r teaches six consonants ( b, f, m, p, s, t ) and a short vowel sound ( a as in apple ). If the student does not know the sound the vowel makes, the tutor helps the student identify a key word to represent the vowel and illustrates this on a “Key Words” page. This exercise is also used to illustrate unfamiliar consonant sounds. After the vowel sound and consonants are introd uced, the tutor either dictates a sound and the student points to the corresponding tile or the tutor lays out the tiles in front of the student and the student points to each tile and names the letter and the sound that the letter makes. Once the student demonstrat es consistent knowledge of this set of consonants and the vowel sound, he/she progr esses to reading and spelling real and nonsense words composed of Lesson 1 sounds only. To facilitate reading, the tuto r builds a word with the tiles. The student does touch and say for each sound and taps out the vowel sound if it is a difficult sound for the student. After tapping out the sounds, the stud ent slowly blends the sounds together and then rapidly to create a real word. Student s initially practice spel ling procedures with

PAGE 62

48 their fingers and the tiles. Following the tuto r’s dictation of a word, the student repeats the word and then says it very slowly. The st udent then represents each sound of the word on one of his/her fingers. Starting with th e thumb of the non-writing hand, the student holds up one finger per sound, moving from left to right. After the student has spelled the dictated word with his/her fi ngers, the student spells the wo rd with tiles by pulling down one tile per sound/finger. Once the student ha s become proficient at spelling words with his/her fingers and the tiles, the student progresses to spelli ng words on paper. Instead of pulling down a tile to represent each sound on his/her finger, the student writes down the letter that corresponds to th e sound on his/her finger. The tutor always reminds the student to double-check his/her work to make sure that what is written on the paper or spelled with the tiles is, in fact, th e word the student meant to spell. Two procedures in Level 2 give the student practice reading real printed words and practice building his/her vocabul ary. To practice reading real words, the tutor gives the student a list of printed words, consisting onl y of the sounds already learned and a 4” x 6” index card with a small hole cut in the middle to place around each word. The student reads down the list of words and uses the touc h and say procedure if he/she comes across an unfamiliar word. To build vocabulary, the student reads a one-syllable word that can also be a prefix of a longer word. The stude nt and tutor take turns thinking of longer words that build on the given syllable. For example, the student could read tab and then generate the words tabular and tablet In Level 2, Lesson 2, six new consonants ( c, g, h, l, n, r ,) and a new short vowel sound ( i ) are introduced. The tutor introduces severa l new procedures in Lesson 2 that are continued throughout all lessons at this leve l. The student begins each lesson with a

PAGE 63

49 review of previously tau ght letters and their corres ponding sounds. This review is followed by a phonemic awareness warm-up in wh ich the tutor dictates a word and asks the student to say only the first sound, the la st sound, or the middle sound of the word and to point to the corresponding le tter tile. Each lesson comes w ith extra practice pages that are used to review the reading and spelling rules taught in the previous lesson. If the student completes the extra practice page fo r homework, the tutor reviews the student’s work before going on to new material. If th e tutor did not assign the extra practice as homework, the student has the opportunity to complete the page during the tutoring session. In Level 2 lessons, the student begins r eading phrases and sentences. In the Read Phrases procedure, the tutor teaches the student that sentences consist of phrases and that phrases convey certain information, such as who did what and where In the Read Sentences procedure, the student uses the knowledge learned in the previous lesson to segment a sentence into the phrase categories just learned. The stude nt then practices reading the sentence, pausi ng to indicate a phrase. In Lesson 3, five consonants ( d, j, k, v, z ) and a short vowel ( o ) are taught. In Lesson 4, the tutor introduces four more consonants ( w, x, y, qu ) and one more short vowel ( u ). In Lesson 5, the final lesson of Level 2, five digraphs ( sh, th, wh, ch and ck ) and the last short vowel sound ( e ) are taught. Level 3: Closed & Unit Syllables In Level 3, many new concepts are taught, including closed syllables, unit syllables, spelling rules, blends, and contractions. Students and tutors discuss the concept of a syllable and learn the rules of a closed syllable (only one vowel, the vowel makes its s hort sound, and is closed in at the end by a

PAGE 64

50 consonant or blue tile). Student s learn spelling rules that gov ern when to use the letter k vs. c to make the /k/ sound in the beginni ng of a word, when to use the letter k vs. ck at the end of a word to make the /k / sound, when to use the letters ch vs. tch at the end of a word to make the ch sound, and when to double the fi nal consonant of a one-syllable word. Students learn rules to apply to read ing and spelling units (in unit syllables, the sounds are not to be broken apart and the vowel sound does not make its usual sound, for example the i in ink and ing sounds more like a long e than a short i ). Each unit is represented on a single, orange-colored tile. Level 3 Lessons and Procedures New procedures are introduced in Level 3. The first new procedures address reading and spelling sight word s. In the Read New Sight Word List procedure, the stude nt is given a list of sight words to read. As the student reads the list of words, the tutor keeps track of the words the student reads incorrectly on the Sight Word Tracking List. The tutor prin ts the missed word on an index card and the student begins to accumulate a reading deck of missed sight words. The student is told to practice these words and the i ndex cards are brought out in subsequent lessons. Once the student reads the missed sight word correctly fo r three lessons, the card is retired from the sight-word reading deck. In Create Sight Word Spelling Cards, students are taught a new procedure to practice misspelled sight words. The tutor dictates the spelling sight words to the student and the student prints the words on lined noteb ook paper. The tutor stops dictating words at three misspellings and makes an index card for each misspelled word. The tutor teaches the student how to see and spell the wo rd in his/her imaginat ion, see and write the word on the table and see and write the word on paper. The tutor prints the missed word

PAGE 65

51 on an index card and writes the difficult letter (s) in red ink for the student. The student begins by staring at the word to get a good pict ure of it and then visu alizes the word with his/her eyes closed. After visu alizing the word with his/her eyes closed, the student looks at a blank wall, visualizes the word on the wall, and spells the word aloud. The student next writes the word with his/her index finge r as the pen on the desktop and finishes the procedure by saying each letter aloud and writ ing the letter on the paper to spell the word. The same procedure used to retire a misread sight word is used to retire a misspelled spelling sight word. In Level 3, the student continues to sp ell single words using more advanced procedures than in Level 2 by spelling dictat ed phrases and sentences on paper. The final new procedure in Level 3, Read a Story, in troduces the student to reading connected sentences. This procedure was modified in our study and the modified procedure was followed throughout the subsequent lessons and levels. As presented in the Barton System, each lesson includes four stories cont rolled for the spelling rules taught in the particular lesson; there are two basic level stories and two advanced level stories. The tutor uses her own discretion in choosing the appropriate st ory level for her student. As presented in the BRSS, the student has one of two options. After reading the story to him/herself, the student can either read the st ory aloud to the tutor or can retell the story in his/her own words. The tutor then asks the student comprehension questions based on the passage, regardless of the option chosen. The researcher modified the Read a Stor y procedure in the following manner. The student first read the paragraph to him/herself and marked any unfamiliar or difficult words. After going over the difficult words with the tutor, the student read the story aloud

PAGE 66

52 and the tutor listened for fluent and accurate reading. Sentences were broken down into phrases to practice smooth r eading and misread words were reviewed for correct decoding. Finally, the student read the story ag ain to him/herself and the tutor asked the student to identify the who or what of the story and the main idea. In Lessons 1, 2, 3, and 4, the student pr actices reading and spelling words with blends at the beginning of a word, the end of a word, and the beginning and end of a word. Both two letter blends and three letter blends are used and the tutor teaches the student to distinguish between blends and digraphs (digraphs make one sound and are presented on the same tile while in a blend each letter retains its sound and is presented on a separate tile). In Lesson 5, a student is taught to double the final consonant in a closed one-syllable word when the word ends in f, l, s, or z (the FLOSS rule) and to understand the exceptions to the rule. In Lesson 6, the student is taught the “Kiss the Cat” rule which explains when to use k vs. c to make the k sound in the beginning of a word. In Lesson 7 the “Milk Truck” rule is introduced to explain when to use k vs. ck to make the k sound at the end of a one-syllable word. Similarly, in Lesson 9 the “Catch Lunch” rule is introduced to explain when to use tch vs. ch to make the ch sound at the end of a one-syllable word. Tutors provide the student with the exceptions to the spelling rules. In Lesson 10, the students are introduced to the co ncept of contractions; they learn general spelling rules that govern how to cont ract two words into a single word. Level 4: Multi-Syllable Words and Vowel Teams New spelling and reading rules are taught in Level 4. After the tutor and student review the concept of a closed syllable, the tutor introduces the open sylla ble. The student discovers that an open syllable means that there is no consonant clos ing a syllable in at the end and that the

PAGE 67

53 vowel makes its long sound. The tutor also t eaches the student rules for dividing multisyllable words. Level 4 Lessons and Procedures In the beginning of Le vel 4, the tutor introduces a new step to the Read Phrases procedure by having the student create “add-on” phrases; these are phrases that add information to a sentence. Students no longer spell words and nonsense words on their fingers; however, they continue to spell with the tiles and on paper. The first three lessons in Level 4 are de voted to teaching the concept of an open syllable and to syllable division rules. In Le sson 1, Open Syllables, the tutor teaches that in an open syllable there is only one vowel, the syllable is open at the end, meaning it is not closed by a blue consonant tile, and the vowel says its name (i.e., a long vowel sound). Students learn how to divide syllabl es in lessons two and three. In Lesson 2, Syllable Division Rule #1, the tutor first teaches that a word with two non-adjacent vowels will have two syllables, each vowel belonging in its ow n syllable. If there is one letter between the vowels, that letter is moved to the end of the word (e.g., la-bel ). The student and tutor practice this syllable division rule by build ing words with the tiles and dividing the words into syllables. After the st udent divides the word into syllables, the tutor teaches the student how to check his/her work to make sure the division was done correctly. To check his/her work, the student reads the syllables to blend them into one unit. If this creates a real word, then the st udent is done; however, if it does not create a real word, then the student le arns to move the letter the other way, to the front of the word.

PAGE 68

54 A similar process is followed in Lesson 3, Syllable Division Rule #2. The tutor teaches the student how to divide a word wh en there are two letters between the vowels. In this case the student learns to split the two letters (e.g., lad-der ), with the exception of digraphs and units, which are never split (e.g., bi-shop ). Tutor screening Tutors of the BRSS are trained through a series of instruc tional video tapes produced by Susan Barton. The introductory tapes describe the nature of reading disability and provide an exam ple of what is taught in th e program and how it is taught. The introductory tapes conclude with the Tutor and Student Screenings. Before a graduate clinician became a tutor, he/she had to pass the tutor screening and participate in tutor training sessions. Two research a ssistants, a high school senior and a UF undergraduate senior, also met this require ment. To pass the tutor screening, the clinicians and research assistants had to demonstrate a minimal level of phonological awareness by breaking words down into thei r smallest sounds, ma nipulating sounds in words, deleting sounds, and blending individu al sounds into words. All clinicians and research assistants passed the screening. Table 3-5. Procedures and Levels in the BRSS Level Level Level Level Procedure 1 2 3 4 Break Apart X Break Replace X Compare 2 Words X Break-Replace-Remove X Blend 2 and 3 Sounds into Real Words X Blend-Change-Change-Change X Teach New Sound X X X Teach New Sound #2 X X X Read Sounds on Tiles X

PAGE 69

55 Table 3-5 Continued. Level Level Level Level Procedure 1 2 3 4 Spell Sounds with Tiles X Read Real Words with Tiles X Spell Real Words with Fingers, then Tiles X X Spell Real Words with Tiles X Read Nonsense Words with Tiles X X X Spell Nonsense Words with Fingers, then Tiles X X Spell Nonsense Words with Tiles X Read Words through Word Frame X X X Spell Words with Fingers, then on Paper X X X Read Longer Words Together X Review Known Letters and Sounds X X X Review/Do Extra Practice Page X X X Phonemic Awareness Warm-up X X X Read Phrases X X X Read Sentences X X X Read Sight Words X X Spell Sight Words X X Spell Phrases on Paper X X Spell Sentences on Paper X X Read a Story X X Tutor training A total of 9 training sessions and 27 traini ng hours occurred. In the training tapes, Barton explains a spelling or r eading rule then demonstrates the procedures used to teach the rule by role-playing with a demonstration student. After the demonstration, Barton encourages the viewer to stop the tape and practice the procedure with a partner; this protocol was followed in the tutor training. For the current study, the reading tutors and research assistants paired-up with each ot her to practice the pro cedures and took turns being the tutor and the student. The research er observed the role -playing and provided

PAGE 70

56 guidance when questions arose. The training ta pes were always avai lable to the tutors after the required training sessions were comple ted in the event that the tutors felt unsure of a procedure and/or wanted extra practice. Student screening High school students who met the inclusionary criteria for participation also had to pass the Barton Student Screening before pa rticipating in the reading-intervention program. The screening consisted of three parts, Part A: Counting Words, Part B: Clapping Sentences, and Part C: Compare Three Isolated Sounds with Colored Squares. In Part A: Counting Words, the tutor dictat ed a sentence and the student repeated it. As the student repeated the se ntence, he/she counted the number of words in the sentence on his/her fingers. The tutor noted if the stud ent counted the correct number of words the first time, counted the wrong number of word s, or repeated the sentence in the wrong sequence. The tutor dictated three senten ces, two sentences had seven words and one sentence had six words. A student was not a llowed to miss any words in Part A: Counting Words to qualify for the Barton program. In Pa rt B: Clapping Syllables the tutor dictated a word and the student repeated the word and clapped the number of syllables in the word. There were a total of six words, four words had three syllables, one word had two syllables and one word had four syllables. A student was allowed a maximum of one wrong. Finally, in Part C: Compare Three Is olated Sounds with Colored Squares, the tutor dictated sounds and the student pulled dow n three colored squares to represent each of the sounds. The tutor noted if the student correctly sequenced the sounds the first time, correctly sequenced the sounds after the tutor rep eated the sequence, or incorrectly sequenced the sounds. There were 15 threeletter sequences dict ated. A student was

PAGE 71

57 allowed to have a maximum of two sequences repeated and a maximum of two sequences wrong. All students passed the screeni ng and were thus eligible to participate in the reading program. The student screenings took place duri ng the first student-tutor meeting at the charter school. The Student Screening Answ er Sheet is provided in Appendix D. Barton pretests To determine at which level the tutor should begin tutori ng, the tutor first gave her student a pre-test (Barto n recognizes that some older students may possess enough knowledge to skip the first two levels at leas t some lessons within the levels). Strict pass/fail criteria, as provided by Barton, were followed to determine a student’s starting level. A compilation of the Barton Pretests for Books 1, 2, and 3 is provided in Appendix E. The Level 1 pre-test contained four tasks: Task A: Break-Apart Nonsense Words; Task B: Break-Replace-Remove; Task C: Compare Two Words; and Task D: Blend 2 and 3 Sounds into Real Words. A student who completed all four tasks with 100% accuracy was deemed to have sufficient knowledge to skip Level 1 entirely. Before a student could move on to the next task, he/s he had to meet pass criteria of zero or one error for that task The pre-test was stoppe d when the student missed two or more items and tutoring began with th e lesson that corresponde d with the given task. The Level 2 pre-test contai ned six tasks: Task A: Te st of Letter Name and Sound Knowledge; Task B: Spelling Individual Sounds on Paper; Task C: Identifying First, Last, and Middle Sounds; Task D: Read Th ese Words; Task E: Spelling Real and Nonsense Words on Paper; and Task F: Read these Sentences. Different pass/fail criteria were used for Level 2. Both Task A and Task B were given, regardless of the number of

PAGE 72

58 errors a student made on Task A; the tutor c ontinued with Task C only if a student made no errors on either Task A or B. If a stude nt misread two consonants or two digraphs on Task D, Read These Words, the tutor bega n with Lesson 5 of Level 2. If a student misread one or more vowels and the vowels were a, i, or o the tutor bega n with Lesson 3; if the vowels were u or e the tutor began with Lesson 4. If a student incorrectly spelled a consonant or vowel on Task E, tutoring bega n with Lesson 3; if a student incorrectly spelled only a digraph, tutoring began with Lesson 5. Finally, if a student made it to Task F, Read These Sentences, and made more th an 3 mistakes, including re-readings, or read in a choppy manner, the tutor bega n with Lesson 5 in Level 2. Based on the pre-testing protocol, 5 partic ipants began tutori ng at Level 1, Lesson 1, one participant began tutoring at Level 1, Lesson 3, two participants began at Level 2, Lesson 1, and one participant began at Level 2, Lesson 2. After-school reading program Once the screenings and pre-tests were co mpleted, the tutors were able to begin working with the participants. Each tutor was assigned at least one student and three tutors were assigned 2 students. Tutoring se ssions took place at the charter school after school hours. Tutors and participants me t 3 days a week, Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, fifty minutes/session. The first session ran from 3:00 to 3:50. Tutors had two participants met with the second participant from 4:00 to 4:50. Students assembled in a classroom for a quiet study hall while they waite d for their session or to be picked up by a parent. The charter school had two classr ooms, an office, and a teacher workroom available to accommodate the tutors. There we re two tutors/students per classroom, one tutor in the teacher workroom, and one tutor in the office. Tutors did not change rooms during the program in order to maintain a consistent environment for the student. The

PAGE 73

59 researcher was always present in the charte r school and rotated between classrooms to observe the tutor and her participants. Data-Collection Procedures Lesson Plans The printed books that accompany each level of the BRSS contain scripted dialogue for the tutor to follow in presenting the procedures and specific directions for carrying out the procedures. E ach printed books contains all the material the tutor needs to carry-out a lesson including the stimulus wo rds, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs, student pages for the student to read from, and material to use for extra practice or homework. However, the books do not provide the tutor with space to record the student’s responses or performance for any procedure. Therefore separate lesson plans were made that allowed a tutor space to r ecord her student’s res ponses as correct or incorrect and to make comments about the student’s progress. The explicit directions outlining each procedure were retained and every attempt was made to retain the suggested dialogue printed in the book. An example of the lesson plans for Book 2 Consonants and Short Vowels is provided in Appendix F. Tracking Sheets The researcher developed a tracking sheet that each tutor used at every session. The sheet allowed the tutor to reco rd the participant number, the date, time of the session, the number of the session, and the beginning and ending procedure for each lesson. The tracking sheet is provided in Appendix G. Reading and Spelling Probes The Barton Reading and Spelling System does not provide the tutor with a quantitative way to measure adequate progre ss during the daily teaching of reading and

PAGE 74

60 spelling rules. Therefore, the researcher creat ed reading and spelling probes as a tool to quantify participants’ knowledge of the rule s taught before the tutor introduced new rules. The probes consisted of five sentences to spell and five sentences to read. Each sentence contained 2 probe words for a to tal of 20 items/five points each. The probe sentences were designed to measure the partic ipant’s knowledge of the material that was taught in the preceding lessons, but used differe nt sentences than the participants were used to seeing in the Barton lessons. Tutors ga ve the probe sentences at the end of Level 2, and after Lesson 2 and Lesson 11 of subse quent levels. Test words for the probe sentences were taken from Angling for Wo rds (Bowen, 1983). Pass criteria for both the spelling and reading probes wa s 80% correct, meaning a par ticipant could miss up to two spelling word and two reading words. If a part icipant passed, he/she moved on to the next lesson. However, if a participant did not pa ss, he/she practiced the missed word(s) and was retested at the next session. The readi ng and spelling probes for Book 2 are located in Appendix H. Inter-observer agreement Kazdin (1983) describes inter-observer agreement as the consistency between observers; “…it refers to the extent to which observers agree in their scoring of behavior” (p 48). Inter-observer agreement is important because it reflects whether the target behaviors, in this case the explicit instruction used by the tutors, are carried out clearly and completely (Kazdin, 1983). Two research assistants were trai ned in the BRSS as observers to make sure the tutors were car rying out the procedures according to the Barton protocol. The assistan ts participated in all tutor training sessions and were familiar with all Barton procedures. If the observers’ assessments did not agree or if the

PAGE 75

61 observers did not observe the required Bart on procedures in the tutoring sessions, the tutors would undergo additional training. The assistants observed one day a wee k, Monday, at the charter school. They observed one tutor and her assigned student fr om 3:00 to 3:50 and a different tutor and her assigned student from 4:00 to 4:50. Each assistant followed a list of ten multisensory procedures practiced in the BRSS, such as touch and say, the slow down step, and tapping out a sound, and recorded their observa tions independently of each other. The assistants made a check-mark on the list to indicate if a required or expected multisensory procedure occurred, if a multisensory proce dure was required or expected but did not occur, or if the multisensory procedure was not required or expected in a given segment of the tutoring session. The inte r-observer reliability sheet is provided as Appendix I. A point-by-point agreement ratio was calculate d to measure reliability. This ratio is appropriate when there are discrete opport unities for the behavior to occur (Kazdin, 1983). As described by Kazdin (1983), “…agreem ents of the observers on the specific trials are divided by the number of agreem ents plus disagreements and multiplied by 100 to form a percentage. Agreements can be de fined as instances in which both observers record the same thing. Disagreements are de fined as instances in which one observer recorded the behavior as occurring and th e other did not (p54).” The following formula was used to compute point-by-point agreemen t for each session observed: Point-by-Point Agreement = A/A+D x 100. Of the 14 sessions observed, there was 100% agreement six times, 90% agreement two times, 80% agreement four times, and 70% agreement 2 times (M = 88%).

PAGE 76

62 Treatment of the Data Three statistical methods were used to an alyze the data. First, independent samples t test was carried out on the mean pretest sc ores of the reading-in tervention and control group participants. Next, analysis of covari ance (ANCOVA) was carried out to measure whether the reading-interven tion group showed a stronger improvement in posttest performance relative to their own pretest performance than did the control group (Cook & Campbell 1979; Tuckman, 1999). The pretest scor es served as the covariate or control variable. Finally, to analyze w ithin-group effect of the read ing intervention, a dependent samples t -test (Kranzler & Moursun d, 1999) was carried out using pretest and posttest scores for each reading-intervention group pa rticipant. Correlation analysis Tuckman, 1999) was used employed to determine the rela tionship between pretest score and starting point in the Barton System a nd number of sessions to co mplete a Barton System book. Descriptive methods using clustered column charts and line charts were employed for further examination of the reading-interventi on and control particip ants’ performance.

PAGE 77

63 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The primary goal of this study was to provide data to examine the effectiveness of a multisensory Orton-Gillingham-based approach to reading intervention for high school students with reading disability. We used a quasi-experimental design in which the control and reading-intervention groups were systematically assigned. Tuckman (1999) advocates the use of the quasi-experimental design in e ducational research for the researcher faced with practical limitations on participant selection, assignm ent, and condition manipulation. Quasi-experimental design is an option that a llows the researcher to operate within the realities of the educatio n setting (Tuckman, 1999). The systematically assigned control group design (Tuckman, 1999) is one in which the researcher systematically selects and assigns the partic ipants to the treatment group because they share some characteristics. In our study, participants were assigned to the reading-intervention group, a re medial reading program, because they scored at least one standard deviation below the mean on two or more subtests of the Woodcock Johnson III Achievement Tests (WJ III-Ach, Wo odcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). Six dependent variable measures were used for pretest and posttest analysis. Standard scores and grade-equivalent scores for four of the dependent measures were obtained from the WJ III-Ach and that test’s Compuscore Program, version 2.0. Standard scores and grade-equivalent scores for the remaining tw o variables were obtaine d from the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE, Wagner, To rgesen, & Rashotte, 1999) and that test’s

PAGE 78

64 technical manual. All scores used in the statis tical analysis were norm-referenced standard scores based on the standard curve with a m ean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), t test for independent samples, t test for nonindependent (matched) samples, and correlat ion were used to analyze the data. The t test for independent samples was used to compare pretest means between the readingintervention and control groups to determine if the pretest difference between groups was statistically significant (Tuckman, 1999) ANCOVA was used to determine whether members of the reading-interv ention group showed greater impr ovement from their pretest to posttest performance compared to member s of the control group’ s pretest and posttest performance (Tuckman, 1999). According to Tuckman (1999) and Shavelson (1996) the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is the appropriate statisti cal method for this design. The covariate (the pretest) cont ains information about differe nces among subjects that is collected before the experiment is conducted. Th e covariate is used to remove systematic differences among subjects from the with in-group error term (Shavelson, 1996). The t test for nonindependent samples (or pair ed samples test in SPSS, version 11.0) was used to analyze whether an individual participant’s posttest score for each reading subskill measure increased from its matche d pretest score after receiving the readingintervention program (Kranzler & Moursund, 1999). Because each individual’s pretest score is matched with his/her posttest score, the two scores are not independent of each other. The difference between the two scores indicates if a par ticipant’s score on the posttest improved relative to his pretest score or if it declined relative to his pretest score. In SPSS, the posttest score was subtracted from the pretest score; th erefore, a negative coefficient indicates the posttest score was hi gher than the pretest score. In order to

PAGE 79

65 compare the performance of the individual participants in the reading-intervention group to the individual participants in the control group, the t test for nonindependent samples was run on both groups. Correlation wa s used to determine if the Basic Reading Skills score, a combined score of Word Attack and Letter-Word Identification was a good predictor of starting book in the Barton Reading and Spelling System and a good predictor of number of lessons needed to complete Le vel 2 in the Barton System. Finally, for descriptive analys is of the data, column char ts were used as a visual display of each participant’ s progress through the lessons and books of the Barton Reading and Spelling Program and grow th in grade equivalent scores was compared between reading-intervention and control groups. Column charts were created in Microsoft Excel 2002. Clustered columns were used to compar e values across categories. The number of sessions it took each participant to complete a Barton book was plotted as the value on the y axis; participant number was plotted as the category across the x axis. Grade equivalent scores were calculated from The WJ III Ac hievement CompuScore Program and the TOWRE test manual. Findings for this study are pr esented below in response to each of the experimental questions. Research question 1: Do high school students assigned to a multisensory readingintervention group make greater improvement on posttest scores compared to students who did not receive such intervention on the followi ng variables: 1) letter-word identification; 2) word attack; 3) spelling; 4) sound awaren ess; 5) speed of sight -word recognition; 6) speed of nonsense-word decoding? The independent (input) variables were repr esented by control variables that needed to be neutralized from influencing the result s (Tuckman, 1999). The control variables were

PAGE 80

66 pretest scores on Letter-Word Identification, Spelling, Word Attack and Sound Awareness, from the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ III Ach.) and on Sight-word Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency from the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE). The dependent (outcome) variables were posttest scores on these same tests. For the ANCOVA analysis, the fixed factors were the control and reading-intervention groups. The t -test for independent samples (Table 4-1), showed that the pretest scores of the control group were significantly better than the pretest scores of the reading-intervention group on all dependent variables at p < .05. Table 4-1. t test for independent samples at pretest for dependent variables Pretest t df p value (significant at p < .05)* WJ III Ach Letter-Word Id -3.98 16 .001 Spelling -5.32 16 .000 Word Attack -3.44 16 .003 Sound Awareness -2.41 16 .028 TOWRE Sight-word Efficiency -3.05 16 .008 Phonemic Decoding Efficiency -3.34 16 .004 *all values were significant at p < .05. Results of the ANCOVA (Table 4-2), which compared pretest to posttest performance across groups, revealed that th ere were no longer si gnificant differences between the control group and the reading-intervention group on the dependent variables after reading intervention. A lthough the posttest scores of th e control group were still higher than the posttest scores of the read ing intervention group, the difference was no longer significant and adjusted posttest scores showed that the reading intervention group improved more than the control group The difference in adjusted means, shown in the

PAGE 81

67 Adjusted Means column of Table 4-2, ranged in st andard scores from a low of .460 on Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (TOWRE), to a high of 3.605 on Letter Word Identification (WJ III Ach.), These data indicate that when pr etest scores were adjusted for, the readingintervention group improved more than the control group on the posttest by .460 and 3.605 standard score points respectively. The adjust ed mean indicates the number of standard score points the reading-inte rvention group improved compared to the control group for each dependent variable ( Source column). Table 4-2. ANCOVA for dependent variables Source df F p value (significant at p<.05) Adjusted Mean WJ III Ach Letter-Word Id. 1 .674 .425 3.605 Spelling 1 .218 .648 3.251 Word Attack 1 .402 .536 2.737 Sound Awareness 1 .153 .702 2.840 TOWRE Sight-word Efficiency 1 .084 .776 2.759 Phonemic Decoding Efficiency 1 .008 9.29 .460 Line graphs (Figures 4-1 to 4-6) illustrate the progress of the reading-intervention group in closing the gap with the control group. A common trend seen in all the figures is a relatively flat or down-ward sloping line for the control group from pretest to posttest in contrast to an upward-sloping line for the reading-intervention gr oup from pretest to posttest. The flat line indicates l ittle movement in standard scor es from pretest to posttest while the upward-sloping line indicates move ment from low standa rd scores to higher standard scores. On several depe ndent variables the positive cha nge in standard scores from pretest to posttest for the reading-interventi on group was particularly striking. For example, the mean pretest score for Word Attack was approximately 20 points higher for the control group than the reading-interv ention group but at posttest, th e reading-intervention group

PAGE 82

68 had closed the gap to about four point s. A similar situation was seen in Sound Awareness where the reading-intervention gr oup closed the gap from a 15 poi nt difference at pretest to a six point difference at posttest. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100pretestpostteststandard score control experim Figure 4-1. Difference in mean standard scores for Letter-Word Id. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100pretestpostteststandard scores control experim Figure 4-2. Difference in mean standard scores for Spelling.

PAGE 83

69 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90pretestposttestStandard Scores control experim Figure 4-3. Difference in mean standard scores for Word Attack. 65 70 75 80 85 90 95pretestposttestStandard Scores control experim Figure 4-4. Difference in mean standard scores for Sound Awareness.

PAGE 84

70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90pretestposttestStandard Scores control experim Figure 4-5. Difference in mean standard scores for Sight-Word Efficiency. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90pretestposttestStandard Scores control experim Figure 4-6. Difference in mean standard scores for Phonemic Decoding Efficiency. Hypothesis 1: Based on the phonological core mode l to reading, it was hypothesized that students with reading di sability who were assigned to a reading-intervention group based on low pretest scores and who received a multisensory, Orton-Gillingham influenced

PAGE 85

71 approach to intervention would make great er improvement on posttest scores when compared to a group of students who did not receive such intervention because of higher pretest scores on measures of reading skill. This hypothesis was supported. Results of the t test for independent samples confirmed that the control group performed significantly better than the readingintervention group at pretest on the dependent variable readin g measures. However, after the reading intervention, there was no longer a significant difference between the groups on the dependent variable reading measures w ith the standard scores of the readingintervention group moving closer to those of the control group. Research Question 2: Do individual participants s how significant differences from pretest to posttest scores for 1) letter-word identification; 2) word attack; 3) spelling; 4) sound awareness; 5) speed of sight-word r ecognition; and 6) speed of nonsense-word decoding Results of the t test for nonindependent matched sa mples revealed that the readingintervention group performe d significantly better at p < .05 on the posttest compared to the pretest on Word Attack (t (9) = -5.943, p = .000) and approached significance on Spelling ( t (9) = -2.007, p = .080). In contrast, the control group participants did not perform significantly better on an y of the posttest reading measures at p < .05. In contrast, the control group participants perf ormed significantly worse on the posttest on one measures of the TOWRE, Sight-word Efficiency ( t (9) = 4.000, p = .004). Results of the t test for nonindependent samples for the reading-interv ention and controls groups are shown in tables 4-3 and 4-4

PAGE 86

72 Table 4-3. Reading-intervention group: t test for nonindependent samples. Pretest-Posttest Pair Mean difference from pretest to posttest (negative coefficient indicates higher posttest score) Standard Deviation t df p < .05) WJ III Achievement Letter-Word Identification. -3.222 7.412 -1.304 9 .228 Spelling -8.000 11.958 -2.007 9 .080 Word Attack -7.889 3.98260 -5.943 9 .000 Sound Awareness -8.111 17.047 -1.427 9 .191 TOWRE Sight-word Efficiency 1.222 21.568 .170 9 .869 Phonemic Decoding Efficiency -2.889 10.833 -.800 9 .447 indicates significantly better posttest score at p <.05 level. Table 4-4. Control group: t test for nonindependent samples. Pretest-Posttest Pair Mean difference from pretest to posttest (negative coefficient indicates higher posttest score) Standard Deviation t df p < .05 WJ III Achievement Letter-Word Identification. .000 5.172 .000 9 1.000 Spelling -.111 3.444 -.097 9 .925 Word Attack 1.000 10.161 .295 9 .775 Sound Awareness -.111 8.781 -.038 9 .971 TOWRE Sight-word Efficiency 6.000 4.500 4.00 9 .004** Phonemic Decoding Efficiency 3.333 6.000 1.667 9 .134 ** indicates significantly wors e posttest score at p < .05 Hypothesis 2: It was hypothesized that a student who participated in the readingintervention program would achieve higher posttest scores compar ed to their pretest scores as a result of a one-on-one multisensory reading-intervention program. This hypothesis was supported. The particip ants in the readin g-intervention group achieved a significantly higher posttes t score on the dependent variable Word Attack and approached significance on the dependent variable Spelling Although none of the other posttest measures were statistically significant, all posttest standard measures were higher than their matched pretest scores. In contra st, for participants in the control group, no

PAGE 87

73 posttest scores were signif icantly higher while the Sight-word Efficiency posttest score was significantly lower than its matched pretes t score, indicating significantly poorer performance. Research Question 3: Does Basic Reading Skill pr edict 1) starting point for tutoring; and 2) number of lessons to complete a Barton level? Correlation and descriptive analyses were us ed to address this question. First, the mean, median, mode and range for the read ing-intervention group and control group for pretest and posttest standard measures were an alyzed (Table 4-5 and Table 4-6). The scores varied widely in range at both pretest and posttest. For example, there was a 40 point spread in Word Attack at pretest for the reading-interv ention group and a 38 point spread at posttest. Likewise, there wa s a 43 point spread for Sound Awareness at pretest for the control group and a 42 point spread at posttes t. Such a wide range of scores may be attributed to a number of f actors, including participants’ comfort with the test taking situation, familiarity with the task, and ability to perform the task. The highest mean score for the reading-in tervention group at both pretest and posttest was for Word Attack Although the standard score at postt est (84.67) was still one standard deviation below the mean, it is important to note this score increased from pretest by approximately eight standard score points (76.78 ). In contrast, there was little variation in mean standard scores from pr etest to posttest for the contro l group. For example, the mean pretest score for Spelling was 90.88 and change d by only a fraction of a point at posttest (91.00). Finally, the lowest mean pretest sc ores for the readingintervention group and control group at both pretest and posttest was Sight-word Efficiency and participants did not

PAGE 88

74 fare much better on Phonemic Decoding Efficiency, reflecting the persistent difficulty students with reading disability fr equently have with rapid naming. Table 4-5. Reading-Intervention Group Mean, Medi an, Mode, Range at Pretest and Posttest Test Mean Median Mode Range Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest WJ III Achievement. Letter-Word Identification 69.22 72.44 72.00 80.00 47.00 82.00 47.0086.00 46.0096.00 Spelling 64.11 72.11 61.00 69.00 49.00 55.00 49.0094.00 55.00103.00 Word Attack 76.78 84.67 77.00 82.00 84.00 80.00 64.0084.00 72.00100.00 Sound Awareness 74.67 82.78 74.00 82.00 52.00 73.00 52.0094.00 53.00116.00 TOWRE Sight-word Efficiency 64.00 62.78 65.00 65.00 46.00 62.00 46.0090.00 55.0083.00 Phonemic Decoding Efficiency 67.44 70.33 66.00 66.00 66.00 55.00 55.0095.00 55.0091.00 Table 4-6. Control Group Mean, Median, M ode, and Range at Pretest and Posttest Test Mean Median Mode Range Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest WJ III Achievement Letter-Word Identification 90.89 90.89 90.00 92.00 83.00 92.00 83.0098.00 85.0098.00 Spelling 90.88 91.00 93.00 90.00 88.00 82.00 81.00100.00 82.00100.00 Word Attack 89.22 88.22 87.00 87.00 97.00 83.00 77.00103.00 81.00104.00 Sound Awareness 90.33 90.44 84.00 89.00 105.00 76.00 71.00114.00 76.00118.00 TOWRE Sight-word Efficiency 82.44 76.44 86.00 81.00 86.00 83.00 65.0092.00 56.0087.00 Phonemic Decoding Efficiency 83.67 80.33 83.00 80.00 76.00 84.00 76.00102.00 67.0093.00 As described in Chapter 3, the Barton Book in which a participant began the tutoring program was based on the participant’s perf ormance on the Barton pretest, not on the participant’s standardized pretest reading m easures. Regardless of a participant’s pretest

PAGE 89

75 score on the dependent variable measures, li ttle variation was obs erved on the starting book for the participants. Results of correlation analysis (Spe arman’s rho) revealed that the Basic Reading Skills score was a better predicto r of number of sessions ta ken to complete Level 2 ( r2(9) = -.66, p = .055) than starting level in the Barton System (r2 (9) = -.45, p = .23), however neither correlation was significan t (p < .05). Scatter plots (Fig ures 4-7 and 4-8) revealed low negative correlations between Basic R eading Skill score and Barton Level showing that as BRS standard score increased, number of lessons to comple te a book decreased. number of lessons to complete book 214 12 10 8 6 4basic reading skills90 80 70 60 50 Figure 4-7. Book 2 number of lessons to complete & Basic Reading Skills number of lessons to complete book 18 6 4 2 0 -2basic reading skills90 80 70 60 50 Figure 4-8. Book 1 Number of lessons to complete & Basic Reading Skills

PAGE 90

76 Six participants began tutoring with Book 1, five at Lesson 1 and one at Lesson 4, and the remaining three participants began tutoring with Book 2, Lesson 1. The Basic Reading Skill (BRS) score was used to evaluate whet her or not pretest standard scores could be used to predict star ting point for tutoring Four participants (20, 13, 11, and 16) had BRS standard scores in the low 80’s (81, 82, 82, and 85, respectively). The remaining five participants had standard scores on the BRS composite that ranged from one and half (78) to almost three standard deviations be low the mean (57). However, there was not a predictable correspondence be tween BRS score and starti ng point for tutoring. For example, Participant 11, who had a BRS standa rd score of 82, and Participant 18, who had a BRS standard score of 62, both starte d tutoring at Book 1, Lesson 1. Conversely, Participant 10, who had a BRS standard scor e of 63, and Participant 14, who had a BRS standard score of 71, both started tutoring in Book 2. Bar graphs were created to show the rate of progress during re ading intervention as measured by the number of sessions it t ook a participant to complete a Barton book (Figures 4-9 and 4-10). The total number of sessions conducted was 26 but attendance varied by participant and ranged from 25 sessi ons for Participant 18 to 14 sessions for Participant 16; the average number of sessions attended was 20. Because all participants completed Book 2, Consonants and Short Vowels the investigator examined whether a pattern could be observed between pretest performance on standardized measures and progress during reading interven tion, as measured by number of sessions to complete a Barton book. As shown in Figure 4.9, Particip ant 7 took the greates t number of sessions (13) to complete Book 2. This participant also received the lowe st pretest scores on Word Attack and Letter-Word Identification In comparison, Participant 11, who achieved the

PAGE 91

77 highest pretest scores on Spelling and Letter-Word Identification took the fewest number of sessions to complete Book 2. Figure 4.10 sh ows that Participants 14 and 18 required nine sessions, the next highest number of se ssions after Participant 7, to complete Book 2. In a similar fashion, Participants 14 and 18 r eceived the third and f ourth lowest pretest standard scores, respectively, on Word Attack the third and the worst pretest standard scores, respectively, on Letter-Word Identification and the third and second worst pretest standard scores, respectively, on Spelling Although Participant 20 and Participant 16 were among the students who had higher pretest standa rd scores, neither participant completed Book 3. Participant 16 attended the fewest sess ions and Participant 20 attended the nextfewest and it is likely that poor attendance limited their progress. Hypothesis 3a: It was hypothesized that the Basi c Reading Skill score would predict a participants starting book in the Barton Reading and Spelling System such that a participant in the reading-inte rvention group who started with lo wer pretest standard scores on the dependent variable reading measures would perform more poorly on the Barton pretest and start at a lower Barton book and lesson while a participant who achieved higher pretest standard scores on the dependent vari able reading measures would progress farther on the Barton pretest and start at a higher Barton book. The first hypothesis pertaining to Res earch Question 3 was not supported; the correlation between BRS and starting book was not significant and there was no consistency between particip ants’ pretest standard scor es on the dependent reading variables and their subsequent pe rformance on the Barton pretest. For example, Participant 7, who began tu toring with Book 1, Lesson 1, achieved the lowest pretest scores on the WJ III Ach, with standard scores ranging from one and a half

PAGE 92

78 to three standard deviations below th e mean on all subtests (lowest scoreSound Awareness standard score 52; highest scoreReading Vocabulary standard score 75). Number of tutoring sessions/book 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 ParticipantNumber of tutoring sessions Book 1 Book 2 Book 3 Book 4 7 18 10 14 12 Figure 4-9. Progress of part icipants-lowest BRS pretest standard score 7, 18, 10, 14, 12 Number of tutoring sessions/book0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 ParticipantNumber of Sessions Book 1 Book 2 Book 3 Book 4 20 13 11 16 Figure 4-10. Progress of participants-highe st BRS standard scores 20, 13, 11, and 16

PAGE 93

79 However, Participant 11, who also bega n tutoring at Book 1, Lesson 1, achieved comparatively better scores on the pretest. This participant had two scores that were more than one and a half standard deviations below the mean on the pretest ( Word Attack standard score 75; Sound Awareness standard score 77); all othe r scores were within one standard deviation of the mean. In contra st, Participant 10 star ted tutoring at Book 2, Lesson 1. However, this participant’s pretest st andard scores were si milar in severity to Participant 7 who began tutoring at Book 1, Lesson 1 (lowest scoreSpelling standard score 49; highest scoreWord Attack standard score 70). Hypothesis 3b: It was hypothesized that the BRS would predict number of sessions to complete a lesson in the Barton Reading a nd Spelling System such reading-intervention participants who show more severe reading disabilities as defined by pretest standard scores would make slower progress during re ading intervention, as defined by the number of sessions taken to complete a book, than re ading-intervention participants who showed less severe reading disabilities. The second hypothesis pertaini ng to Research Question 3 had moderate support. The correlation between BRS and the number of se ssions taken to complete Book 2 was near significant at p = .055. Participan t 7, who achieved the lowest pretest standard score on Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack required the most sessions to complete Book 2. In comparison, Participant 11 moved thr ough Book 2 more quickly than any other participant and also had th e highest pretest scores on Letter-Word Identification and Spelling Finally, Participants 14 and 18 consisten tly scored in the bottom third of the reading-intervention group on pretest scores a nd both required the s econd most number of sessions to complete Book 2.

PAGE 94

80 Research question 4: Do more reading-interventi on participants than control participants achieve a greater than expected three month gain in grade-equivalent score from pretest to posttest for 1) letter-word identification; 2) word attack; 3) spelling; 4) sound awareness; 5) speed of sight-word r ecognition; and 6) speed of nonsense-word decoding? The percentage of each group that showed a greater than three month change in grade equivalent score from pretest to posttest was c onsidered (Table 4-7). The data show that on four of the six dependent variables, a greater percentage of partic ipants in the readingintervention group increased their grade equi valent score by more than three months compared to participants in the control gr oup. The three students who qualified for reading intervention but could not partic ipate were among control group participants whose posttest grade equivalent scores increa sed by more than three months. However, this increase only held true for the WJ III Achievement test. Table 4-7. Greater than 3-month increase in grade-equivalent score by percentage. Dependent Variable ReadingIntervention Group Control Group WJ III Achievement Letter-Word Identification 33% 44% Spelling 66% 33% Word Attack 100% 44% Sound Awareness 44% 66% TOWRE Sight-word Efficiency 33% 11% Phonemic Decoding Efficiency 44% 22% Hypothesis 4: It was hypothesized that a greater percentage of participants in the reading-intervention group as compared to the control group would increase their grade equivalent scores by more than three months from pretest to posttest. This hypothesis was

PAGE 95

81 also supported. On four of the six dependent variables measured, a gr eater percentage of the participants in the reading-intervention gr oup achieved posttest grade equivalent scores that were more than three months higher th an their pretest grade equivalent scores. Complete information on pretest and posttest raw scores, standard scores, percentiles, and grade equivalency for all dependent variable measures for both the readingintervention participants a nd control participants in provided in Appendix J. Summary of Findings A summary of the findings for the expe rimental questions is shown below. Quantitative Findings 1. Independent samples t test found significant differences on mean pretest standard scores between the reading-intervention group and control group for all dependent variables. ANCOVA revealed no significant di fferences between groups at posttest. When the pretest scores were held constant, the reading-intervention group consistently improved their reading skills to a greater degree th an the control group. Th e reading-intervention group made noticeable gains on closing the gap in reading skills with the readingintervention group at posttest. 2. Dependent samples t test revealed a statistical ly significant improvement in Word Attack at posttest for the reading-intervention gr oup and a near significant improvement in Spelling In contrast, the control gro up performed significantly worse on Sight-word Efficiency at posttest. Descriptive Findings 1. A correlation was not observed in the performance of r eading-intervention participants on standardized pretest measures and st arting point for tutoring.

PAGE 96

82 2. A moderate correlation was observed in the performance of reading-intervention participants on standardized pretest measures and rate of progress during reading intervention. 3. More reading-intervention participants th an control participants achieved a greater than expected three-month increase in grade equivalency score from pretest to posttest.

PAGE 97

83 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Overview of Findings This study explored the effectiveness of an Orton-Gillingham-influenced, multisensory, phonics intervention with high sc hool students with reading disability. The Phonological-Core-Variable-Differences M odel, first proposed by Stanovich in 1988, states that all poor readers have a processi ng deficit localized in the phonological core. A core deficit in phonological processing impairs a reader’s ability to associate written letters with spoken sounds and disrupts th e processing of phonological tasks such as blending, segmenting, and rearranging sounds (Downey, & Snyder, 2000). This deficit persists into adulthood (Bruck, 1992; Ede n, et al., 2004; Pennington, Van Orden, Smith, Green, & Haith, 1990). Therefor e it was hypothesized that a remedial reading program that provided explicit phonologically-based r eading instruction using multiple sensory strategies would significantly improve th e reading skills of st udents with reading disability. A quasi-experimental design was used to determine if members of the readingintervention group showed a stronger improve ment on posttest performance relative to their own pretest performance compared to members of the contro l group’s pretest and posttest performance. Partic ipants’ reading subskills were measured on the following dependent variables: lette r-word identification, spelling, wo rd attack, sound awareness, speed of sight-word recognition, and speed of phonemic decoding for nonsense words. A related goal of the study was to anal yze whether an individual participant’s posttest score for each reading subskill measure increased from its matched pretest score

PAGE 98

84 following the reading intervention. Finally, co rrelation and descriptive analysis were employed to determine if performance, as measured by pretest standardized scores, predicted to Barton pretest results and progress thr ough the reading-intervention program, and if more reading-in tervention participants than control participants achieved an increase of more than three months in gr ade equivalent score as measured from time of pretest to time of posttest. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) suppor ted the hypothesis that members of the reading-intervention group would show a st ronger improvement than the control group on their posttest performance relative to th eir pretest performance for the dependent variables tested. Results of the independent samples t test revealed the control group had significantly better pretest scor es on the dependent variable s compared to the readingintervention group. However at posttest, the differences between the control group and the reading-intervention group on the depende nt variables were no longer significant. When results were adjusted for pretest scor es, the reading-interven tion group consistently showed greater improvement achieved higher scores. The difference in adjusted means ranged from a low of .460 on Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (TOWRE.), (i.e., the reading-intervention group improved by only .460 standard score points more than the control group on the postte st) to a high of 3.605 on Letter-Word Identification (WJ-III Ach.), (i.e., the reading-in tervention group improved by more than 3.5 standard points than the control group on the posttest). Similar results were observed when a t test for nonindependent, matched samples was used to measure individual participant progress from pretest to posttest.

PAGE 99

85 Results of the t test for nonindependent sample s revealed that the readingintervention group performe d significantly better at p < .05 on the posttest compared to the pretest on Word Attack (t (9) = -5.943, p = .000) and approached significance for Spelling ( t (9) = -2.007, p = .080). No other values reached the significance level. In contrast, the control group participants failed to perform significantl y better on any of the reading measures at p < .05. In fact, the control group participants performed significantly worse than the reading-intervention group pa rticipants on the TOWRE, Sight Word Efficiency ( t (9) = 4.000, p = .004) when posttest scores were compared to pretest scores. Correlation analysis offere d moderate though not significant support of a predictive relationship between Basic Readi ng Skill score and number of sessions to complete Level 2 in the Barton System ( r2(9) = -.66, p = .055) but did not support a predictive relationship between Basic Readi ng Skill score and starting book in the Barton System (r2 (9) = -.45, p = .23). Results of the descri ptive analysis also supported greater improvement in the reading-interventi on group participants over control group participants. Our study took place over a three month span of time. Therefore, a three month increase in grade level equivalency wa s used as a benchmark for expected change in reading variable measures from time of pret est to time of posttest. On four of the six dependent variables, participants in the reading-interven tion group out-gained participants in the control group on gradeequivalency. This finding was particularly striking on the Word Attack subtest where 100% of the pa rticipants in the readingintervention group achieved a greater than three mont h improvement in grade equivalency compared to only 44% of th e participants in the control group.

PAGE 100

86 The findings of the current study comp are favorably with other readingintervention studies that have employed multis ensory interventions. For example, Guyer and Sabatino (1989) found that college student s with learning disability who were exposed to a multisensory, O-G approach made significant gains on word attack, word analysis, and spelling skills compared to students who did not receive such an approach. Participants in the current study who receiv ed a multisensory, O-G approach to reading intervention also improved their skills on these reading subskills. Brooks and Weeks (1998) found that students with dyslexia le arned significantly more words with a visual/semantic method that required visual izing the word, recalli ng the composition of the word, and pointing to the smaller words while naming the words. The Barton System utilized a similar method in teaching si ght-word spelling and analysis with the t test for nonindependent matched samples revealed posttest scores on the Spelling subtest neared significance for participants in the reading-inte rvention group. Discussion of Research Findings Specific components of the Barton Readi ng and Spelling System may account for the better posttest scores achieved by th e reading-interventi on group participants compared to the control group participants. Fi rst, the Barton System consistently uses phonetically regular words and nonsense words to teach each spelling rule. Nonsense words follow the rules of English spelling but ar e not real words. For example, to teach a rule governing the spelling of the k sound (i.e., when to use ck vs. k ), the tutor asks the student to practice the rule by reading regular and nonsense words, and by spelling regular words. This is consistent practice that the participants in the control group did not receive.

PAGE 101

87 Thus when the pretest scores were adjust ed, results of the AN COVA showed that the participants in the re ading-intervention group improved 3.605 standard score points more than the control group participants on Letter-Word Identification (WJ III Ach) at posttest. The Letter Word Identification subtest called on participants to read single words that increased in difficulty. A similar explanation would appear to account for the reading-intervention participants’ growth in Word Attack (WJ III Ach). This subtest required the participants to read nonsense words, again, an exercise that the readingintervention group participants prac ticed regularly. It is likely th at participants in both the reading-intervention and control groups had li ttle practice in read ing nonsense words at pretest. However, because the Barton Syst em routinely incorpor ates nonsense word reading into every lesson, the participants in the reading-intervention group were very familiar with this practice at posttest. Descri ptive analysis further supported this finding. All participants in the reading-interventi on group (100%) achieved a grade equivalent score at posttest on Word Attack that was more than three mo nths higher than their pretest score. Only 44% of the participants in the control group achieved similar growth. Similarly, the near-significant improvement in Spelling (WJ III Ach) can be attributed to the emphasis on phonics and practice in spelli ng that the participants in the readingintervention group received. Agai n, descriptive analysis suppo rts this difference, with two thirds (66%) of the part icipants in the reading-in tervention group experiencing a greater-than-three month gain in grade equivale nt score from pretest to posttest compared to one third (33%) of the c ontrol group. Participants attending the charter school do not take spelling tests routinely nor do their classroom teachers regularly correct their spelling errors during daily work. In contrast the reading-interventi on group participants

PAGE 102

88 practiced spelling words at every reading-in tervention session and the tutors used a guided discovery process to help the part icipants detect any spelling errors. A final component of the Barton Readi ng and Spelling System that may have influenced posttest improvement is consis tent practice in reading and spelling sight words. Sight words “don’t follow the rules.” Th ey are irregular words that do not follow patterns and cannot be sounded out (Shayw itz, 2003). Thus children with reading disability often have great difficulty readi ng and spelling sight words. A common way to practice reading sight words more quickly and efficiently is to read the words on flash cards until they are known auto matically. This method is used in the Barton Reading and Spelling System. While participants in th e reading-intervention group did not make significant gains in this skill, participants in the control group performed significantly worse at posttesting on the Sight Word Efficiency subtest (TOWRE) than at pretesting. It is unlikely that many older stude nts with reading disability wo rk on their ability to read sight words efficiently on their own accor d. However, participants in the readingintervention group received sight -word practice at every sessio n, allowing them to at least maintain what skill they have in this area. Beyond Phonological Awareness Training The use of a multisensory approach w ith high school students with reading disability that provides di rect, systematic, and explic it instruction in phonological awareness makes sense conceptually and has at least moderate suppor t in the literature (Curtis & Longo, 1999; Moats, 2004; Oakland et al., 1998). A remedial approach to reading improvement, founded on the premise th at English is a rule-based language and that these rules can be system atically and explicitly taught, should be an effective venue for improving the reading skill s of individuals with read ing disability. The Barton

PAGE 103

89 Reading and Spelling System, used in our study, is one such remedial program. Furthermore, as the name multisensory implies, these approaches build and reinforce learning pathways through visual, auditor y, and tactile-kinest hetic input, thereby increasing the probability that connections will form between the centers in the brain that process information needed for efficient reading. Harm, McCandliss, and Seidenberg (2003) pr oposed a mapping theory that fits well with multisensory instruction and explicit t eaching of spelling rules, similar to the approach used in the Barton System. Using a computer simulated model, Harm et al. (2003) demonstrated that the machine lear ned more words when phonological awareness training was combined with sound-letter corr espondence in spelling tasks than when phonological awareness was taught in isolation. The resear chers hypothesized that by extending instruction to letter-sound spelli ng exercises, the simulated model was mapping new pathways of learning in the br ain. A key component of the Barton Reading and Spelling System is its systematic us e of both decoding and encoding exercises to teach and practice reading and spelling rules. The Barton System systematically includes spelling procedures in every le sson so the student is continua lly reinforcing what he/she is reading with corresponding le ssons in spelling. By using vi sual input to read a word and tactile-kinesthetic input to spell a word (with tiles or on paper), multiple senses and multiple learning pathways are activated in the learner. Prior to the mapping theory developed by Harm, McCandliss, and Seidenberg (2003), Hatcher, Hulme, and Ellis (1994) suggested that the phonological linkage hypothesis might account for variable successe s experienced by participants in several phonological awareness training studies. According to the phonological linkage

PAGE 104

90 hypothesis, “…training in phonological skills in isolation from reading and spelling skills may be much less effective than training th at forms explicit links between children’s underlying phonological skills and their experiences in learni ng to read” (p.42). Hatcher et al. (1994) showed that a group of reading impaired child ren who participated in a reading with phonological treat ment group made the most progress in reading. The lessons in the Barton Reading and Spelli ng System follow such a philosophy. After a student is taught a spelling ru le, he/she systematically a nd explicitly practices the new rule through reading and spelling exercises at the word level, phrase level, sentence level, and short paragraph level. C onsidering the research findings of Harm, McCandliss, and Seidenberg (2003) and Hatcher, Hulme, a nd Ellis (1994) that promotes combining phonological awareness training with both letter-sound mapping and spelling, and incorporating this training in broader reading contexts, th e Barton System is based on a solid theoretical framework. Therefore, it is important to look at the components of the Barton program to explore its components in the broader context of adolescents who struggle with reading. Critical Components of the Barton Reading and Spelling System Barton Pretest The lesson on which a reading-interventi on participant begins tutoring in the Barton System is determined by the partic ipant’s performance on a pretest devised by Barton, rather than by the pa rticipant’s performance on the standardized pretest assessment battery. This procedure of the Bart on System could interf ere with progress for maximizing growth during short re ading-intervention programs. As previously described in Chapter 3, the first three books of the Barton system provide pretests that asse ss the reading and spelling sk ills to be taught in the

PAGE 105

91 corresponding books. The pretest pr ogresses in difficulty in th e same way the procedures and lessons progress; therefore, a student who reaches the maximum number of allowable mistakes early on in a pretest begins tuto ring in the early, easier lessons of the book. A participant is permitted only two or three e rrors before meeting Barton’s criterion for failing the pretest. All particip ants in our study began tutori ng in either Book 1 or Book 2. However, it became apparent during the read ing-intervention program that the Barton pretests were not a good indication of skill level for most of the participants. The following example illustrates this point. Participant 13 was one of the more advan ced students in the reading-intervention group in terms of pretest standardized scores, but her Barton pretest re sults required that she begin tutoring on Book 1 of the Barton Sy stem. Participant 13 me t the pass criterion for Pretest A of Book 1, Break Apart Nonsense Words but she did not meet the pass criterion for Pretest B of Book 1, Break-Replace-Remove The pass criterion to move from Pretest B to Pretest C was one or no errors. Because Participant 13 missed two items on Pretest B, she was required to begi n tutoring at Book 1, Lesson 3. In Book 1, the tutor alternately built consonant-vowel combin ations for the participant to decode or dictated consonant-vowel combinations for the participant to build with the tiles. Participant 14 had an extensive history with multisensory instruction and quickly moved through an entire lesson each time she was tutored. She immediately picked up the spelling rules taught and passe d the reading and spelling pr obes with 100 % accuracy on the first trial. Of all the nine reading-intervention participants, she and Participant 11 progressed the furthest in treatment, to Book 4, Lesson 1.

PAGE 106

92 When the reading intervention ended, Participant 13 commented that she was just getting to the point where sh e felt like she was learning some thing. While this comment does reflect the short length of the reading-intervention program, it also illustrates the problem of the low placement level prescrib ed by the Barton program. Participant 14’s experience in the Barton System readingintervention program ma y have been more beneficial and efficient if she had been able to bypass the basic, introductory lessons of Book 1 and Book 2 (vowel and consonant s ounds) and progress to material more meaningful to a high school student. In contrast to Participant 13, Particip ant 7 had the most depressed pretest standardized scores of all the participants. Similar to Participant 13, Participant 7’s Barton pretest placed him at Book 1. Howeve r he began at the first lesson in Book 1 while Participant 13 began at the third lesson. Clearly, this particip ant did not have the reading skills necessary to by-pass any of the early books of the Barton System. These two brief participant profiles present quite a di sparate picture. One participant, who had a strong background in multisensory, systematic and explicit phonics training, moved quickly and easily through the program a nd felt she was just beginning to get to meaningful reading and spelli ng rules after 22 sessi ons. The other participant, with no prior history of multisensory, systematic, and explicit phonics training struggled with each and every rule taught, and was just beginn ing to feel comfortable with tutoring after 22 sessions. Therefore, the Barton pretest criterion for starting a book may be too conservative in some cases, but appropriate in others. There should be a mechanism in the Barton Reading and Spelling System to ad just for such wide differences. Possible solutions include 1) increasing the number of errors that a student is permitted to make on

PAGE 107

93 each pretest procedure, 2) testing a wider a rray of reading and spelling skills and then doing an item analysis to see where a student is having most difficulty, and 3)extending the assessment period and lengt h of reading intervention. Stimulus Materials Barton recommends the Barton Reading and Spelling be used for children through adults. However, the words and stories us ed in the lessons in Book 1 through Book 4 were words in a young child’s vocabulary. For example, in Book 2, Consonants and Short Vowels, the spelling words included fig ran and sip and the sentence the rat bit the fig The short stories introduced in Book 3 held little appeal to the older students. Although supplemental stories that are more a dvanced in text are available from Barton, she stresses that these stories are only to be used by students who have completed all the lessons in Book 3. One participan t continually complained that she felt the material was too easy for her and the stories were “stupid” Material that appeal s to younger children and that may be enjoyed for its silliness, doe s not hold the same appeal to older students who have struggled for years with reading. Th is point has not been lost on researchers and educators interested in older students with reading disability (see, Curtis & Longo, 1999; Ivey, & Baker, 2004; Moats, 2001, 2004). Meaningful Remedial Reading Programs for Older Students Salinger (2003) recently asked how th e five major components of reading acquisition, identified by the National Reading Panel (2000), tr anslate into instruction for older, struggling students. The National R eading Panel identified these components as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, voca bulary, and comprehension. Salinger (2003) points out that older students with reading disability who receive reading intervention often receive the same kind of instruction they have already had, focusing at the

PAGE 108

94 microlevel of phonemic awareness and phonics skills. On the contrary, older students who struggle with reading need to receive instruction on the five components of reading that is appropriate to the literacy tasks th ey encounter in their daily academic and personal lives (Salinger, 2003). The Barton R eading and Spelling System addresses many crucial need of older students, but not at the beginning levels. Later books cover important rules for prefixes and suffixes and Greek and Latin roots. However, in most cases, students must first be tutored in th e earliest books that teach phonemic awareness and consonant and vowel sounds. For a student with a long history of reading failure, covering such basic level material may only add to his/her frustration. Ivey and Baker (2004) state that phonemic awareness training and phonics instruction will neither help students in older grades read be tter nor read more frequentl y. However, they concede that it does make sense for older students who con tinue to struggle to read the words they encounter to receive age-appropriate inst ruction in word recognition and spelling. The issue of age-appropriate content a ddresses an important point. The readingintervention participants in our study made errors on very basic phonemic awareness tasks on the Barton pretests and consistently made errors producing and writing vowel sounds and reading sight words. Although the pa rticipants demonstrated different levels of proficiency in their readi ng skills during the lessons, they all made errors and it is expected that all participants would have experienced increas ed difficulty as the material became more challenging. Thus, older stude nts in remedial reading programs must have a solid basis of phonological awareness skills on which to build as they address more difficult reading and spelling materials. The problem is making phonological awareness instruction sensitive to the needs, personalities and intellectual levels of older students. A

PAGE 109

95 program developed by Mary Curtis and A nn Marie Longo (1999) addressed this very issue for teens with reading problems. Curtis and Longo (1999) developed a readi ng program at the Boys Town Reading Center (Omaha, Nebraska), a laboratory school with research goals to develop researchbased programs and to disseminate these programs to schools around the nation. Curtis and Longo (1999) shared seven components of effective reading instruction upon which their program is based. One component is age-appropriate teaching materials and techniques. Similar to this researcher’s observation of the Barton System, Curtis and Longo acknowledge that teaching older students to read is difficult because many of the methods and materials available are desi gned for younger students and often appear childish to them. Even materials that “look” appropriate for older students may be written at too low a level to produce meaningful gr owth for older students This was a problem with the Barton System. Barton uses videotapes to demonstrate the procedures used to carry out the reading and spelling rules. These videot apes feature one adult role-pla ying the part of an impaired reader and one adult playing the part of the tutor. This left a false impression with the graduate clinicians/tutors in this study th at their adolescent st udents would enjoy the simple words, the silly sentences and the co rresponding stories. Instead, the tutors were often faced with students who thought the material was insulting. Curtis and Longo (1999) offer several suggestions in addressi ng this problem. For example, to teach the most impaired readers the long vowel sound for o they suggest using words whose meanings are known but which cannot be read, such as cockroach and charcoal This rule in the Barton System was taught using simple words such as boat and oat

PAGE 110

96 A second critical component of the Boys Town Reading program (Curtis & Longo, 1999) is its focus on appropriate knowledge a nd skills necessary for moving a student to the next stage of literacy development. For ex ample, instruction for a student reading at the lowest level would focus on word analys is skills while instruction for a student reading at an intermediate level would fo cus on acquisition of new words, ideas, and concepts and the opportunity to read text that contains th is new information. Adherence to the Barton System pretest did not allow for the use of more advanced words. Thus, Participant 7, the student func tioning at the lowest level be gan instruction at the same level as Participant 13, a student functioning at an intermediate level of literacy instruction. Although the Barton System falls short on these two critical components, it does satisfactorily address other components of e ffective instruction iden tified by Curtis and Longo (1999). The Barton System is based on valid and reliable theory (Henry, 1998; McIntyre & Pickering, 2001) and research (Felton, 1993; F oorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Henry, 1998; McIntyre & Pickeri ng, 2001). Instruction is structured and planned, learning takes plac e in stages, and the teachers or tutors are trained. The final critical component identif ied by Curtis and Longo (1999) in the Boys Town Reading Program addre sses replication of results with the end goal being a comprehensive reading program that works for teens throughout th e country. Presently, both the Barton Reading and Spelling System and the Boys Town Reading Program have only preliminary replicat ion evidence (Barton, 20 00; Curtis & Longo, 1999). Other efforts to develop literacy progra ms for struggling adolescent readers are underway. Recently, researchers and practiti oners who work with adolescents with

PAGE 111

97 reading challenges held two workshops on a dolescent literacy (T he Partnership for Reading, 2002). Practice Models for A dolescent Literacy Success the second of two workshops, culminated in a summary of four reading models being implemented across the country. Three of the four models, Corrective Reading, Language!, and Strategic Reading are remedial reading programs while one system, Strategic Instruction Model is a school-wide approach used in co re curriculum content classes. Both Corrective Reading and Language stress systematic and explicit instruction and include instruction in various ph oneme-level phonological awareness skills, including phonemic awareness, phonemegrapheme correspondence, decoding, and encoding ( Strategic Reading only addresses reading co mprehension). The Barton Reading and Spelling System also includes sy stematic and explicit instruction at this level. However, the difference between the Barton System and the models studied by The Partnership for Reading (2002) lies in the scope of the instruction. For both Corrective Reading and Language !, training in phonological awareness skill is only part of a more comprehensive approach to inst ruction that includes comprehension skills, writing skills, and reasoning skills. When considering the scope of the Ba rton Reading and Spelling System, it is important to keep in mind that it is a remedial reading program and, as such, it is meant to provide in-depth instruction in one area of reading instructionphonological awareness. Nevertheless, the impact of reading disability for older students typically is not isolated to the decoding of text but rather affects a ll areas of their academic s, including vocabulary knowledge, reading comprehension and writi ng conventions. Therefore, the more

PAGE 112

98 encompassing a remedial reading program is, the more benefit it will be to the older student with reading disability. Limitations and Future Directions Alexander and Slinger-Constant (2004) not ed that many of the studies supporting multisensory education are quasi-experimental in design and lacking in either control groups or randomly assigned groups. Many multis ensory remedial reading programs are carried out in schools and must operate under the confines of the educational system. Lack of resources in time, money, and pers onnel contribute to studies that use small sample sizes and are of shor t duration. These factors combine to produce findings that cannot be generalized to larger populations. Our study was no exception. This study was limited by the small number of participants. A larger sample size would be less sensitive to factors such as unequal number of reading-intervention sessions within the reading-intervention group, prior history of similar reading intervention, and reading-intervention participants’ grade-levels. Another limitation of this study was the short duration of the readi ng intervention. Several students were just beginning to reach material that was challe nging and motivating to them when the study ended; other students were showing cons istent and steady progress on developing phonological awareness skills at the end of the reading inte rvention. Approximately two weeks of intervention time were lost due to two hurricanes. Furthermore, because the graduate clinicians change externship placements every semester, reading intervention was limited to the university’s fall semester schedule. Continuing reading intervention into the spring semester would have requi red recruiting and trai ning new tutors and research assistants and would have introduced threats to the reliability of the data. Also, reading disability in this study was based on only one pretest assessm ent at one point in

PAGE 113

99 time. It is possible that a wi der assessment battery would have turned up different results and resulted in a different participant pool. For example, an IQ-achievement discrepancy formula, often utilized in reading research studies to identify part icipants as reading disabled, was not used in the current study. If it had, it is likely that Participant 7 and Participant 18 would have been excluded from the study. Background history on these students indicated that they were more globally impaired academically and were likely garden-variety poor readers w ith depressed IQ scores. Lack of generalization of the research findings to other students with reading disability or to the effectiv eness of the Barton Reading and Spelling System is the main obstacle presented by the research design used in this study. Nevertheless, the improvement in reading skills that students e xperienced when participating in the current Orton-Gillingham influenced, multisensory, systematic and explicit phonics program cannot be ignored and underscores that tutoring older students with read ing disability is a worthwhile effort. Therefore, future directions for research in the area of older students with reading disability should study larger sample sizes and for longer durations. It would be interesting to see if students who are tuto red on reading and spelling skills applicable to the material they encounter in the classr oom, such as words with affixes or Greek and Latin derived roots, experience greater ease in reading age-level texts. The Barton Reading and Spelling System has many valuable components. The addition of words and stories more appropriate to older students would make it more appealing to a larger audience. Large-scale, well-designed resear ch on the prevention of reading failure and early intervention for at-risk children has re sulted in tremendous st rides in reducing the

PAGE 114

100 number of young children who cannot read. Now is the time to make a concerted effort to remediate struggling adolescents w ho suffer from reading disability. Clinical Implications Older students with reading disabilities ha ve experienced many years of frustration and failure with reading. Thus, clinicians interested in helping such students face a difficult task on two fronts. First, clinicians will likely be met with a student who is not motivated to practice reading and spelling ex ercises and who has a negative attitude about reading in general and intervention in particular. Second, older students with reading disability need to work with material that is interesting and age-appropriate in content. Packaged reading-intervention pr ograms, such as the Barton Reading and Spelling Program are meant to appeal to a wi de range of ages; thus, it may be necessary to individualize the material so older students are more motivat ed to take on the challenge of remedial reading strategies Although remedial reading programs are not m eant to be a student’s main source of reading instruction, such programs will have gr eater impact if they are broad in scope. A remedial reading program that is sufficie ntly broad would include work on reading comprehension, vocabulary expansion, and reading fluency as well as phonological awareness and spelling The gains shown in this study underscore 1) it is never too late to help the struggling reading im prove his/her reading skills and 2) there needs to be a national effort in our educational system to address the needs of older students who struggle with reading. A recent brain-imaging study by Eden et al. (2004) underscores the point that that it is never too late to help the older struggling reader Eden at al. found that adults with developmental dyslexia who received phonological awar eness training made significant improvement in phonological pro cessing and nonword read ing and that this

PAGE 115

101 improvement was accompanied by increased activity in the left parietal cortex, similar to what is observed in typical adult readers. Thus even adults with a long history of reading disability can achieve change s in brain function that resemble a more normal pattern. Conclusions This study provided moderate support fo r an Orton-Gillingham influenced multisensory explicit and systematic phonics-bas ed approach to reading intervention for a group of high school students with reading di sability. Results of independent sample t tests revealed that the control group had significantly higher pretest scores on all dependent variables. Results of posttest anal ysis using Analysis of Covariance revealed that the difference between the control gr oup and the reading-intervention group on the dependent variables was no longer statistically significant. Particip ants in the readingintervention group did improve their reading skills. When means were adjusted for pretest scores, participants in the reading-interventi on group improved approximately three standard points more than the control group on Letter-Word Identification, Spelling, Word Attack, Sound Awareness and Sight Word Efficiency Results of a nonindependent, matched samples t test, showed signifi cant improvement for th e reading-intervention group participants on the Word Attack subtest compared to the participants in the control group. In addition, improvement neared significance on Spelling for the readingintervention group. Finally, descriptive analysis of the data revealed that on four of the six reading subskill tests, participants in the reading-intervention group out-gained the participants in the control gr oup on grade-equivalent scores.

PAGE 116

APPENDIX A DESOTO CHARTER SCHOOL MISSION STATEMENT

PAGE 117

103 A Figure A-1. DeSoto High School br ochure. A) Front. B) Back.

PAGE 118

104 104 B Figure A-1 Continued.

PAGE 119

105 APPENDIX B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) PROTOCOL 1. TITLE OF PROTOCOL: Outreach program for students with reading disability 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(s): SallyAnn Giess, MA, CCC-SLP, University of Florida, Department of Communication Scien ces and Disorders, 435 Dauer Hall, PO Box 117420, Gainesville, FL 32611-7420,Tel.: (352 ) 392-2113 ext. 293, Fax: (352) 846-0243, E-mail: sgiess@csd.ufl.edu 3. SUPERVISOR: Linda J. Lombardino, Ph.D., 347 Dauer Hall, PO Box 117420, Gainesville, FL. 32611-7420, (352) 392-2113 ext. 285, llombard@csd.ufl.edu Fax: (352) 846-0243 4. DATES OF PROPOSED PROTOCOL: From April 2004 to May 2005 5. SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE PROTOCOL: Scottish Rite Foundation of Florida; University of Florida Speech and Hearing Clinic. 6. SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION: The purpose of this investigation is to determine the effectiveness of a scientifically based reading intervention program in improvi ng the reading skills of students identified with language and reading difficulties in grad es 9-11. Despite effo rts of educators and other professionals to improve reading scores of students, some students continue to struggle with the reading process; this difficu lty is unexpected as these students are often of normal intelligence and have been exposed to instructional methods that are effective with other students. The first step of this investigation will be to identify those students who continue to perform below grade level in reading and w ho have been identified as having a reading disability, or are considered reading challenged. Along with the increased awareness in society of reading disabilities have come improved efforts at prevention, assessment, identification, and treatment of reading disabilities. However, despite these efforts there remain a certain number of students who unfor tunately either “fall through the cracks” and were not identified in thei r early schools years as having a reading disability or have not responded to previous remediation effort s, eventually reaching middle and even high school with below average reading skills. Becau se these students are nearing the end of their public school education, it is especially important that intervention programs based on empirically supported methods are available for and implemented with these students. Thus, the first part of this investigation will require the identifi cation of students who continue to struggle with the reading process and are now considered reading disabled or

PAGE 120

106 reading challenged. Once students with read ing disability or challenge have been identified, this investigation will focus on the effectiveness of the Barton Reading and Spelling System in improving the reading skills of this cohort. The Barton Reading and Spelling System is based on the Orton-Gilli ngham approach to remediation of reading problems. The scientific purpose of this investigation is to implement the Barton program and provide data showing the efficacy of using this program. 7. DESCRIBE THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN NON-TECHNICAL LANGUAGE Students identified by their teachers as having a reading disability or reading challenge will be assessed with a battery of standardized tests, including the Test of Auditory Awareness Skills (TAAS; Rosner, 1979), the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R; Woodcock, 1998), and the Wide Range Achievement Test-3 (WRAT-3; Wilkinson, 1993). The TAAS tests oral word an alysis skills with phonetic deletion items. Test takers are given words orally and as ked to delete a beginning sound, an ending sound, or a part of a blend. The WRMT-R assesses basic reading skills and reading comprehension skills. Finally, the WRAT-3 assesses single word reading and single word spelling skills (see tests in the appendi x). Students who fail this screening will be asked to participate in the Bart on reading intervention program. Students will be matched on pre-assessment measures; one half of the pair will be randomly assigned to the treatment group and the other half will be randomly assigned to a control group. The students in the experimental group will receive the intervention in the fall (2004). Students in the control group will receive the intervention in the spring (2005). The program is expected to run either after school hours or at a time acceptable to school faculty and students’ parents, and will not inte rfere with regular cla ssroom activities. The investigator and her assistants will work with students three-four times per week, approximately 50 minutes per session. The Barton System is multi-sensory in nature, meaning it utilizes th e visual, auditory, and tactile-kinesthetic se nsory modes; it is phonics based and presents material in a sequential, systematic fashion. The inves tigators will use the Barton program to teach students’ phonological awareness skills, conson ant and vowel sounds, syllable types, and syllable division. The primary investigator is a licensed Speech -Language Pathologist (SLP) who will train a second year graduate student, or senior undergraduate student in the Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders to assi st her in intervention as well as data collection. Data will be collect ed during each session. The i nvestigators will keep charts of the lessons taught and students’ perfor mance pre and post intervention. Weekly progress will be measured by tests provided with the Barton program and weekly probes will measure student progress using curriculum-based materials. The investigators will record the students’ daily progress within each session as well. Materials may include letter tiles, worksheets, and other items that are provided with the Barton program.

PAGE 121

107 Student identification will be kept confidential and na mes or other identifying information will not be used in any reports generated from this study. Students may occasionally be audio taped and/or videotaped in order to record information. This material will be destroyed at the end of th e research investigation. A random number will identify students. This number will be placed in a computer database; the data will be kept on a zip disk or compact disk, not on the computer hard drive or on the UF computer network. 8. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND ANTICIPATED RISK. There are no expected risks of physical, psychological, or eco nomic harm to the participants. However, students are expect ed to benefit from the investigation by improving their reading skills. Th e teachers of all participants will be given a description of the steps needed to continue a student’s reading instruction. 9. DESCRIBE HOW PARTICIPANTS WILL BE RECRUITED, THE NUMBER AND AGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, A ND PROPOSED COMPENSATION (if any): Participants will be recruited from a public high school in Alachua County such as Lofton and Desoto high school, a public charter sc hool specifically for reading and language disabled or challenged students. The first part of this research will require identification of children with reading disability or r eading challenge. The investigators will ask teachers to identify the lowest 10-15% of the students in their classes on skills fundamental to the reading process. The participants will be in 9th-11th grade and will range in age from 15-17 years. No compensa tion will be provided to teachers, students, or students’ parents for pa rticipating in this study. 10. DESCRIBE THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS. INCLUDE A COPY OF THE INFORMED CO NSENT DOCUMENT Parents of each potential participant w ill receive an informed consent document describing the purpose of the study and the requ irements of the participant. Classroom teachers will first identify those students who are performing in the bottom 10-15 % of their class and will distribute the consent fo rm to parents of these students. This identification and consent process will take pl ace before the investigators are made aware of the potential participants. The document will contain information regarding the confidentiality of those involve d and statements citing that th is is a completely voluntary role with the right to withdraw without pena lty. Students whose pare nts have agreed to participate by signing and returning the inform ed consent document (attached) will then be made known to the investigators. A par ticipant will potentially be part of the study pending the signing and return of th e informed consent document. A student assent script will be used prior to each assessment and intervention session to assure that the student is partic ipating voluntarily (attached).

PAGE 122

108 Principal Investigator/Date _________________________ Supervisor/Date I approve this protocol for submission to the UFIRB: ____________________________ Dept. Chair/Center Director Date

PAGE 123

109 APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT Informed Consent Letter for Parents or Guardians April 2004 Dear Parent/Guardian, I am a doctoral student in Communication Scie nces and Disorders at the University of Florida, conducting research under the supervision of Dr. Linda Lombardino, a professor of communication processes and disorders. We are interested in providing some students with extra reading instruction by using a r eading intervention program to improve the reading skills of students who ar e identified as reading challenged Students will be engaged in activities that have them look at letters, listen to the sounds letters make, and write or trace letters while thinking about the movement their arm or hand is making (multi-sensory activities). The purpose of our present study is to determ ine if a program developed by Susan Barton called the Barton Reading and Spelling System is effective in improving reading skills of students with reading disabilities. The Bart on system is designed to add to the reading instruction that your child is al ready receiving in the classroo m. This project may benefit your child’s literacy skills and provide impor tant insights into teaching strategies for other students. We are contacting you because you have told your child’s teacher that you are interested in this project and c onsent to having your child participate. Your child will first be given an assessment th at tests oral word analysis skills, single word reading, nonsense word reading, passage comprehension, and single word spelling. Assessment is expected to take 30 to 45 minut es. If your child does not perform at grade level on this test and if you child’s teacher feels that your child will benefit from our instruction, your child can pa rticipate in our program. You will be contacted with a

PAGE 124

110 follow-up letter about the results of the asse ssment and whether your child qualifies for the instructional program and has been aske d to participate. Half the students who qualify for the program will participate in the fall (2004); if your child does not participate in the fall, the therapy will be available to him/her in the spring. The Barton System is multi-sensory in nature, meaning it uses visual, auditory, and tactile-kinesthetic information during reading inst ruction. It is also phonics ba sed, meaning it focuses on the sounds that letters make, and presents material in a sequential, systematic fashion. We will use the Barton program to teach students’ phonological awareness skills, consonant and vowel sounds, syllable types, and syllable division Phonological awar eness refers to the ability to focus on and manipulate individual sounds in spoken words. We will work with your child 4 times a week at school for 50-60 minutes at a time. We will be doing this for up to 24 weeks. Lessons may take place during regular school hours, but your child will not be asked to miss important classroom instruction time Either a trained graduate clinician or I will be present during a ll sessions to help your child and to provide encouragement. We also ask that you allow us to audio and/or video record your ch ild’s sessions and take notes during sessions to record progress. Tapes and writte n records will be available only to my graduate clinical assistant, my supervisor, and me. These will be numerically coded and will not be marked with your ch ild’s name. All individual records will be destroyed once the study has ended. You and your child have the right to withdraw consent for your chil d’s participation at any time without consequence. There are no known risks in participating. No compensation is offered. If you have any quest ions about this rese arch protocol, please contact me, SallyAnn Giess at (352) 392-2113, ext 293 or Dr Lombardino at (352) 3922113, ext 285. Questions or concerns about your child’s rights as a research participant may be directed to the UFIRB Office, Univer sity of Florida, Box 112250 Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0433. Your child’s identity will be kept confidentia l to the extent provided by law. No real names, initials, or other identifying informa tion will be used during spoken or written presentation of study results. Participation or non-participation in this study will not affect your child’s grades or placement in programs. I have read the procedure described above a nd I have received a copy of this form. I voluntarily agree to allow my ch ild ________________, to participate in the study involving use of the Barton program to improve literacy skills. Parent-Guardian ______________________ Date: Principal Investigator

PAGE 125

111 ______________________ Date: Supervisor/Investigator ______________________ Date: Cc: Parent/Guardian File Student Assent Script The following is a script that will be used prio r to each session to ensure that the student knows of his involvement and that he/she may choose not to participat e if he/she does not want to. Investigator: We are going to do some activities with sounds and words. During these activities you will be looking at and lis tening to different sounds and words. If you don’t want to do this, that is okay. Yo u may still do all the other activities you normally do at school. Do you want to do the activities with me? If the student indicates yes the investigator wi ll begin the session. If the student indicates no the investigator will say: That’s okay. Maybe I will come back later to see if you want to do these activities When the investigator returns, the same script will be used.

PAGE 126

112 APPENDIX D STUDENT SCREENING ANSWER SHEET Figure D-1. Student Screening Answer Sheet A) Page 1. B) Page 2.

PAGE 127

113 B Figure D-1. Continued.

PAGE 128

114 APPENDIX E BARTON PRETESTS FOR BOOKS 1-3 (ADAPTED FROM BARTON 2000) Pre-tests compiled from books 1 to 3 to determine where to begin tutoring students. Book 1 Pre-test for phonemic awareness Give pretest to determine star ting point for older students. If student makes no mistakes on Tasks A, B, and C, then tutor gives the next task. If student makes more than one mistake, stop the pretest. If student makes no mistakes on Tasks A, B, and C, then give the next task. If student comp letes all five pretest steps w ith 100% accuracy, then he has sufficient knowledge to skip Book 1 entirely. Pre/Posttest A: Break Apart Nonsense Words Directions /Demonstration: Tutor first explains task by telling student that they will break words into sounds. The first word tutor dictates is SNI; tutor then as ks student to repeat that word and say it again very slowly. After student says word slowly, tutor asks him how many sounds he heard in that word. Tutor then asks student to pull down tiles, do touch and say, and then wash off the tiles. Tuto r dictates word; student repeats word, says it slowly, and identifies number of sounds he heard in wor d, pulls down different colored tiles and puts them in a row. Student does touch say for each sound to correspond with each tile. When student is done, he pushes the tiles back into the pile and tutor dictates next word. If student misses two or more word s, stop the pretest and begin lessons at the lowest lesson number circled. If student mi sses zero or one item, go on to Task B. Answer Sheet for A Dictated Word Student correctly breaks word into sounds Lesson NACH 2 OK 1 USP 3 PIP 2 GLA 4 OPT 3 THA 1 SHRO 4 TOB 2 IM 1 SKA 1 ILT 3 BO 1 TRI 4 SHAD 2 Score: ______________

PAGE 129

115 Pre/Posttest B: Break-Replace-Remove Directions/Demonstration: Tutor explains task by telli ng student that he will break a word and then tutor will ch ange a sound. Some of the words have two sounds and others have three sounds. Tutor dictates first word : SKA and asks student to repeat it, say it again very slowly, and pull down the tiles. Tu tor then asks student to do touch and say and student touches first tile and says fi rst sound, and so on for each sound/tile. Tutor reminds student to watch her carefully and tutor changes the last tile while saying, “I am going to change this tile to /o/.” Tutor tells the student he has to do touch and say for each sound to figure out the new word. Next, tutor tells student to slowly blend the sounds together into a word and then say it fast like a word. Next, tutor takes out first tile and tells student, “I’m going to take out this tile Touch and say the sounds that are left.” Student touches first tile and says s ound, and so on for each sound and tile. Tutor tells student to blend the sounds slowly and th en say it fast like a wo rd. If student misses two or more words, stop pretestbegin less ons at lowest lesson number circled. If student misses zero or one, go on to Task C. Score as correct if st udent correctly breaks, replaces, and removes. Answer Sheet for B Dictated word Student breaks word into sounds Student correctly replaces tile for new tile Student correctly does touch & say with tile removed Lesson VAK-VOK-VO 2 DA-LA-A 1 IMP-ISP-IP 3 UJ-UK-U 1 BLO-BLI-BI 4 Score: ___________ Pre/Posttest C: Compare Two Words Directions/Demonstration: Tutor tells stude nt that now they w ill compare two words. The tutor lays out th ree tiles in a row, and then bu ilds another row beneath it using exactly the same colored tiles. Tutor tells student the first word is SPA and asks student to repeat that word, say it slowly, and touch and say using the first row of tiles. Tutor gives the next word-SPI and asks student to repeat that word, say it slowly, and then do touch and say using the second row of tiles. Tutor says, “The first word was SPA, this word is SPI; touch and say until you find the sounds that are different.” Student touches and says first word, then second word and tu tor asks him which sounds are different (the last sounds). Tutor tells student to go ahead and change the la st tile in the new word to show that it is different. St udent changes the last tile in the second row and then washes off those tiles.

PAGE 130

116 Tutor says: The first word is XX1. The s econd word is XX2. XX1, XX2. Touch and say until you find the sound that is different. If student misses two or more words, stop the pretest and begin lessons at the lowest le sson number circled. If student misses zero or one, go on to Task D. Score as correct if st udent correctly identif ies different sound and changes tile. Answer Sheet for C Tutor builds two rows Student Identifies Different Sound Student Changes Correct Tile Lesson UD UCH 1 KOV TOV 2 BA KA 1 UNT UST 3 GRO GRA 4 Score: _____________ Pre/Posttest D: Blend 2 and 3 Sounds into Real Words Directions/Demonstration : Tutor explains that now she will give student some sounds to blend together into real words. Tutor demonstrates by pulling down two different color tiles. Tutor touches each tile while saying, “This tile says .., this tile says… Now you touch and say those sounds.” Student touches the first til e while saying.., then touches second tile while saying… Tutor tells student to slowly blend them together and then say it fast like a word. For test, tutor will touc h and say each sound; student will touch and say each sound and blend sounds into a word. To score as correct, student must correctly blend and recognize the real wo rd. If student misses two or more words, stop the pretest here and begin tutoring at the lowest lesson number that is ci rcled. If student misses zero or one item, go on to Task E. Answer Sheet for D Dictated Sounds Student correctly blends sounds into real word Student recognizes real word Lesson A T = AT 5 H A V = HAVE 5 N O K = KNOCK 5 F U J = FUDGE 5 M A CH = MATCH 5 TH I N = THIN 5 E N D = END 5 L A M = LAMB 5

PAGE 131

117 Book 2 Pretest for Consonants and Short Vowels If a student had made any mistakes on Ta sks A and B, STOP the pretest and begin tutoring with the lowest lesson number circle d. If student makes no mistakes on Tasks A and B, then tutor gives the next task. If st udent completes all 6 pr etest steps with 100% accuracy, then he has sufficient knowledge to skip Book 2 entirely. Pre/Posttest A: Test of Le tter Name and Sound Knowledge (Go on to B even if student makes errors) Answer Sheet for A Key words for Letters/Sounds Student correctly names letter Student correctly makes the sound Lesson +/Record Answer +/-Record Answer B tab 1 C mac and face 2 D sad 3 F cliff 1 G tug and huge 2 H hat 2 J jam 3 K milk 3 L hill 2 M am 1 N fan 2 P tap 1 QU quit 4 R her 2 S miss and was 2 T rat 1 V give 4 W wit 4 X fox 4 Y yes 4 Z fuzz 3 A apple 1 E Eddy 5 I itchy 2 O olive 3 U upper 4 TH thin 5 SH ship 5 CH chin 5 Wh whistle 5 CK pick 5 score_______

PAGE 132

118 Pre/Posttest B: Spelling Individual Sounds on Paper Directions: Tutor dictates sound to student; studen t repeats sound, says the name of the letter, or letters, that make that sound, a nd then writes down the answer on paper. Insist that student writes in lower cas e letters. Student must say both the name of the letter that makes sound and correctly write down the lett er. If student was incorrect on any item stop the pretest and start the student at the lowest lesson number of his incorrect answers on both Answer Sheet A and B. Only go on to Pretest C if student got 100% correct. Answer Sheet for Task B Dictated Sound (Lesson) Student correctly says name of letter that makes sound Student correctly “spells” sound on paper. Dictated Sound (Lesson) Names letter that makes sound Spells sound on paper +/+/Lesson +/+/Lesson /n/ 2 /qu/ 4 /p/ 1 /m/ 1 /k/ C, K, CK 2 /j/ J (“jay”) or soft “g” 3 /ch/ 5 /l/ 2 /g/ 2 /r/ 2 /t/ 1 /y/ 4 /v/ 4 /a/ 1 /f/ 1 /o/ 3 /th/ 5 /u/ 4 /d/ 3 /i/ 2 /b/ 1 /e/ 5 /z/ Z, S 3 /e/ 5 /w/ 4 /i/ 2 /wh/ 5 /u/ 4 /sh/ 5 /e/ 5 /s/ S, C 2 /a/ 1 /h/ 2 /o/ 3 /x/ 4 /u/ 4 /o/ 3 /a/ 1 Score________________ Pre/Posttest C: Identifyin g First, Last, Middle Sounds Directions: Tutor tells the student she is going to say a nonsense word and that the student will repeat it. Tutor demonstrates wi th first word: CHUP. Student repeats this word. Tutor asks student what the first sound in the word is and how he would spell that sound. Tutor records this answer on answer sheet and dictates the rest of the words. Tutor repeats this process, but asks the student to te ll her the last sound in the word and how he would spell that sound. Tutor reco rds answer and dict ates the rest of the words. Finally, tutor tells student to follow the same steps, but this time to tell her the middle sound of the word and how to spell that sound. The tutor records the answ er and dictates the rest of the words. To pass item, student must co rrectly say requested sound and name the letter(s).

PAGE 133

119 If the student was incorrect on any item, stop th e pretest. If the student makes more than three errors, start at Lesson 2; otherwise, look at the mistakes on the answer sheet and start at the lowest indicated lesson. Answer Sheet for Task C Sound Student says requested sound Student identifies letter(s) Lesson First CHUP /ch/ 5 THED /th/ 5 WHOV /wh/ 5 SHAM /sh/ 5 QUIM /qu/ 5 Last LISS /s/ 1 YUCH /ch/ 5 GAN /n/ 2 MOX /x/ 4 SUFF /f/ 1 Middle CHAM /a/ 1 MOG /o/ 3 PEZ /e/ 5 THUN /u/ 4 TIB /i/ 2 Score_________________ Pre/Posttest D: Read These Words Directions: Student reads words down column of pa ge. Score as correct if student reads the word correctly. If student reads the word in correctly, guesses at th e word, or has to try it two or three times, score as incorrect. If student misread s one or two consonants or digraphs, start on Lesson 5. If student misread s one or more vowels, and the vowels are A, I, or O, start on Lesson 3. If he misreads a U or an E, start on Lesson 4. Answer Sheet for Task D Word Student correctly reads word (incorrect, guesses, or several tries = -) wed thin tag peck shush check dock Mel shin

PAGE 134

120 Answer Sheet for Task D-CONTINUED Word Student correctly reads word (incorrect, guesses, or several tries = -) buck whim wax quick yet shud chep vock neth bish jeck quish Score_____________ Pre/Posttest E: Spelling Real and Nonsense Words on Paper: Directions: Tutor tells student that he will now be spelling words. Tutor says a word, asks student to repeat it, and then write the wo rd down on a piece of paper. The tutor records each spelling as correct or incorrect on the an swer sheet. If the student was incorrect on more than one word, stop the pretest. If th e student incorrectly spelled a consonant or a vowel, start at Lesson 3. If th e student incorrectly spelled only a digraph, start at lesson 5. Answer Sheet for Task E Dictated Word Correctly Spelled (must refer to student’s answer sheet) path whip shot chin Ned chez thub hov quesh whid dach Score_________________

PAGE 135

121 Pre/Posttest F: Read These Sentences Directions: Student reads sentences. If student reads flawlessl y, go to Book 3 pretest. If student makes more than 3 mistakes, includ ing re-readings, or r eads in a choppy manner, start at Lesson 5. Answer sheet for Task F Sentence to read Record erro rs and make notes on fluency 1. Rex and Ed met Beth. 2. Fat Chad sat with a thud. 3. A duck got sick in the bath tub. 4. Thin Ken did dash on the path. 5. A red hen got wet at the dock. 6. Rick did yell at Deb. 7. Peg got sock on the ship. 8. A vet got a fish at the dock. 9. Sam and Ted met Meg at a bash. Score_____________ Book 3: Pretest for Closed Syllables (Barton warns that this should only be given as a pretest to stud ents who successfully completed the Book 2 pretest a nd therefore, did not do any lessons in Book 2. If the student successfully comple ted all the pretests, then he should skip to Book 4. Pretest A: Read Real and Nonsense Words using the Word Frame Directions: The tutor tells the student that she would like the student to read real and nonsense words taught during the lessons in Bo ok 3. The tutor gives the student the Read These Real Words page and asks the student to read them using the Word Frame. The student reads each word out loud. The tutor reco rds the response as correct or incorrect on the answer sheet. The tutor repeats this process with the Read These Nonsense Words page. If there was more than one real word, or more than two nonsense words that the student does not know, or if this task was difficult fo r him, do not skip this book. However, do give the spelling se ction of the pretest and star t at the lowest lesson number of any incorrect answer. Answer Sheet for Task A Real Word to Read +/Record Student’s response Lesson shaft 1 whisk 1 flush 2 grab 2 twist 3 blend 3 quench 4 splash 4

PAGE 136

122 Answer Sheet for Task A-CONTINUED Real Word to Read +/Record Student’s response Lesson squall 5 frizz 5 strict 6 crept 6 Scotch 9 thatch 9 shrink 8 string 8 wouldn’t 10 who’s 10 stroll 11 grind 11 scold 11 Score_______________ Nonsense Word to Read +/Record Student’s response Lesson shump 1 quent 1 slock 2 prem 2 crint 3 plosp 3 strunt 4 clucnh 4 strall 5 droff 5 cith 6 cem 6 metch 9 planch 9 spong 8 quink 8 choll 11 jind 11 thold 11 zolt 11 shild 11 Score_______________

PAGE 137

123 Pretest B: Spell Real and Nonsense Words Directions : Tutor tells student that now she woul d like him to spell words. Tutor gives the student a piece of paper and a pencil and brings out the Spelling Answer Sheet. Tutor dictates a word; the student repeats the word and writes it down. The tutor records the student’s responses as correct or incorrect on the answer shee t. If there was more than one real word, or more than two nonsense words that the stud ent could not spell correctly, stop the pretest a nd start the student at the lowest lesson number of any incorrect answer. Answer Sheet: Task B Real Word to Nonsense Word to Spell +/Lesson Spell +/Lesson theft 1 nust 1 smash 2 greb 2 swift 3 brant 3 throb 4 spret 4 French 4 vunch 4 gruff 5 triss 5 skit 6 keb 6 scoff 6 clid 6 whisk 7 gask 7 bulk 7 pling 8 hatch 9 kench 9 belch 9 zost 11 they’ll 10 we’re 10 colt 11 stroll 11 Score_______________ Pretest C: Read Sight Words Directions: Tutor tells student that she would like him to read sight words, words that don’t follow the rules. Tutor brings out the R ead These Sight Words pa ge and give it to student. The tutor pulls out the Reading Si ght Words Answer Sheet. As student reads each word aloud down each column, the tutor records his responses as correct or incorrect on the answer sheet. If the student reads any sight word incorrectly, the tutor should make note of it and the student’ s sight word reading deck list. Answer Sheet Task C Sight Word to Read +/Record Student’s Response Lesson (?) was 1 what 1 his 1 said 1 are 1

PAGE 138

124 Answer Sheet Task C-CONTINUED Sight Word to Read +/Record Student’s Response Lesson (?) from 1 goes 3 does 3 Mrs. 3 want 3 were 3 says 3 some 3 your 3 been 8 where 8 many 8 done 8 should 8 there 8 again 8 Score_______________ Pretest D: Spell Phrases Directions: Tutor tells student that now he will write some phrases. Tutor gives student a piece of paper and a pencil. Tutor brings out the spelling phrases answer sheet. The tutor dictates a phrase and st udent read the phrase and wr ites it down. The tutor records the answers as correct or incorrect on the answer sheet. If more than two words are misspelled, stop the pretest and start the stud ent on the lowest lesson where misspelled words occurred. Answer Sheet Task D Phrase to Spell Record Answer Record Misspelled Words Lesson crush the gift 2 a swift clam 3 crisp shrimp 4 chill the tall grass 5 cut the kilt 6 lock the latch 7 & 9 the tall punk stunk 8 shouldn’t miss the long flick 10 can’t find the bolt 11 Score_____________________ (# of words misspelled)

PAGE 139

125 Task E: Read Sentences Directions: The tutor gives the student the Read These Sentences page and asks the student to read each sentence out loud. Th e tutor records the answers on the Reading Sentences Answer Sheet. If student reads fluen tly and flawlessly, he is ready for Book 4. If the student makes more than one mistake when reading, start at the number of the lesson indicated. Answer Sheet Task E (record answer below sentence) 1. Kent did jump and yell when he lost the raft. 2. Fran will drop the trash in the truck. 3. A twig did drift past the thrift shop in a blast of wind. 4. A big branch struck Brent on the rump, and he did flinch. 5. The skiff has many fish but does not smell bad. 6. The cast had a script for the skit. 7. The Dutch mask will shock Nick. 8. Hank hung up a sock which stunk. 9. Who’s the cross gal with Bill? 10. She’ll scold the wild child.

PAGE 140

126 Pretest F: Spelling Sentences Directions: Tutor gives student a pie ce of paper and a pencil a nd dictates a sentence to student. The student repeats the sentence a nd writes it down. If more than two words are misspelled, stop the pretest and start the stud ent at the lowest lesson where misspelled words occurred. Task F Answer Sheet Sentence to Spell/Record Students Misspelled Words 1. Kick that track to the left. (Lesson 7) 2. The champ stuck a pink sock in the sock. (Lesson 8) 3. Do not flinch when you scratch. (Lesson 9) 4. Couldn’t Ross grill the fresh fish? (Lesson 10) 5. I can’t find the roll with the mold on it. (Lesson 11).

PAGE 141

127 APPENDIX F BOOK 2 LESSON PLANS, CONSONANT S AND SHORT VOWELS (ADAPTED FROM BARTON 2000) Barton Reading and Spelling System An Orton-Gillingham Influenced Simultaneously Multisensory Explicit and Systematic Phonics Program Level 2 Consonants & Short Vowels Lesson Plans Give adult students pretest first. Only teach key words of consonants if student does not know the sound the consonant makes. Lesson 1: 1 VOWEL, 6 CONSONANTS Lesson 1: Procedure D: Teach New Vowel Sound (/a/, short a { }) Tutor shows student the A letter tile and asks student to name the letter. Tutor explains that it is a vowel and every word and every syllable must have a vowel. Tutor explains that one vowel may make several sounds, but right now student will be learning short vowel sound for /a/. Tutor can do visualization ex ercise to help student think of key word for short /a/ sound as in apple. Tutor teach es student how to tap key word for vowel sound. Tutor taps right index finger while sayi ng /a/, then taps middle finger while saying /ple/. Student repeats tapping for apple usi ng index and middle finger. Tutor stresses that whenever student sees letter /a /, he should make the short /a/ sound, as in apple. Tutor taps a/ple, a/ple, then a, a, a. Student repeats this, using i ndex finger for /a/. Lesson 1: Procedure E: Teach 6 Consonants Tutor pulls down tiles for six new consonants, on e at a time: M, P, T, S, F, B. Student says name of letter and then sound that letter makes (tutor must make sure student does not insert schwa sound when making sound of letter, e.g., mmmm, not muh). If student does not know sound that letter makes, student writes letter down on Keyword page and thinks of and draws a picture for to remind him of sound. *b/p confusion: Teach balloons /pigs trick if necessary.

PAGE 142

128 Lesson 1: Procedure F: Read Sounds on Tiles Tutor places tiles in front of st udent and first points to the A til e. Tutor asks student to tell her why the A is a different color and then asks student to tap vowel for her. Student taps and says apple, apple, /a/, /a/, /a/. Tutor th en points to each of the other 6 consonant tiles and asks student to name letter and then make its sound. Targeted letter/tile student correctly names letter student makes correct sound associated with letter A short /a/, P /p/ T /t/ S /s/ F /f/ B /b/ M /m/ Lesson 1: Procedure G: Spell Sounds with Tiles Tutor makes the sound; student re peats the sound and points to tile Dictated Sound Student points to tile /t/ /p/ /s/ /b/ /f/ /m/ /a/ Lesson 1: Procedure H: Read Real Words with Tiles Tutor builds first word with tile. Student ta ps vowel sound. Tutor demonstrates touch and say for each letter by using her index finge r to touch and say each sound. Student does touch and say for each sound. Next, tutor explains how to slowly blend sounds by dragging her finger underneath the word while running the sounds together. Student does slow blending. Next, tutor demonstrates how to say it fast like a word and student follows. Finally, tutor changes word by replac ing one tile with a new tile and student repeats touch and say and slow blending of word Tutor builds words Student correctly does touch and say Student correctly blends sounds MAT MAP PAM PAT SAT SAM

PAGE 143

129 Lesson 1: Procedure I: Spell Real Words with Fingers, then Tiles Tutor dictates words and student breaks word into sounds. Tutor demonstrates for student: Tutor says word, student repeats wo rd once and then agai n very slowly. Tutor uses fingers of non-writing hand to break wo rd into sounds; she raises thumb while saying first sound, index finge r while saying next sound, a nd middle finger while saying final sound. Student follows. Tutor tells stude nt to pull down a tile for each finger while making the sound. Finally tutor teaches student how to double check by slowly blending the tiles together and then saying them fast like a word. Dictated Word Student correctly finger spells Student correctly pulls down tiles Student correctly blends word SAP MAT PAM PAT TAP FAT Lesson 1: Procedure J: Read Nonsense Words with Tiles Tutor builds nonsense word; student taps vowel once, does touch and say, slowly blends, and then says it fast like a word Tutor builds word Student taps vowel Student does touch and say Student correctly blends into word FAM SAB BAP SAF FAP Lesson 1: Procedure K: Spell Nonsense Words with Fingers, then Tiles Tutor dictates words and student breaks wo rd into sounds. Tutor says word, student repeats word once and then again very slowl y. Student uses fingers of non-writing hand to break word into sounds; student raises thumb while saying first sound, index finger while saying next sound, and middle finger wh ile saying final sound. Tutor tells student to pull down a tile for each finger while making the sound. Student double checks by slowly blending the tiles together and then saying it fast like a word. Dictated Word Student correctly finger spells Student correctly pulls down tiles Student correctly blends word FAB MAF FAP PAB

PAGE 144

130 Lesson 1: Procedure L: Read Words through Word Frame Student puts word frame around each word and reads the word. Word Correctly Read Word Correctly read Word Correctly Read mat mam taf bam fat fab map tap saf sam tam bap Lesson 1: Procedure M: Spell Words with Fingers, then Paper Tutor dictates words and student breaks wo rd into sounds. Tutor says word, student repeats word once and then again very slowl y. Student uses fingers of non-writing hand to break word into sounds; student raises thumb while saying first sound, index finger while saying next sound, and middle finger wh ile saying final sound. Tutor tells student to make each sound and tell her what letter he needs. Student makes each sound while writing it down on paper. As a last ste p, student double-checks what he wrote by blending the sounds together and then saying it fast like a word. Dictated Word Real Student correctly breaks word into sounds Student correctly spells word out loud Student correctly spells word on paper TAB PAT BAM PAP BAT Nonsense FAS MAB BAF SAB BAP

PAGE 145

131 Lesson 1: Procedure N: Read Longer Words Together Student reads first syllable of longer word. Tutor thinks of one longer word that begins with that syllable. Student tries to think of other longer words that begin with that syllable. Root Syllable/Nonsense Word Student correctly reads Student generates at least two longer words fab pat tab bap am as mat fam fas ab Lesson 2: 1 Vowel, 6 Consonants Short vowel /i/, as in itchy (key word), C, G, H, L, N, R Lesson 2: Procedure A: Review Known Letters and Sounds Tutor sets out letter tiles from last lesson: /a/, b, f, m, p, s, and t. Tutor asks student to identify the vowel and tap the vowel’s keywor d and then points to each consonant tile and asks student to name letter and its sound. Review letter/Sound Student correctly name s letter Student correctly says sound a b f m p s t Lesson 2: Procedure B: Review/Do Extra Practice Page

PAGE 146

132 Lesson 2: Procedure C: Phonemic Awareness Warm-up Tutor says word; student repeats word a nd says just the first sound or last sound and points to the letter that makes the sound. Dictated Word/First Sound Student identifies correct sound Student points to correct tile Dictated Word/Last Sound Student identifies correct sound Student points to correct tile TAF FAB SAB TAS FAP FAM TAS PAF Lesson 2: Procedure D: Teach New Vowel Sound Tutor brings out I tile to teach short /i/ { }. Tutor teaches that most common sound I makes is short as in itchy. Tutor can help student vi sualize story in head to create key word for /i/. Tutor demonstrates tapping fo r key word: taps right index finger while saying /i/, then taps middle finger while saying /chy/. Student taps itchy twice and then taps /i/ three times. Lesson 2: Procedure E: Teach 6 New Consonants Tutor pulls down tiles for six new consonants, on e at a time: G, L, R, C, H, N. Student says name of letter and then sound that letter makes (tutor must make sure student does not insert schwa sound when making sound of letter, e.g., nnnn not nuh ). If student does not know sound that letter makes, student writ es letter down on Keyword page and thinks of and draws a picture for to remind him of sound. Tutor brings down tiles for new consonants one by one and ask student to na me letter and then the sound that letter makes. (If necessary, teach trick to distinguish m/n) LESSON 2: Procedure F: Read Sounds on Tiles Tutor places tiles in front of student and first points to the vowel tiles. Tutor asks student to tell her why they are a diffe rent color and then asks stude nt to tape vowels for her. Student taps and says apple, apple, /a/, /a/, /a/, or itchy, itchy, /i/ /i/, /i/. Tutor then points to each of the other consonant tiles and asks student to name letter and then make its sound (Tutor should mix order of consonant s with those from lesson one and two) LettersNew Student names letter Student makes correct sound for letter LettersReview Student names letter Student makes correct sound for letter I /i/ { }(itchy) A /a/ { }(apple) G /g/ (goat) P /p/ L /l/ T /t/ R /r/ F /f/ C /c/ (cat) S /s/ H /h/ B /b/ N /n/ M /m/

PAGE 147

133 LESSON 2: Procedure G: Spell Sounds with Tiles Tutor dictates sounds; student repeats and points to tile that makes sound. Dictated Sound Student correctly points to tile (identify key word for vowel) Dictated Sound Student correctly points to tile (identify key word for vowel) h g l s c r b n p f m t a i Lesson 2: Procedure H: Read Real Words with Tiles Tutor builds first word with tile. Student ta ps vowel sound. Tutor demonstrates touch and say for each letter by using her index finge r to touch and say each sound. Student does touch and say for each sound. Next, tutor explains how to slowly blend sounds by dragging her finger underneath the word while running the sounds together. Student does slow blending. Next, tutor demonstrates how to say it fast like a word and student follows. Finally, tutor changes word by replac ing one tile with a new tile and student repeats touch and say and slow blending of word Tutor builds words Student correctly does touch and say Student correctly blends sounds Tutor builds words Student correctly does touch and say Student correctly blends sounds SIP CAM SAP RAM NAP RAG NIP RIG TIP PIG TAP BIG CAP BAG

PAGE 148

134 Lesson 2: Procedure I: Spell Real Words with Fingers, then Tiles Tutor dictates words and student breaks word into sounds. Tutor demonstrates for student: Tutor says word, student repeats wo rd once and then agai n very slowly. Tutor uses fingers of non-writing hand to break wo rd into sounds; she raises thumb while saying first sound, index finge r while saying next sound, a nd middle finger while saying final sound. Student follows. Tutor tells stude nt to pull down a tile for each finger while making the sound. Finally tutor teaches student how to double check by slowly blending the tiles together and then sa ying them fast like a word. Next, tutor tells student to change just one tile to make new word (T utor names tile and tells student new word) Dictated Word Pairs Student correctly finger spells Student correctly pulls down tiles Student correctly blends word Student correctly changes tile for new word RIP-RAP LAP-LIP HIT-HAT-HAM RIB-FIB BAG-BIG LESSON 2: Procedure J: Read Nonsense Words with Tiles Tutor builds words with tiles; student figures out vowel first and taps vowel when it changes. Student does touch and say for each tile then slowly blends sounds together and then says it fast like a word Tutor builds word Student taps vowel Student does touch and say Student correctly blends into word RIN LAN PIM FAC BAP NIB HIG

PAGE 149

135 Lesson 2: Procedure K: Spell Nonsen se Words with Fingers, then Tiles Tutor dictates words and student breaks wo rd into sounds. Tutor says word, student repeats word once and then again very slowl y. Student uses fingers of non-writing hand to break word into sounds; student raises thumb while saying first sound, index finger while saying next sound, and middle finger wh ile saying final sound. Tutor tells student to pull down a tile for each finger while making the sound. Student double checks by slowly blending the tiles together and then saying it fast like a word. Dictated Word Student correctly finger spells Student correctly pulls down tiles Student correctly blends word NAF LIS GAM RAF HIN Lesson 2: Procedure L: Read Words through Word Frame Student puts word frame around each word and reads the word. Word Correctly Read Word Correctly read Word Correctly Read cab bin mip pig am saf rim pin hif ban rat bap tag lip gip gap at lat nag hit rin

PAGE 150

136 Lesson 2: Procedure M: Spell Words with Fingers, then Paper Tutor dictates words and student breaks wo rd into sounds. Tutor says word, student repeats word once and then again very slowl y. Student uses fingers of non-writing hand to break word into sounds; student raises thumb while saying first sound, index finger while saying next sound, and middle finger wh ile saying final sound. Tutor tells student to make each sound and tell her what letter he needs. Student makes each sound while writing it down on paper. As a last ste p, student double-checks what he wrote by blending the sounds together and th en saying it fast like a word. Dictated Word Real Student correctly breaks word into sounds Student correctly spells word out loud Student correctly spells word on paper LAB FIG RAN SIP PAL Nonsense FAB BIM GAT LIS

PAGE 151

137 LESSON 2 : Procedure N: Read Phrases Student reads phrases and creates sentences Who Phrase Correctly Reads/Creates +/Where Phrase Correctly Reads/Creates +/A big cat in a cab A pig at bat Tim in a big pan A rat in a lap A ham at a cab Pat in a pit Did What Phrase Create own sentences bit a fig Add-on Phrases N/A rip a rag hit Hal ran fit sat Create own sentences Create own sentences Lesson 2: Procedure O: Read Sentences Student reads first sentence to self and then reads senten ce aloud to tutor. Student identifies number of phrases in sentence, marks phrases, and re-reads with phrasing. Student reads sentence Student marks phrasing +/WHO DID WHERE ADDWHAT ON Student re-reads with phrasing 1. Tim sat. 2. Pat ran. 3. A rat bit a fig. 4. A ham fit in a big pan. 5. A pig ran in a pit. 6. A big cat sat in a lap. 7. Tim lit a bag in a pit. 8. Pat sat in a cab. 9. A big cat ran at a bad rat. 10. A pig ran at Tim.

PAGE 152

138 Lesson 2: Procedure P: Read Longer Words Together Student reads first syllable of longer word. Tutor thinks of one longer word that begins with that syllable. Student tries to think of other longer words that begin with that syllable. Root Syllable/Nonsense Word Student correctly reads St udent generates at least two longer words hab lib fac his han lin cam lan fig pal rab LESSON 3: 1 VOWEL, 5 CONSONANTS New Tiles: O, D, J, K, V, Z Known Letter Tiles: A, B, C, F, G, H, I, L, M, N, P, R, S, T. Lesson 3: Procedure A: Review known Letters and Sounds Tutor sets out letter tiles used in last lesson for re view: A, B, C, F, G, H, I, L, M, N, P, R, S, T. Tutor asks student to identify vowels and to tap key word for each sound. Tutor points to each of the other consonant tiles and asks student to name sound of each letter. Review letter/Sound Student correctly names letter Student correctly says sound Review letter/Sound Student correctly names letter Student correctly says sound a l i m b n c p f r g s h t Lesson 3: Procedure B: Review/Do Extra Practice Page

PAGE 153

139 Lesson 3: Procedure C: Phonemic Awareness Warm-up Tutor says word; student repeats word a nd says just the first sound, last sound, or vowel sound and points to the letter that makes the sound. Dictated Word Student identifies correct sound Student points to correct tile Dictated Word Student identifies correct sound Student points to correct tile Dictat ed Word Student identifie s correct sound Student points to correct tile HAP TIG TIF RIT HIN CAS GAF FAC HIG NIM HAP LAN LIF LIS MIB Lesson 3: Procedure D: Teach New Vowel Sound Tutor brings out O tile to teach short /o/ { }. Tutor teaches that most common sound O makes is short as in olive. Tutor can help student visualize story in head to create key word for /o/. Tutor demonstrates tapping fo r key word: taps right index finger while saying /o/, then taps middle finger while saying /liv/. Student taps olive twice and then taps /o/ three times. Lesson 3: Procedure E: Teach 5 New Consonants Tutor pulls down tiles for six new consonants, one at a time: K, V, J, D, Z. Student says name of letter and then sound that letter makes (tutor must make sure student does not insert schwa sound when making sound of letter, e.g., k:::: not kuh ). If student does not know sound that letter makes, student writes letter down on Keyword page and thinks of and draws a picture to remind him of sound. Tutor brings down tiles for new consonants one by one and ask student to name letter and then the sound that letter makes.

PAGE 154

140 LESSON 3: Procedure F: Read Sounds on Tiles Tutor places tiles in front of student and first points to the vowel tiles. Tutor asks student to tell her why they are a diffe rent color and then asks stude nt to tape vowels for her. Student taps and says apple, apple, /a/, /a/, /a/, or itchy, itchy, /i/ /i/, /i/, or olive, olive, /o/, /o/, /o/. Tutor then points to each of the ot her consonant tiles and asks student to name letter and then make its sound (Tutor shoul d mix order of consonants with those from lesson one and two) LettersReview Student names letter Student makes correct sound for letter LettersReview Student names letter Student makes correct sound for letter I /i/ { }(itchy) A /a/ { }(apple) G /g/ (goat) P /p/ L /l/ T /t/ R /r/ F /f/ C /c/ (cat) S /s/ H /h/ B /b/ N /n/ M /m/ Letters/New O /o/ { } (olive) D /d/ K /k/ J /j/ V /v/ LESSON 3: Procedure G: Spell Sounds with Tiles Tutor dictates sounds; student repeats and points to tile that makes sound. Dictated Sound Student correctly points to tile (identify key word for vowel) Dictated Sound Student correctly points to tile (identify key word for vowel) v r z n m b p k (accept either C or K tile) d o l i j a

PAGE 155

141 Lesson 3: Procedure H: Read Real Words with Tiles Tutor builds first word with tile. Student ta ps vowel sound. Tutor demonstrates touch and say for each letter by using her index finge r to touch and say each sound. Student does touch and say for each sound. Next, tutor explains how to slowly blend sounds by dragging her finger underneath the word while running the sounds together. Student does slow blending. Next, tutor demonstrates how to say it fast like a word and student follows. Finally, tutor changes word by replac ing one tile with a new tile and student repeats touch and say and slow blending of word Tutor builds words Student correctly does touch and say Student correctly blends sounds Tutor builds words Student correctly does touch and say Student correctly blends sounds ZAP KIN ZIP FIN LIP FIG LOP DIG LOT JIG JOT RIG ROT RAG ROD RAN RID VAN KID VAT KIT Lesson 3: Procedure I: Spell Real Words with Fingers, then Tiles Tutor dictates words and student breaks word into sounds. Tutor demonstrates for student: Tutor says word, student repeats wo rd once and then agai n very slowly. Tutor uses fingers of non-writing hand to break wo rd into sounds; she raises thumb while saying first sound, index finge r while saying next sound, a nd middle finger while saying final sound. Student follows. Tutor tells stude nt to pull down a tile for each finger while making the sound. Finally tutor teaches student how to double check by slowly blending the tiles together and then sa ying them fast like a word. Next, tutor tells student to change just one tile to make new word (T utor names tile and tells student new word) Dictated Word Pairs Student correctly finger spells Student correctly pulls down tiles Student correctly blends word Student correctly changes tile for new word ZAP-ZIP LOG-LAG DOG-BOG VAN-VAT TOP-TAP-TIPTIM

PAGE 156

142 LESSON 3: Procedure J: Read Nonsense Words with Tiles Tutor builds words with tiles; student figures out vowel first and taps vowel when it changes. Student does touch and say for each tile then slowly blends sounds together and then says it fast like a word Tutor builds word Student taps vowel Student does touch and say Student correctly blends into word TOZ LOD VAB ROJ KIZ Lesson 3: Procedure K: Spell Nonsen se Words with Fingers, then Tiles Tutor dictates words and student breaks wo rd into sounds. Tutor says word, student repeats word once and then again very slowl y. Student uses fingers of non-writing hand to break word into sounds; student raises thumb while saying first sound, index finger while saying next sound, and middle finger wh ile saying final sound. Tutor tells student to pull down a tile for each finger while making the sound. Student double checks by slowly blending the tiles together and then saying it fast like a word. Dictated Word Student correctly finger spells Student correctly pulls down tiles Student correctly blends word FAZ VOT JIV NOZ DOP Lesson 3: Procedure L: Read Words through Word Frame Student puts word frame around each word and reads the word. Word Correctly Read Word Correctly read Word Correctly Read jam not fov lid dig bod dim Liz siv bog cob jad cop kid zon dip vat kiz mob bid jat

PAGE 157

143 Lesson 3: Procedure M: Spell Words with Fingers, then Paper Tutor dictates words and student breaks wo rd into sounds. Tutor says word, student repeats word once and then again very slowl y. Student uses fingers of non-writing hand to break word into sounds; student raises thumb while saying first sound, index finger while saying next sound, and middle finger wh ile saying final sound. Tutor tells student to make each sound and tell her what letter he needs. Student makes each sound while writing it down on paper. As a last ste p, student double-checks what he wrote by blending the sounds together and th en saying it fast like a word. Dictated Word Real Student correctly breaks word into sounds Student correctly spells word out loud Student correctly spells word on paper NOD ROB TOM JAB ZIP Nonsense NAV ZIB TOV JOD GAF

PAGE 158

144 LESSON 3 : Procedure N: Read Phrases Student reads phrases and creates sentences Who Phrase Correctly Reads/Creates +/Where Phrase Correctly Reads/Creates +/Mom in the fog A lad at a hog Rob at Ann A van on a big log A bad dog in a cab A hot ham in a pot Did What Phrase Create own sentences got a hat Add-on Phrases N/A can jog bit a lad ran can fit sat Create own sentences Create own sentences Lesson 3: Procedure O: Read Sentences Student reads first sentence to self and then reads senten ce aloud to tutor. Student identifies number of phrases in sentence, marks phrases, and re-reads with phrasing. Student reads sentence Student marks phrasing +/WHO DID WHERE ADDWHAT ON Student re-reads with phrasing 1. Mom got a hat. 2. A bad dog bit a lad. 3. Rob can jog in the fog. 4. A lad ran at a hog. 5. A hot ham can fit in a pot. 6. A bad dog ran at Ann. 7. Mom can fit in a cab. 8. Rob sat on a big log. 9. A van can fit on a big log. 10. A bad dog sat on Ann.

PAGE 159

145 Lesson 3: Procedure P: Read Longer Words Together Student reads first syllable of longer word. Tutor thinks of one longer word that begins with that syllable. Student tries to think of other longer words that begin with that syllable. Root Syllable/Nonsense Word Student correctly reads St udent generates at least two longer words lob van gob nav vam pov zip doc cop rob LESSON 4: 1 VOWEL, 4 CONSONANTS New Tiles: U, W, X, Y, QU Known Letter Tiles: A, B, C, F, G, H, I, L, M, N, P, R, S, T, O, D, J, K, V, Z. Teach QU: U always comes after a Q; U acts as a bodyguard, not a vowel after Q. Lesson 4: Procedure A: Review known Letters and Sounds Tutor sets out letter tiles used in last lesson for review: A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, V, Z. Tutor asks student to identify vowels and to tap key word for each sound. Tutor points to each of the other consonant tiles and asks student to name sound of each letter. Review letter/Sound Student correctly names letter Student correctly says sound Review letter/Sound Student correctly names letter Student correctly says sound a l i m o n b p c r f s g t h z j d k v

PAGE 160

146 Lesson 4: Procedure B: Review/Do Extra Practice Page Lesson 4: Procedure C: Phonemic Awareness Warm-up Tutor says word; student repeats word a nd says just the first sound, last sound, or vowel sound and points to the letter that makes the sound. Dictate Word Student identifies correct sound Student points to correct tile Dictated Word Student identifies correct sound Student points to correct tile Dictated Word Student id’s correct sound Student points to correct tile GOV BOZ DOF VOT PIJ RAV ZIG FOD LIJ JOM FAC ZOT CAZ NOV HIF Lesson 4: Procedure D: Teach New Vowel Sound Tutor brings out U tile to teach short /u/ { }. Tutor teaches that most common sound U makes is short as in upper. Tutor can help student visualize story in head to create key word for /u/. Tutor demonstrates tapping fo r key word: taps right index finger while saying /u/, then taps middle finger while saying /per/. Student taps upper twice and then taps /u/ three times. Lesson 4: Procedure E: Teach 4 New Consonants Tutor pulls down tiles for six new consonants, on e at a time: X, W, Y, QU. Student says name of letter and then sound that letter makes (tutor must make sure student does not insert schwa sound when making sound of lette r). If student does not know sound that letter makes, student writes letter down on Keyword page and thinks of and draws a picture to remind him of sound. Tutor brings down tiles for new consonants one by one and ask student to name letter and th en the sound that letter makes.

PAGE 161

147 LESSON 4: Procedure F: Read Sounds on Tiles Tutor places tiles in front of student and first points to the vowel tiles. Tutor asks student to tell her why they are a diffe rent color and then asks stude nt to tape vowels for her. Student taps and says apple, apple, /a/, /a/, /a /, itchy, itchy, /i/ /i/, /i/, ol ive, olive, /o/, /o/, /o/, upper, upper, /u/, /u/, /u/. Tutor then points to each of the ot her consonant tiles and asks student to name letter and then make its sound (Tutor should mix order of consonants with those from lesson one and two) LettersReview Student names letter Student makes correct sound for letter LettersReview Student names letter Student makes correct sound for letter I /i/ { }(itchy) A /a/ { }(apple) G /g/ (goat) P /p/ L /l/ T /t/ R /r/ F /f/ C /c/ (cat) S /s/ H /h/ B /b/ N /n/ M /m/ O /o/ { } (olive) Letters/New D /d/ U /u/ { } (upper) K /k/ X /eks/ J /j/ W /w/ V /v/ Y /y/ (yellow) QU kw LESSON 4: Procedure G: Spell Sounds with Tiles Tutor dictates sounds; student repeats and points to tile that makes sound. Dictated Sound Student correctly points to tile (identify key word for vowel) Dictated Sound Student correctly points to tile (identify key word for vowel) Dictated Sound Student correctly points to tile (identify key word for vowel) w d o v j qu p y g b u x i z a

PAGE 162

148 Lesson 4: Procedure H: Read Real Words with Tiles Tutor builds first word with tile. Student ta ps vowel sound. Tutor demonstrates touch and say for each letter by using her index finge r to touch and say each sound. Student does touch and say for each sound. Next, tutor explains how to slowly blend sounds by dragging her finger underneath the word while running the sounds together. Student does slow blending. Next, tutor demonstrates how to say it fast like a word and student follows. Finally, tutor changes word by replac ing one tile with a new tile and student repeats touch and say and slow blending of word Tutor builds words Student correctly does touch and say Student correctly blends sounds Tutor builds words Student correctly does touch and say Student correctly blends sounds YUM WAG YAM WIG TAM MIG TAX MIX WAX MAX FAX tux tub quit sub quiz sob quip Lesson 4: Procedure I: Spell Real Words with Fingers, then Tiles Tutor dictates words and student breaks word into sounds. Tutor demonstrates for student: Tutor says word, student repeats wo rd once and then agai n very slowly. Tutor uses fingers of non-writing hand to break wo rd into sounds; she raises thumb while saying first sound, index finge r while saying next sound, a nd middle finger while saying final sound. Student follows. Tutor tells stude nt to pull down a tile for each finger while making the sound. Finally tutor teaches student how to double check by slowly blending the tiles together and then sa ying them fast like a word. Next, tutor tells student to change just one tile to make new word (T utor names tile and tells student new word) Dictated Word Pairs Student correctly finger spells Student correctly pulls down tiles Student correctly blends word Student correctly changes tile for new word RUT-RAT QUIZ-QUIT PUN-PIN-PANDAN FIX-FOX-LOX YAP-YUP-YIP-SIP

PAGE 163

149 LESSON 4: Procedure J: Read Nonsense Words with Tiles Tutor builds words with tiles; student figures out vowel first and taps vowel when it changes. Student does touch and say for each tile then slowly blends sounds together and then says it fast like a word Tutor builds word Student taps vowel Student does touch and say Student correctly blends into word WIB YAT QUOP NUX HUD Lesson 4: Procedure K: Spell Nonsen se Words with Fingers, then Tiles Tutor dictates words and student breaks wo rd into sounds. Tutor says word, student repeats word once and then again very slowl y. Student uses fingers of non-writing hand to break word into sounds; student raises thumb while saying first sound, index finger while saying next sound, and middle finger wh ile saying final sound. Tutor tells student to pull down a tile for each finger while making the sound. Student double checks by slowly blending the tiles together and then saying it fast like a word. Dictated Word Student correctly finger spells Student correctly pulls down tiles Student correctly blends word WUP QUIB YOV ZIM NAX Lesson 4: Procedure L: Read Words through Word Frame Student puts word frame around each word and reads the word. Word Correctly Read Word Correctly read Word Correctly Read but quit sug cub wag jix gum ox wab tux win yut job up fup us cut quoj wax yum nud

PAGE 164

150 Lesson 4: Procedure M: Spell Words with Fingers, then Paper Tutor dictates words and student breaks wo rd into sounds. Tutor says word, student repeats word once and then again very slowl y. Student uses fingers of non-writing hand to break word into sounds; student raises thumb while saying first sound, index finger while saying next sound, and middle finger wh ile saying final sound. Tutor tells student to make each sound and tell her what letter he needs. Student makes each sound while writing it down on paper. As a last ste p, student double-checks what he wrote by blending the sounds together and then saying it fast like a word. Dictated Word Real Student correctly breaks word into sounds Student correctly spells word out loud Student correctly spells word on paper WIN GUT YUM LAX WIG Nonsense PUD NAX WOG ZUB JIX

PAGE 165

151 LESSON 4 : Procedure N: Read Phrases Student reads phrases and creates sentences Who Phrase Correctly Reads/Creates +/Where Phrase Correctly Reads/Creates +/Gus in a hot tub A fun pup at the pub Max on the bus Bud in the mud A bad dog in the hot sun A big cub on a rug Did What Phrase Create own sentences dug a pit Add-on Phrases N/A had a quiz quit cut a lip had fun did yap Create own sentences Create own sentences Lesson 4: Procedure O: Read Sentences Student reads first sentence to self and then reads senten ce aloud to tutor. Student identifies number of phrases in sentence, marks phrases, and re-reads with phrasing. Student reads sentence Student marks phrasing +/WHO DID WHERE ADDWHAT ON Student re-reads with phrasing 1. Gus had a quiz. 2. A fun pup dug a pit. 3. Max quit at the pub. 4. Bud had fun in a hot tub. 5. A big cub had fun in the mud. 6. Max cut a lip in the hot sun. 7. A fun pup did yap on the bus. 8. Gus had a quiz in the hot sun. 9. A fox had fun on a rug. 10. A big cub did run in the mud.

PAGE 166

152 Lesson 4: Procedure P: Read Longer Words Together Student reads first syllable of longer word. Tutor thinks of one longer word that begins with that syllable. Student tries to think of other longer words that begin with that syllable. Root Syllable/Nonsense Word Student correctly reads Student generates two longer words mum min but sub bot quin wim tux win wit LESSON 5: 1 VOWEL, 5 DIGRAPHS New Tiles: E, CH, CK, SH, TH, WH Known Letter Tiles: A, B, C, F, G, H, I, L, M, N, P, R, S, T, O, D, J, K, V, Z, U, QU, X, Y, W. Lesson 5: Procedure A: Review known Letters and Sounds Tutor sets out letter tiles used in last lesson for review: A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, QU, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. Tutor asks student to identify vowels and to tap key word for each sound. Tutor points to each of the other consonant tiles and asks student to name sound of each letter. Review letter/Sound Student correctly names letter Student correctly says sound Review letter/Sound Student correctly names letter Student correctly says sound a l i m o n u x b p c r f s g t h z j d k v qu y z

PAGE 167

153 Lesson 5: Procedure B: Review/Do Extra Practice Page Lesson 5: Procedure C: Phonemic Awareness Warm-up Tutor says word; student repeats word a nd says just the first sound, last sound, or vowel sound and points to the letter that makes the sound. Dictated Word Student id correct sound Student point to correct tile Dictated Word Student id correct sound Student point to correct tile Dictated Word Stdnt id crct sound Student points to correct tile YIT RUX YUV WOG VIN MOX YAD ZAM YIK VAM TIG VAB ZUG VAL Lesson 5: Procedure D: Teach New Vowel Sound Tutor brings out E tile to teach short /e/ {e }. Tutor teaches that most common sound E makes is short e as in Eddy. Tutor can help st udent visualize story in head to create key word for /e/. Tutor demonstrates tapping fo r key word: taps right index finger while saying /e/, then taps middle finger while sayi ng /dy/. Student taps Eddy twice and then taps /e/ three times. Lesson 5: Procedure E: Teach 5 Digraphs Tutor explains that student now knows the sound of every lette r in our alphabet-26. However there are 44 different sounds in English, so sometimes letters pair up to represent one sound. When two letters pair up to make one sound, it is called a digraph. Tutor pulls down first digraph tile for SH and asks student to tell her the names of the two letters and the sound the sound they make togeth er. Tutor pulls down rest of digraphs-SH, TH, WH, CH, CK. Student says name of letters and then so und that letter makes (tutor must make sure student does not insert schwa sound when making sound of letter). If student does not know sound that letter make s, student writes le tter down on Keyword page and thinks of and draws a picture to remind him of sound. Tutor brings down tiles for new consonants one by one and ask student to name letter and then the sound that letter makes.

PAGE 168

154 LESSON 5: Procedure G: Read Sounds on Tiles Tutor places tiles in front of student and first points to the vowel tiles. Tutor asks student to tell her why they are a diffe rent color and then asks stude nt to tape vowels for her. Student taps and says apple, apple, /a/, /a/, /a /, itchy, itchy, /i/ /i/, /i/, ol ive, olive, /o/, /o/, /o/, upper, upper, /u/, /u/, /u/, and Eddy, Eddy, /e/, /e/, /e/. Tutor then points to each of the other consonant tiles and asks student to name letter and then make its sound (Tutor should mix order of consonants with those from previous lesson) LettersReview Student names letter Student makes correct sound for letter LettersReview Student names letter Student makes correct sound for letter I /i/ { }(itchy) A /a/ { }(apple) G /g/ (goat) P /p/ L /l/ T /t/ R /r/ F /f/ C /c/ (cat) S /s/ H /h/ B /b/ N /n/ M /m/ O /o/ { } (olive) U /u/ { } (upper) D /d/ X /eks/ K /k/ W /w/ J /j/ Y /y/ (yellow) V /v/ QU kw New Letters E /e/ (Eddy) Ch Th Sh Wh CK LESSON 5: Procedure G: Spell Sounds with Tiles Tutor dictates sounds; student repeats and points to tile that makes sound. Dictated Sound Student correctly points to tile (identify key word for vowel) Dictated Sound Student correctly points to tile (identify key word for vowel) Dictated Sound Student correctly points to tile (identify key word for vowel) ch o th a wh e sh k u i

PAGE 169

155 Lesson 5: Procedure H: Read Real Words with Tiles Tutor builds first word with tile. Student ta ps vowel sound. Tutor demonstrates touch and say for each letter by using her index finge r to touch and say each sound. Student does touch and say for each sound. Next, tutor explains how to slowly blend sounds by dragging her finger underneath the word while running the sounds together. Student does slow blending. Next, tutor demonstrates how to say it fast like a word and student follows. Finally, tutor changes word by replac ing one tile with a new tile and student repeats touch and say and slow blending of word Tutor build word Student does touch and say Student blends sounds Tutor builds first word Student does touch and say Student blends sounds PIG SHOP PEG CHOP PED CHIP WED RIP WET RICK WIT THICK WISH THIN WITH THEN WHEN Lesson 5: Procedure I: Spell Real Words with Fingers, then Tiles Tutor dictates words and student breaks word into sounds. Tutor demonstrates for student: Tutor says word, student repeats wo rd once and then agai n very slowly. Tutor uses fingers of non-writing hand to break wo rd into sounds; she raises thumb while saying first sound, index finge r while saying next sound, a nd middle finger while saying final sound. Student follows. Tutor tells stude nt to pull down a tile for each finger while making the sound. Finally tutor teaches student how to double check by slowly blending the tiles together and then sa ying them fast like a word. Next, tutor tells student to change just one tile to make new word (T utor names tile and tells student new word) Dictated Word Pairs Student correctly finger spells Student correctly pulls down tiles Student correctly blends word Student correctly changes tile for new word BEN-BAN SUCK-MUCH MOTH-MATH WEB-WEB SHUT-SHOT YES-YET

PAGE 170

156 LESSON 5: Procedure J: Read Nonsense Words with Tiles Tutor builds words with tiles; student figures out vowel first and taps vowel when it changes. Student does touch-say for each tile, slowly blends sounds together and says it fast like a word Tutor builds word Student taps vowel Student does touchsay Student blends word CHED THUN SHOM BICK WHAD Lesson 5: Procedure K: Spell Nonsen se Words with Fingers, then Tiles Tutor dictates words and student breaks wo rd into sounds. Tutor says word, student repeats word once and then again very slowl y. Student uses fingers of non-writing hand to break word into sounds; student raises thumb while saying first sound, index finger while saying next sound, and middle finger wh ile saying final sound. Tutor tells student to pull down a tile for each finger while making the sound. Student double checks by slowly blending the tiles together and then saying it fast like a word. Dictated Word Student correctly finger spells Student correctly pulls down tiles Student correctly blends word LICH FASH THEP SHEM CHUB Lesson 5: Procedure L: Read Words through Word Frame Student puts word frame around each word and reads the word. Word Correctly Read Word Correctly read Word Correctly Read wed Ken shud them met chep mug when vock Rick mesh neth shag Rex bosh Chet quick wheck lock yet quish

PAGE 171

157 Lesson 5: Procedure M: Spell Words with Fingers, then Paper Tutor dictates words and student breaks wo rd into sounds. Tutor says word, student repeats word once and then again very slowl y. Student uses fingers of non-writing hand to break word into sounds; student raises thumb while saying first sound, index finger while saying next sound, and middle finger wh ile saying final sound. Tutor tells student to make each sound and tell her what letter he needs. Student makes each sound while writing it down on paper. As a last ste p, student double-checks what he wrote by blending the sounds together and th en saying it fast like a word. Dictated Word Real Student correctly breaks word into sounds Student correctly spells word out loud Student correctly spells word on paper JET PATH WHIP SHED CHIP GOSH Nonsense WHAP CHEM QUISH THUB HOSH LESSON 5 : Procedure N: Read Phrases Student reads phrases and creates sentences Who Phrase Correctly Reads/Creates +/Where Phrase Correctly Reads/Creates +/Rex and Ed at the dock A red hen on the path Thin Ken in a shop A vet on a ship A big duck in a bath tub Fat Chad at the shed Did What Phrase Create own sentences had a bash Add-on Phrases N/A did dash met Beth got sick got wet sat with a thud Create own sentences

PAGE 172

158 Lesson 5: Procedure O: Read Sentences Student reads first sentence to self and then reads senten ce aloud to tutor. Student identifies number of phrases in sentence, marks phrases, and re-reads with phrasing. Student reads sentence Student marks phrasing +/WHO DID WHERE ADDWHAT ON Student re-reads with phrasing 1. Rex and Ed met Beth. 2. Fat Chad sat with a thud. 3. A duck got sick in a bath tub. 4. Thin Ken did dash on the path. 5. A red hen got wet at the dock. 6. A vet had a bash in a shop. 7. Fat Chad got sick at the shed. 8. Thin Ken got wet on a ship. 9. A vet got a fish at the dock. 10. Rex and Ed met Beth at a bash on a ship. Lesson 5: Procedure P: Read Longer Words Together Student reads first syllable of longer word. Tutor thinks of one longer word that begins with that syllable. Student tries to think of other longer words that begin with that syllable. Root Syllable/Nonsense Word Student correctly reads Student generates two longer words thun shep chip shag whis thim chap sham ched whim

PAGE 173

159 APPENDIX G DATA COLLECTION SHEET Clinician: ____________________________ Participant #: _________________________ Date of Sessions: ______________________ Session # and time: ____________________ Procedure session began with: ________________________________________ Procedure session ended with: ________________________________________ Clinician Notes/Comments Clinician: ____________________________ Participant #: _________________________ Date of Sessions: ______________________ Session # and time: ____________________ Procedure session began with: ________________________________________ Procedure session ended with: ________________________________________ Clinician Notes/Comments Clinician: ____________________________ Participant #: _________________________ Date of Sessions: ______________________ Session # and time: ____________________ Procedure session began with: ________________________________________

PAGE 174

160 Procedure session ended with: ________________________________________ Clinician Notes/Comments

PAGE 175

161 APPENDIX H BOOK 2 READING AND SENTENCE PROBES Test sentences for Book 2, Consonants and Short Vowels Student answer sheet Instructions for student: This is a short spelling and reading test to assess what you have learned so far. The first five sentences will be dictated to you. Please spell the words on the blank lin es provided below. You may ask the tutor to repeat the sentence. The next five sentences are short sentences for you to read. Please read each senten ce carefully and as best you can. 1.______________________________________________________________________ 2.______________________________________________________________________ 3.______________________________________________________________________ 4.______________________________________________________________________ 5.______________________________________________________________________ 1. I have a pot of rum. 2. A thin coat of wax is needed. 3. Why did Ken quit? 4. He saw a tick on his leg. 5. The van was in the lot.

PAGE 176

162 Test Sentences for Book 2, Consonants and Short Vowels/Examiner’s Page Instructions for tutor: Below are ten sentences to test what the student has learned so far. Please dictate the first five sentences to the student. The student has blank lines on his/her answer sheet on which to write the an swers. You may repeat any of the sentences if asked. The next five sentences are sentences for the student to read. Ask the student to read each sentence one at a time as best he /she can. You cannot help the student with any word or words he/she struggles with or mi sreads. The test words are underlined and italicized. These are the only wo rds you are testing. When the student is finished, write the participant number on the test page and th e date and collect the test page. Please indicate a misspelled or misread word on your test sheet by drawing a line through the word. Each spelling word is worth ten points and each reading word is worth 10 points. Pass criteria is 80% for spel ling and 80% for reading, so a student may miss two spelling words and two reading words. If a student mi sses more than two spelling words or two reading words, print those words on an index card and ask the student to practice them until the next session. At the next session you will test only the sentences containing those words. Spelling sentences-please dictate to the student 1. The pin is on her bed. 2. I gave Bob the tin 3. You have mud on your pen. 4. He gave his chin a tug 5. We will shun the fox Score: ______________ Sentences for the student to read 1. I have a pot of rum. 2. A thin coat of wax is needed. 3. Why did Ken quit ? 4. He saw a tick on his leg 5. The van was in the lot. Score: ______________

PAGE 177

163 APPENDIX I INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT FORM Interobserver Reliability Form Clinician_________________________ Date Observed ____________________ Time of session____________________ Behavior Behavior Expected Behavior used correctly Behavior observed but not used correctly 1. Tutor gestures to self when she dictates word. 2. Tutor gestures to student when she asks student to repeat word 3. Tutor uses full swooping motion during slow down step 4. Tutor draws finger in small swoop on table as example for student to read word slowly 5. Tutor draws line on table with index finger as example for student to “say it fast like a word”. 6. When finger spelling, tutor makes sure student uses non-writing hand and starts with thumb (left for everyone) 7. Tutor asks student if there is any word he/she needs to check for correct spelling. 8. Tutor says clean sounds (she does not insert schwa consonant) 9. Tutor asks student to watch her when she dictates word. 10. When spelling sentences, tutor always asks student if he began sentence with a capital and ended with correct punctuation (or ended with a period). Total

PAGE 178

APPENDIX J TEST SCORE RESULTS ON DEPENDANT VARIABLE MEASURES

PAGE 179

165Table J-1. Pretest and Posttest scores for treatment group on Letter-Word Identification (WJ III Achievement subtest) Particip. Number Pretest Raw Score Posttest Raw Score Pretest Standard Score Posttest Standard Score Pretest Percentile Posttest Percentile Pretest Grade Equivalent Posttest Grade Equivalent 7 35 34 49 46 <0.1 <0.1 2.3 2.2 10 37 38 55 56 0.1 0.2 2.5 2.6 11 58 56 86 82 17 12 6.3 5.6 12 48 55 72 82 3 11 3.8 5.3 13 54 53 83 80 12 9 5.1 4.8 14 44 44 68 67 2 1 3.3 3.3 16 57 63 85 93 16 33 5.9 8.5 18 36 38 47 50 <0.1 <0.1 2.4 2.6 20 53 65 78 96 7 39 4.8 9.8 Table J-2. Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Letter-Word Identification (WJ III Achievement subtest) Particip. Number Pretest Raw Score Posttest Raw Score Pretest Standard Score Posttest Standard Score Pretest Percentile Posttest Percentile Posttest Grade Equivalent 2 62 61 97 92 43 30 7.5 3 57 61 83 89 13 23 7.5 4 58 57 91 88 27 22 5.9 6 65 62 98 92 44 31 8.0 8 59 62 88 92 22 31 8.0 9 56 56 86 85 17 15 5.6 15 61 60 90 87 25 20 7.1 17 66 66 96 95 39 38 10.6 19 60 66 89 98 23 45 10.6

PAGE 180

166Table J-3 Pretest and Posttest scores for treatment group on Spelling (WJ III Achievement subtest) Particip. Number Pretest Raw Score Posttest Raw Score Pretest Standard Score Posttest Standard Score Pretest Percentile Posttest Percentile Pretest Grade Equivalent Posttest Grade Equivalent 7 24 25 57 59 0.2 0.3 2.4 2.6 10 21 23 49 55 <0.1 0.1 1.8 2.2 11 41 40 94 92 35 29 8.3 7.7 12 31 31 75 74 4 4 4.1 4.1 13 27 31 66 75 1 5 3.1 4.1 14 24 28 59 69 0.3 2 2.4 3.3 16 26 28 61 66 0.5 1 2.8 3.3 18 23 25 51 56 <0.1 0.2 2.2 2.6 20 28 46 65 103 1 57 3.3 12.9 Table J-4 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Spelling (WJ III Achievement subtest) Particip. Number Pretest Raw Score Posttest Raw Score Pretest Standard Score Posttest Standard Score Pretest Percentile Posttest Percentile Pretest Grade Equivalent Posttest Grade Equivalent 2 36 37 88 89 22 22 5.7 6.2 3 36 38 83 86 13 18 5.7 6.6 4 32 33 81 82 10 12 4.4 4.7 6 43 42 100 97 49 42 9.9 9.0 8 37 36 88 85 20 15 6.2 5.7 9 39 40 94 94 33 36 7.1 7.7 15 43 43 97 96 43 40 9.9 9.9 17 43 41 94 90 35 24 9.9 8.3 19 40 44 89 100 23 49 7.1 10.9

PAGE 181

167Table J-5 Pretest and Posttest scores for treatment group on Word Attack (WJ III Achievement subtest) Particip. Number Pretest Raw Score Posttest Raw Score Pretest Standard Score Posttest Standard Score Pretest Percentile Posttest Percentile Pretest Grade Equivalent Posttest Grade Equivalent 7 8 13 64 72 1 3 1.9 2.5 10 10 18 71 82 3 11 2.2 3.6 11 15 19 75 80 4 9 2.9 3.9 12 20 25 84 92 14 29 4.3 6.7 13 16 20 80 85 8 15 3.1 4.3 14 11 16 73 80 4 9 2.3 3.1 16 21 24 84 89 15 23 4.7 6.1 18 19 22 77 82 6 12 3.9 5.1 20 21 29 83 100 13 50 4.7 12.9 Table J-6 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Word Attack (WJ III Achievement subtest) Particip. Number Pretest Raw Score Posttest Raw Score Pretest Standard Score Posttest Standard Score Pretest Percentile Posttest Percentile Pretest Grade Equivalent Posttest Grade Equivalent 2 22 29 91 104 27 60 3.5 12.9 3 18 22 77 83 7 13 3.6 5.1 4 26 17 97 83 43 13 7.5 3.3 6 22 26 87 94 19 34 5.1 7.5 8 18 19 81 81 10 11 3.6 3.9 9 19 24 84 91 15 28 3.9 6.1 15 28 25 97 89 43 24 10.2 6.7 17 30 25 103 87 59 20 15.4 13.0 19 22 20 86 82 17 11 5.1 7.8

PAGE 182

168Table J-7 Pretest and Posttest scores for treatment group on Sound Awareness (WJ III Achievement subtest) Particip. Number Pretest Raw Score Posttest Raw Score Pretest Standard Score Posttest Standard Score Pretest Percentile Posttest Percentile Pretest Grade Equivalent Posttest Grade Equivalent 7 15 16 52 53 <0.1 <0.1 K.8 K.9 10 27 38 70 89 2 24 1.9 4.7 11 32 30 77 73 6 4 2.6 2.3 12 35 35 82 82 12 12 3.3 3.3 13 36 35 85 83 16 13 3.6 3.3 14 28 29 72 73 3 4 2.0 2.1 16 40 41 94 97 34 42 7.3 9.4 18 31 34 74 79 4 8 2.4 3.0 20 25 44 66 116 1 85 1.6 >18.0 Table J-8 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Sound Awareness (WJ III Achievement subtest) Particip. Number Pretest Raw Score Posttest Raw Score Pretest Standard Score Posttest Standard Score Pretest Percentile Posttest Percentile Pretest Grade Equivalent Posttest Grade Equivalent 2 42 44 105 118 64 89 12.4 >18.0 3 36 35 83 81 13 10 3.6 3.3 4 42 39 105 93 62 32 12.4 5.7 6 33 33 79 79 8 8 2.8 2.8 8 36 38 84 89 15 22 3.6 4.7 9 28 31 71 76 3 5 2.0 2.4 15 31 33 75 78 5 7 2.4 2.8 17 44 42 114 99 83 47 >18.0 12.4 19 41 42 97 101 42 52 9.4 12.4

PAGE 183

169Table J-9 Pretest and Posttest scores for treatment group on Sight Word Efficiency (TOWRE subtest) Particip. Number Pretest Raw Score Posttest Raw Score Pretest Standard Score Posttest Standard Score Pretest Percentile Posttest Percentile Pretest Grade Equivalent Posttest Grade Equivalent 7 34 29 55 -<1 <1 1.8 10 31 41 <55 62 <1 <1 4.4 11 62 66 74 77 4 6 4.6 12 79 76 90 83 25 13 6.4 13 66 64 79 78 8 7 4.6 14 46 47 65 65 1 1 2.6 16 30 44 -62 -<1 4.4 18 34 40 -57 -<1 3.6 20 50 74 1 81 66 10 6.0 Table J-10 Pretest and Postte st scores for control group on Sight Word Efficiency (TOWRE subtest) Particip. Number Pretest Raw Score Posttest Raw Score Pretest Standard Score Posttest Standard Score Pretest Percentile Posttest Percentile Pretest Grade Equivalent Posttest Grade Equivalent 2 75 71 86 83 17 13 8.8 3 80 79 86 82 17 12 8.6 4 40 28 65 56 <1 <1 3.6 6 79 74 90 81 25 10 6.0 8 82 67 92 77 29 6 6.8 9 80 76 90 87 25 19 9.6 15 51 52 67 67 1 1 3.2 17 74 64 79 72 8 3 6.0 5.6 19 81 76 87 83 19 13

PAGE 184

170Table J-11 Pretest and Posttest scores for treatment group on Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (TOWRE subtest) Particip. Number Pretest Raw Score Posttest Raw Score Pretest Standard Score Posttest Standard Score Pretest Percentile Posttest Percentile Pretest Grade Equivalent Posttest Grade Equivalent 7 10 10 55 55 <1 <1 1.8 10 26 18 75 68 5 2 4.8 11 20 38 70 84 2 14 5.6 12 49 45 95 91 36 27 3.6 13 17 17 66 66 1 1 2.2 14 17 16 66 64 1 <1 2.2 16 16 14 64 60 <1 <1 4.0 18 16 17 60 62 <1 <1 4.4 20 11 37 56 83 <1 13 5.4 Table J-12 Pretest and Postte st scores for control group on Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (TOWRE subtest) Particip. Number Pretest Raw Score Posttest Raw Score Pretest Standard Score Posttest Standard Score Pretest Percentile Posttest Percentile Pretest Grade Equivalent Posttest Grade Equivalent 2 41 38 87 84 19 14 9.0 3 39 30 85 76 16 6 6.4 4 22 14 76 67 6 1 4.8 6 54 47 102 93 55 32 8.6 8 36 32 82 80 12 9 8.0 9 39 41 85 87 16 19 9.6 15 28 29 77 77 6 6 4.0 17 31 42 76 84 6 14 4.4 9.0 19 39 26 83 75 13 5

PAGE 185

171 LIST OF REFERENCES Aaron, P.G., Joshi, R.M., & Williams, K.A. ( 1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120-137. Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Alexander, A.W., & Slinger-Constant, A.-M. (2004). Current status of treatments for dyslexia: Critical review. Journal of Child Neurology, 19, 744-758. Apel, K., & Swank, L.K. (1999). Second chances : Improving decoding skills in the older students. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 30, 231-242. Archer, A.L., Gleason, M.M., & Vachon, V.L. (2003). Decoding and fluency: foundation skills for struggling older readers. Learning Disabilitie s Quarterly, 26 89-102. Aylward, E.H., Richards, T.L, Berninger, V.W., Nagy, W.E., Field, K.M., & Grimme, A.C., et al. (2003). Instructional treatm ent associated with changes in brain activation in childre n with dyslexia. Neurology, 61, 212-219. Barton, S. (2000). The Barton Reading and Sp elling System. San Jose, CA: Bright Solutions for Dyslexia. http://www.bartonreading.com Last accessed January 17, 2005. Bishop, D.V.M., & Snowling, M. (2004). Develo pmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different? Psychological Bulletin, 130, 858-887. Bowen, C.C. (1983). Angling for words-a study book for language training Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications. Brooks, P.L., & Weeks, S.A.J. (1998). A compar ison of the responses of dyslexic, slow learning and control children to different strategies for teaching spellings. Dyslexia, 4, 212-222. Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslex ics’ phonological awareness deficits. Developmental Psychology, 28, 874-886. Burns, M.S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C.E. (eds.) (1999). Starting out right. A guide to promoting children’s reading success. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

PAGE 186

172 Bus, A.G., & Ijzendoorn, M.H. van. (1999). Pho nological awareness an d early reading: A meta-analysis of experime ntal training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 403-414. Catts, H.W., Hogan, T.P., & Fey, M.E. (2003) Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36 151-164. Colony, B. (2001). History of Orton-based mu ltisensory structured language methods. In C. W. McIntyre and J. S. Pickering (Eds.), Clinical studies of multisensory structured language education for students with dyslexia and related disorders, (pp16-19). International Multisensory St ructured Language Education Council: Dallas, TX. Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis issues for field settings Chicago: Rand McNally. Cox, A. (2001). The origin of alphabetic phonics. In C. McIntyre & J.S. Pickering (Eds.), Clinical studies of multisensory struct ured language education for students with dyslexia and related disorders (pp. 21-22). International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council. Dallas, TX. Curtis, M.E. (2002, May 20). Adolescent reading: A sy nthesis of research. Paper presented at the 2002 Adolescent Literacy-R esearch Informing Practice: A Series of Workshops; Workshop II: Practice Models for Adol escent Literacy Success. Baltimore, MD. US Department of Edu cation: Washington, D.C. Retrieved February 5, 2005 from http://216.26.160.105/conf/nichd/synthesis.asp Curtis, M.E., & Longo, A.M. (1999). When adolescents can’t read-Methods and materials that work. In J.S. Chall (Ser. Ed.), From reading research to practice. A series for teachers. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Press. Denti, L., & Guerin, G. (2004). Confronting th e problem of poor li teracy: recognition and action. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 113-122. Downey, D.M., & Snyder, L.E. (2000). College students with LLD: The phonological core as risk for failure in foreign language classes. Topics in Language Disorders, 21, 82-93. Eden, G.F., Jones, K.M., Cappell, K., Gar eau, L., Wood, F.B., & Zeffiro, T.A., et al. (2004). Neural changes following remedia tion in adult developmental dyslexia. Neuron, 44 411-422. Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, D.M ., Schuster, B.V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness in struction helps children learn to read:

PAGE 187

173 Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287. Felton, R.H. (1993). Effects of instructi on on the decoding skills of children with phonological-processing problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 583-589. Fletcher, J.M. and Lyon, G.R. (1998). Read ing: A research-based approach. In Williamson M.Evers (Ed.), What’s gone wrong in America’s classrooms (pp. 4990). Hoover Institution Press. Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shankweiler, D.P., Katz, L., Liberman, I.Y., & Stuebing, K.K., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6-23. Florida Center for Reading Research (2002-2003). Intervention and remedial programs for students above third grade Retrieved December 5, 2004 from Florida State University, Florida Center for Reading Research Web site: http://www.fcrr.org/FCRRRepor ts/reports.asp?rep=412 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 37-55. Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Winikates, D., Mehta, P., Schatschneider, C., & Fletcher, J.M. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 255-276. Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Stuebing, K.K ., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disabili ty: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educati onal Psychology, 88, 3-17. Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B.W. 1997). The Gillingham manual. Re medial training for students with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service, Inc. Gough, T., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decodi ng, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10. Guyer, B.P., & Sabatino, D. (1989). The e ffectiveness of a multisensory alphabetic phonetic approach with college stud ents who are learning disabled. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 430-434. Harm, M.W., McCandliss, B.D., & Seidenbe rg, M.S. (2003). Modeling the successes and failures of interventions for disabled readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 155182.

PAGE 188

174 Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young children Paul H. Brookes: Baltimore, MD. Herman, R. (2001). Effect of the Herman Me thod on the reading achievement of dyslexic students. In C. McIntyre & J.S. Pickering (Eds.), Clinical studies of multisensory structured language education for students with dyslexia and related disorders (pp. 83-95). International Multisensory St ructured Language Education Council. Dallas, TX. Hatcher, P.J., Hulme, C., & Ellis. A.W. ( 1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41-57 Henry, M.K. (1998). Structured, sequential, multisensory teaching: The Orton legacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 3-26. Hock, M.F., & Deshler, D.D. (2003). “No Child ” leaves behind teen reading proficiency. Principal Leadership, 4, 50-56. Ivey, G., & Baker, M.I. (2004). Phonics in struction for older students? Just say no. Educational Leadership, 61 35-40. James, D.D. (2004a, May 11). Count y not able to gain on FCAT. The Gainesville Sun, pp. A1, A4. James, D.D. (2004b, July 19). Rewards of r eading. State to focus on middle-schoolers. The Gainesville Sun, pp. A1, A5. Joshi, R.M., Dahlgren, M., & Boulware-Goode n, R. (2002). Teaching reading in an inner city school through a multisensory teaching approach. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 229-242. Kamil, M.L., (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Read ing for the 21st century. Alliance for Excellent Education, NY: Carnegie Corporation. Retrieved December 5, 2004 from http://www.all4ed.org/publications/AdolescentsAndLiteracy.pdf Kazdin, A.E. (1982). Interobserver agreement. Single-case research designs. Methods for clinical and applied settings (pp. 48-75). New York: Oxford University Press. Kranzler, G., & Moursund, J. (1999). Statistics for the terrified (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lyon, G.R. (1998). Why reading is not a natural process. Educational Leadership, 55, 1419. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supe rvision and Curriculum Development.

PAGE 189

175 Lyon, G.R. (2004, November) Does balanced literacy equal comprehensive reading instruction ? Paper presented at the meeting of the International Dyslexia Association, Philadelphia, PA. Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). Part I: Defining dyslexia, comorbidity, teachers’ knowledge of language and reading; A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53 1-15. McIntyre, C.W., & Pickering, J.S. (eds.) (2001). Clinical studies of multisensory structured language education for students with dyslexia and related disorders. International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council. Dallas, TX. Moats, L.C. (2000). Speech to print. Language essentials for teachers. Paul H. Brookes: Baltimore, MD. Moats, L.C. (2001). When older students can’t read. Educational Leadership, 58, 36-40. Moats, L.C. (2004). Efficacy of a structur ed, systematic, language curriculum for adolescent poor readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 145-159. Morris, R.D., Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Lyon, G.R., & Shankweiler, D.P., et al. (1998). Subtypes of read ing disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 347-373. National Association of E ducational Progress (2002). The nation’s report card: Reading National Center for Education Statistic s, US Department of Education: Washington, DC. Retrieved January 17, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/r eading/results2002/natscalescore.asp National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Readi ng Panel: 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 The Partnership for Reading: The National Institute for Literacy Oakland, T., Black, J.L., Stanford, G., Nu ssbaum, N.L., & Balise, R.R. (1998). An evaluation of the dyslexia training program: A multisensory method for promoting reading in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 140-148. Pennington, B.F., Van Orden, G.C., Smith, S. D., Green, P.A., & Haith, M.M. (1990). Phonological processing skills and deficits in adult dyslexics. Child Development, 61, 1753-1778. Plaut, D.C., McClelland, J.L., Seidenber g, M., & Patterson, K.E. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Com putational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103 56-115.

PAGE 190

176 Ramus, F., Rosen, S., Dakin, S.C., Day, B.L., Castellote, J.M., & Wh ite, S., et al., (2003). Theories of developmental dyslexia: insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults. Brain, 126 841-865. Richardson, S.O. (2001). Specific developmenta l dyslexia: Retrospective and prospective views. In C. McIntyre & J.S. Pickering (Eds.), Clinical studies of multisensory structured language education for students with dyslexia and related disorders (pp. 1-15). International Multisensory St ructured Language Education Council. Dallas, TX. Robelen, E.W., & Bowman, D.H. (2004). Bush outlines plan to help older students. Education Week, 23, 22-24. Salinger, T. (2003). Helping older, struggling readers. Preventing School Failure, 47 7985. Scanlon, D.M., & Vellutino, F.R., (1997). A comp arison of the instructional backgrounds and cognitive profiles of poor, average, and good readers who were initially identified as at risk for reading failure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 191-215. Seidenberg, M.S., & McClelland, J.L. (1989) A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96 523-568. Shavelson, R.J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Shaywitz, S.E. (1998). Dyslexia New England Journal of Medicine, 338, 307-312. Shaywitz, S.E. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia. A new and co mplete science-based program for reading problems at any level. NY: Knopf. Shaywitz, S.E., Fletcher, J.M., Holahan, J. M., Shneider, A.E., Marchione, K.E., & Stuebing, K.K., et al. (1999). Persis tence of Dyslexia: The Connecticut longitudinal study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104, 1351-1359. Shaywitz, B.A., Shaywitz, S.E., Blachma n, B.A., Pugh, K.R., Fulbright, R.K., & Skudlarski, P., et al. (20 04). Development of left o ccipitotemporal systems for skilled reading in children afte r a phonologically-bas ed intervention. Biological Psychiatry, 55, 926-933. Simos, P.G., Fletcher, J.M., Bergman, E., Brei er, J.I., Foorman, B.R., & Castillo, E.M., et al. (2002). Dyslexia-specific brain activ ation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology, 58, 1203-1213.

PAGE 191

177 Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading D ifficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Snowling, M.J., Adams, J.W., Bishop, D.V.M ., & Stothard, S.E. (2001). Educational attainments of school leavers with a preschool history of speech-language impairments. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 36, 173-184. Snowling, M.J., & Bishop, D.V.M. (2000). Is preschool language impairment a risk factor for dyslexia in adolescence? Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 41, 587-601. Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in r eading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360407. Stanovich, K.E. (1988). Explai ning the differences between the dyslexic and gardenvariety poor reader: The phonological-co re variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590-604. Stanovich, K.E. (1993). A model for studies of reading disability. Developmental Review, 13, 225-245. Stanovich, K.E., & Siegel, L.S. (1994). Phenot ypic performance prof ile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-base d test of the phonological core variabledifference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24-53. Stothard, S.E., Snowling, M.J., Bishop, D.V. M., Chipchase, B.B., & Kaplan, C.A. (1998). Language-impaired preschoole rs: A follow-up into adolescence. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 41, 407-419. The Partnership for Reading. (2002, May 20) Adolescent literacy-research informing practice: A series of workshops. Summa ry of the second adolescent literacy workshop: Practice models fo r adolescent lit eracy success Baltimore, MD. US Department of Education: Washington, D.C. Retrieved February 5, 2005 from http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforre ading/adolescent/summary/IIa.html Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K ., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K., & Rose, E., et al. (2001). Intensive remedial instru ction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes of two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 33-58. Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1997). Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities : Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 217-234.

PAGE 192

178 Tuckman, B.W. (1999). Conducting educational research Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning. Vellutino, F.R., Fletcher, J.M., Snowling, M.J ., & Scanlon, D.M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2-40. Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency Austin, TX: PRO.ED, Inc. White, N.C. (2001). The Slingerland multisensory approach: History and rationale. In C. McIntyre & J.S. Pickering (Eds.), Clinical studies of multisensory structured language education for students with dyslexia and related disorders (pp. 189191). International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council. Dallas, TX. Wilson, A.M., & Lesaux, N.K. (2001). Persiste nce of phonological processing deficits in college students with dyslexia who have age-appropriate reading skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 394-401. Wilson, B.A., & O’Connor, J.R. (2001). Effectiv eness of the Wilson reading system used in public school training. In C. McIntyre & J.S. Pickering (Eds.), Clinical studies of multisensory structured language educ ation for students with dyslexia and related disorders (pp. 247-253). International Mu ltisensory Structured Language Education Council. Dallas, TX. Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock Johnson III Achievement Test Itasca, IL: Rivers ide Publishing.

PAGE 193

179 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH SallyAnn Giess was born on June 2, 1964, in Buffalo, New York. She grew up in Buffalo and graduated from Kenmore East High School in 1982. In June 1986, Ms. Giess earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the St ate University of New York at Buffalo (UB) and in January 1989, she received her Master of Arts degree in Communication disorders and sciences from UB. Ms Gie ss has held the Certificate of Clinical Competence in Speech-Language Pathology from the Ameri can Speech-Language Hearing Association since 1991. She is currently licensed to prac tice Speech-Language Pathology in the state of Florida. After working as a Speech-Language Patholog ist for several years, she returned to school in 1993 to pursue a law degree. Ms. Giess graduated from the University of Dayton in Dayton, Ohio with her Juris Do ctorate in 1996. After graduating from law school, Ms. Giess moved to North Carolina. Sh e worked several year s in the legal field before returning to speech language pat hology in the Charlott e-Mecklenberg School System, where she worked until coming to the University of Florida in 2001. Upon completion of her Doctor of Philos ophy degree, Ms. Giess will begin a career as an assistant professor in the Departme nt of Speech-Language Pathology in the Graduate School of Medical Education at Se ton Hall University in South Orange, New Jersey.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010120/00001

Material Information

Title: Effectiveness of a Multisensory, Orton-Gillingham Influenced Approach to Reading Intervention for High School Students with Reading Disability
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010120:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010120/00001

Material Information

Title: Effectiveness of a Multisensory, Orton-Gillingham Influenced Approach to Reading Intervention for High School Students with Reading Disability
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010120:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












EFFECTIVENESS OF A MULTISENSORY, ORTON-GILLINGHAM INFLUENCED
APPROACH TO READING INTERVENTION FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
WITH READING DISABILITY
















By

SALLYANN GIESS


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005































Copyright 2005

by

SallyAnn Giess

































To my family, especially my nephews Richard and Michael Ferguson.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people were instrumental in the completion of my degree. I first must

acknowledge my supervisory committee members, who each contributed in their own

way to my professional, personal, and academic growth.

Linda Lombardino taught me so much that it is difficult to pin-point just a few

things. She has a never-ending supply of time, energy, and enthusiasm. Her dedication to

all her students, to her career, and to the research community has inspired me to model

my own career after hers.

Bonnie Johnson has a unique way of guiding my thinking; during our conversations

and discussions she has encouraged me to rely on my own reasoning and problem-

solving skills to become a more critical thinker. Her kind words have helped me in my

personal life, as well.

Lori Altmann offered many invaluable suggestions on working with my research

assistants and conducting my research. She is always willing to help. Because Dr.

Altmann's area of specialty differs from mine, I learned how to explain my research in

clear and practical terms.

As my outside committee member, Cynthia Griffin allowed me to tie my interests

in special education to reading disabilities. Her faith in my ability to carry out a treatment

study was instrumental in my choice of a dissertation project.

Debbie Butler, Idella King, Casey Mobley, and Addie Pons (the administrative and

clinical staff at the University of Florida) helped me in many ways. Whenever I needed









anything (a question answered; something faxed, copied, or mailed; assistance dealing

with payroll problems) they always had the answer. I will miss stopping in their offices to

say hello and chat.

I would also like to thank Dr. Scott Griffiths for honoring me with an Alumni

Fellowship that made my studies possible. I also thank Dr. Sam Brown, chairman of the

Communication Sciences and Disorders Department; and Dr. Chris Sapienza, who was

instrumental in bringing me to the University of Florida.

I would not have been able to complete my degree without completing my

dissertation. First, I must thank Susan Barton, who developed the Barton Reading and

Spelling System and who was willing to share her reading program with the University of

Florida Speech and Hearing Clinic. I am very thankful I found a warm reception for my

project from the staff and students at DeSoto Charter School, especially Mary Malo, the

director. Mary made sure my reading tutors had a place to work and allowed us open use

of her school. My dissertation would not have been possible without the support and

cooperation of each and every person at DeSoto. Likewise, I was lucky enough to find 6

dedicated graduate clinicians who were willing to be reading tutors. Without the work

and dedication of Erin Boyne, Dana Griffis, Erin Kux, Jennifer Rashkind, Sabrina

Shephard, and Kathrine Wagner, I would not have been able to complete my dissertation.

Finally, I must thank my research assistants, Lindsey Harper and Avigail Oren, who were

instrumental in helping me collect data.

Finally, I must acknowledge my fellow students. In particular I am thankful for the

special friendship I have with Claudia Morelli and David Efros whose constant

encouragement and support have been invaluable to me. Gerianne Gilligan is an









inspiration and role model to me as a classmate, friend and professional. I am also

thankful for the friendship and support of Cynthia Puranik, Judy Wingate, Cynthia Core,

and Lori Love. I honestly do not think I could have made it this far without them. I am to

have known and worked with Maisa Hajtas, Jaeock Kim, Peter Park, Nadia Abdulhaq and

Lisa Pinissi. Finally, I must thank three special friends outside the University of Florida

who are instrumental to my happiness. Tamara Martin, Kathy Chase, and Debra

Bloomgarden contributed to my growth and confidence. I know they will continue to do

so in the future.

I have enjoyed many years of education in my lifetime and I can honestly say that

the 4 years I have spent at the University of Florida have by far been the most valuable to

me. I believe I have grown as a person and a professional and look forward to a long and

prosperous career as a professor.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .............. ......... ... .... .. ....................x

L IST O F F IG U R E S .... ...... ................................................ .. .. ..... .............. xii

A B S T R A C T .............................................. ..........................................x iii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

B background of the Study .................................................... .............................. 1
Rationale and Purpose ................................. ............. ..................
R research Q uestions........... .................................................................. .............. 7
H y p o th e se s .............................. ............................................................. ............... 8
S ig n ifican ce ....................................................... 9
L im itatio n s ......................................................................................12

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................... 13

What Makes Reading Instruction Effective? ............................................................13
Phonological Core of Reading Disability .........................................................14
Defining the Core Deficit in Reading Disability..............................................15
Connecting the Phonological Core to Intervention ..........................................18
M ultisensory A approach .............. ..... ............................................................ 20
Commercial Orton-Gillingham Approaches ................................................. 23
Empirical Studies of Multisensory Approaches ................................................24
The Older Reading D disabled Student ...................................................................... 33
S u m m a ry ............................................................................................................... 3 4

3 M E T H O D S ........................................................................................................... 3 6

In stru ctional Setting ........... ......................................................................... .. 36
P articip ant R ecru itm ent ......................................................................... ...............37
Reading Tutor Recruitment and Selection ................................... ..................38
Operational Definition of Variables ............ ....... ........................... ............... 39
R research In strum entation ........................................ ............................................39









Participant Selection .......... .... ............. ........ ...... ............ ............ 40
Instructional M ethod....................................................................... ........ 41
The Barton Reading and Spelling System ................. .................................41
Levels of instruction.................. .......................... ........ ...... ........ .. 42
Teaching strategies .................. ............................... .. .. .. .......... .. 43
Lesson Form at ............................. .. ...... ............................. ..... ....... 45
Levels, lessons, and procedures in the Barton Reading and Spelling
S y ste m ................................................................................................. 4 6
T utor screening ........... .......................................................... .. .... .. ... .. 54
Tutor training................................................... 55
Student screening ................... .... .......... ............. .... ........56
B arton protests ............ ........................... ........................ .... ...... .... ..57
After-school reading program ............................ ................................... 58
D ata-Collection Procedures ......................................................... ............... 59
L esso n P lan s ................................................................5 9
T ra c k in g S h e ets ............................................................................................. 5 9
R leading and Spelling Probes........................................ ........................... 59
Inter-observer agreem ent ............................................................................ 60
Treatment of the Data ................. .................................... ..................... 62

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................6 3

5 D IS C U S S IO N ................................................................................ 8 3

O overview of Findings ....................................................... .. ............ 83
D discussion of R research Findings ... .......................................................... .........86
Beyond Phonological Awareness Training ..................................... .......... 88
Critical Components of the Barton Reading and Spelling System.............................90
B arton P retest ......................................................................90
Stim ulus M aterials.......... ................ .... ...... ..... .................... .... ............ 93
Meaningful Remedial Reading Programs for Older Students ..................................93
Lim stations and Future D directions ........................................................... ... .......... 98
C clinical Im plications......... .......................................................... ...... .....100
C o n c lu sio n s......................................................................................................... 1 0 1

APPENDIX

A DESOTO CHARTER SCHOOL MISSION STATEMENT ................................... 102

B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) PROTOCOL ................................... 105

C IN F O R M E D C O N SE N T ............................................................... ..................... 109

D STUDENT SCREENING ANSWER SHEET .................................................. 112

E BARTON PROTESTS FOR BOOKS 1-3 (ADAPTED FROM BARTON 2000)... 114









F BOOK 2 LESSON PLANS, CONSONANTS AND SHORT VOWELS
(ADAPTED FROM BARTON 2000) .................. ....................... .................127

G D A TA COLLECTION SH EET ..................................................... .....................159

H BOOK 2 READING AND SENTENCE PROBES...............................................161

I INTEROB SERVER AGREEMENT FORM ...................................... ...............163

J TEST SCORE RESULTS ON DEPENDANT VARIABLE MEASURES .............164

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ...................... .... ................................................................. 17 1

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............. ............. ................................................179
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Content of Multisensory Instruction (IMSLEC, 2001)................. ............ .....22

2-2 Principles of Multisensory Instruction (IMSLEC, 2001)...................................22

3-1 Reading-intervention group characteristics............................. .. .......... ........ 41

3-2 Control group characteristics .............................................................................41

3-3 M ean P re-test scores............ ... ...................................................... .. .... ..... .. 4 1

3-4 B arton Sy stem L evels...................................................................... ...................43

3-5 Procedures and Levels in the BRSS ................................ ...............54

4-1 t test for independent samples at pretest for dependent variables.........................66

4-2 ANCOVA for dependent variables ............................................... ............... 67

4-3 Reading-intervention group: t test for nonindependent samples..............................72

4-4 Control group: t test for nonindependent samples. .............................................72

4-5 Reading-Intervention Group Mean, Median, Mode, Range at Pretest and Posttest.74

4-6 Control Group Mean, Median, Mode, and Range at Pretest and Posttest ..............74

4-7 Greater than 3-month increase in grade-equivalent score by percentage ...............80

J-1 Pretest and Posttest scores for treatment group on Letter-Word Identification
(W J III A chievem ent subtest) ........................................... ......................... 165

J-2 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Letter-WordIdentification (WJ
III A chievem ent subtest) ......................................................... ............... 165

J-3 Pretest and Posttest scores for treatment group on Spelling (WJ III Achievement
su b te st) ............................................................................ 16 6

J-4 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Spelling (WJ III Achievement
su b te st) ............................................................................ 16 6









J-5 Pretest and Posttest scores for treatment group on WordAttack (WJ III
A chievem ent subtest) ....................................................................................... 167

J-6 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on WordAttack (WJ III
A chievem ent subtest) ....................................................................................... 167

J-7 Pretest and Posttest scores for treatment group on Sound Awareness (WJ III
A chievem ent subtest) ................................................. ......... ........ .... 168

J-8 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Sound Awareness (WJ III
A chievem ent subtest) ................................................. ......... ........ .... 168

J-9 Pretest and Posttest scores for treatment group on Sight Word Efficiency
(TO W R E subtest) .................................................... ...... .. .. .. ........ .... 169

J-10 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Sight Word Efficiency (TOWRE
su b te st) ............................................................................ 16 9

J- 11 Pretest and Posttest scores for treatment group on Phonemic Decoding
Efficiency (TOW RE subtest) ........................................... ............................... 170

J-12 Pretest and Posttest scores for control group on Phonemic Decoding Efficiency
(TOW RE subtest) .................................................. .. ....... .. ........ .... 170
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

4-1 Difference in mean standard scores for Letter-WordId. ........................................68

4-2 Difference in mean standard scores for Spelling .............................................. 68

4-3 Difference in mean standard scores for Word Attack...........................................69

4-4 Difference in mean standard scores for Sound Awareness.................. .......... 69

4-5 Difference in mean standard scores for Sight-Word Efficiency. ...........................70

4-6 Difference in mean standard scores for Phonemic Decoding Efficiency. ...............70

4-7 Book 2 number of lessons to complete & Basic Reading Skills............................75

4-8 Book 1 Number of lessons to complete & Basic Reading Skills...........................75

4-9 Progress of participants-lowest BRS pretest standard score 7, 18, 10, 14, 12 .........78

4-10 Progress of participants-highest BRS standard scores 20, 13, 11, and 16 ..............78

A-i DeSoto High School brochure. A) Front. B) Back. ...........................................103

D-1 Student Screening Answer Sheet A) Page 1. B) Page 2.............. ... ................112















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

EFFECTIVENESS OF A MULTISENSORY, ORTON-GILLINGHAM INFLUENCED
APPROACH TO READING INTERVENTION FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
WITH READING DISABILITY

By

SallyAnn Giess

May 2005

Chair: Linda L. Lombardino
Major Department: Communication Sciences and Disorders

Our primary goal was to examine the effectiveness of a multisensory, Orton-

Gillingham influenced approach to reading intervention for high school students with

reading disability. We tested the effect of a packaged reading-intervention approach on

the reading subskills of letter-word identification, spelling, word attack, sound awareness,

speed of sight-word reading, and speed of phonemic decoding (nonsense words).

Participants were 18 high school students attending a charter school for language and

reading difficulties. We chose 9 participants for the treatment group based on a cut-off

score criterion; the remaining 9 students served as the control group. The independent

variable was participation in the reading-intervention program.

The independent samples t test showed that the pretest scores for the control group were

significantly higher than pretest scores for the treatment group. Results of the ANCOVA

showed no significant differences between groups at posttest. When we controlled for

pretest scores, participants in the reading-intervention group consistently made greater









gains than participants in the control group, although posttest scores remained higher for

the control group. A t-test for nonindependent matched samples was significant (p < .05)

for treatment participants' posttest scores for Word Attack. Descriptive analysis showed

that the participants in the treatment group more frequently demonstrated a greater than

three month growth in posttest grade-equivalency scores compared to the participants in

the control group. Correlation analysis also revealed that performance on the pretest, as

measured in standard scores, was not a good predictor of starting point in the Barton

Reading program, but was a better predictor of amount of progress made.

We developed recommendations and suggestions for further study. Remedial

reading-intervention programs are not meant to replace daily literacy instruction.

Therefore, it is important to consider how reading instruction is approached overall for

struggling older readers. Finally, further study using more rigorous experimental design

with randomized control groups is needed.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Reading is a skill that serves us throughout life, yet it is a skill that many people

take for granted. For most children, reading is acquired effortlessly as they progress

through the early school years and it serves as the primary mechanism used to acquire

knowledge throughout their education (Adams, 1990; Moats, 2000, Snow, Bums, &

Griffin, 1998; Snowling & Bishop, 2000). Children's literacy skills grow rapidly during

the elementary school years. They begin with an understanding of the alphabetic

principle of letter-sound correspondences and progress to understanding prefixes and

suffixes, as they decode unfamiliar words (Bums, Griffin, & Snow, 1999). Children

continue to refine their comprehension skills as they move from answering simple

questions related to picture texts to identifying cause and effect in narrative and

expository literature (Bums, Griffin, & Snow 1999). As children reach the end of

elementary school, they are able to take part in oral presentations, read from nonfiction

text, and "publish" their own original writing (Burns, Griffin, & Snow, 1999).

Reading in the adolescent years brings new demands for the reader. While

adolescents have usually mastered the fundamentals of word analysis and recognition,

they continue to learn about the Latin and Greek origins of words and expand their

vocabularies as they become more sophisticated readers (Curtis, 2002). Adolescents bring

their acquired knowledge and experience to learn from the text they read and acquire new

ways to learn from text (Curtis, 2002). Students must be able to problem solve, read from









different perspectives, and reflect on and analyze reading material (Curtis, 2002). Adults

continue to rely on their reading skills for keeping pace with advances in their profession,

staying informed of current news, and engaging in reading for pleasure.

Clearly, reading is an activity and ability that evolves throughout the lifespan. Of

specific interest in our study is the adolescent reader. The relationship between

adolescents and their experience with reading can be conceptualized on a continuum. On

one end are adolescents who enjoy reading and do so with ease, can identify their favorite

authors, and engage in reading as a leisure activity. In the middle are those teenagers who

do not voluntarily read for pleasure and only engage in reading as a necessity, yet are

able to read fluently and accurately. On the other extreme end of the continuum are

adolescents for whom reading is a constant struggle and a frustrating experience, so much

so that reading is considered an area of disability (Curtis, 2002). Adolescent students

arrive at this extreme end of the continuum through various routes.

Typically, students with reading difficulty have struggled academically throughout

school, often just barely passing each grade level. Some of these students never received

good reading instruction and experienced poor environmental conditions in childhood

(Hart & Risley, 1995; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Snowling & Bishop, 2000). Some

have a specific learning disability in reading, often called dyslexia (Vellutino, Fletcher,

Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004). Finally, there are those students whose difficulty with

reading is part of a broader learning disability; these readers are sometimes referred to as

language-learning disabled (Catts, Hogan, & Fey, 2003) or garden-variety poor readers

(Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Stanovich, 1988). Even when a reading disability has been

diagnosed early in a child's life and early intervention has been provided, the intervention









may not have targeted the underlying cause of the reading deficit (Apel & Swank, 1999;

Lyon, 1998). Early struggles with the reading process that go unaddressed or are not

successfully remediated often precipitate a negative attitude toward reading in the middle

and high school years (Lyon, 1998; Stanovich, 1986).

Our study focused on students with dyslexia and students considered language-

learning disabled or garden-variety poor readers. An individual with dyslexia or specific

reading disability is clinically defined as one who has average intelligence, does not have

general learning difficulties, and whose reading problems cannot be explained by outside

factors such as poor instruction, lack of opportunity to learn, sensory acuity deficits, or

neurological factors (Vellutino et al., 2004). When reading is defined as the output of

decoding plus linguistic comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), individuals with

dyslexia or specific reading disability are typically those whose language skills for

comprehension are intact in spite of poor word reading (Shaywitz, 2003). Shaywitz

(2003) referred to this as the paradox of dyslexia, good (often very good) reading

comprehension skills but an unexpected weakness in reading single words.

However, extreme difficulty achieving basic reading skills is not exclusive to the

cluster of characteristics called dyslexia. As Aaron, Joshi, and Williams (1999) note, not

all reading disabilities are alike and there are those students whose difficulties manifest

beyond written language and include difficulty with spoken language as well (e.g.,

comprehension, discourse, syntax, semantics). These students have been referred to as

language-learning disabled (Catts, Hogan, & Fey, 2003) or garden-variety poor readers

(Stanovich, 1988; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). Regardless of the terminology used to

describe the student who experiences exceptional difficulty with reading, there remains a









cohort of students who have weak phonological awareness or phonological coding skills

characterized by deficient word identification, word attack, spelling, and reading in

general (Vellutino et al., 2004). This has been associated with a phonological core model

of reading disability (Morris et al., 1998; Stanovich, 1988, 1998; Stanovich & Siegel,

1994; Vellutino et al., 2004). Briefly stated, this means that children with reading

disabilities have a poor representation in the reading centers of the brain of sound-letter

correspondences (Vellutino et al., 2004).

Identifying the core of the problem of reading disability is the first step to

designing effective treatment. For adolescents, early identification and prevention are no

longer relevant issues. The focus of attention at this stage is on reading intervention and

remediation. Typically, remedial reading programs are offered in addition to a student's

regular education; they are meant to supplement the reading instruction that takes place

during the school day. Multisensory instruction is one type of remedial intervention that

has been used successfully with individuals of all ages (Guyer & Sabatino, 1989; Joshi,

Dahlgren, & Boulware-Gooden, 2002; Oakland, Black, Stanford, Nussbaum, & Balise,

1998) and is the focus of our study.

Multisensory instruction has its roots in the Orton-Gillingham (O-G) Approach

(Gillingham & Stillman, 1965) and is the basis of a number of remedial reading

programs, such as Alphabetic Phonics, the Herman Approach, the Slingerland Approach,

the Spalding Approach, and the Wilson Approach (Colony, 2001). In this context,

multisensoryy" refers to the use of the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic senses (VAT) in

the remediation of reading disability. In 2001, The International Multisensory Structured

Language Education Council (IMSLEC) published a compilation of clinical studies of









multisensory structured language instruction for students with reading disability. They

specified both the content and strategies used in multisensory structured language

programs.

The International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council

recommends that instruction include content in phonology and phonological awareness,

sound-symbol association, syllables, morphology, syntax, and semantics. Phonology is

the study of sounds. Phonological awareness is an inclusive term that refers to all levels

of awareness of the sound structure of words. Phonemic awareness is a specific term and

an important aspect of phonological awareness that refers to the ability to notice, identify

and manipulate phonemes (Shaywitz, 2003). Sound-syllable association is the awareness

of the sounds in the English language and their correspondence to the letters that

represent the sounds (McIntyre & Pickering, 2001). A syllable is a unit of oral or written

language with one vowel sound (McIntyre & Pickering, 2001). Morphology is the study

of how the smallest units of meaning are combined to form words. Structured language

instruction must include the study of base words, roots, and affixes (McIntyre &

Pickering, 2001). Finally, syntax includes grammar and the mechanics of language; and

semantics is concerned with the meaning of a linguistic message (McIntyre & Pickering,

2001).

Multisensory structured language programs use instructional strategies that follow

core principles described as 1) simultaneous and multisensory; 2) systematic and

cumulative; 3) direct; 4) diagnostic teaching to automaticity; and 4) synthetic and

analytic.









Simultaneous multisensory teaching employs the primary learning pathways in the

brain (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile) simultaneously, to enhance memory and

learning. Systematic instruction requires that instruction begin with the most basic

elements of language and progress to the more complex elements. Each step builds on

one previously learned and is constantly reviewed. Direct instruction means that each rule

and concept is explicitly taught and not left to inference. Diagnostic teaching to

automaticity refers to using instructional strategies that are based on each student's

individual needs and teaching language rules and concepts to the point of automaticity.

Synthetic phonics instruction presents parts of the word and requires the student to blend

the sounds into a whole; analytic phonics instruction works from the whole word and

teaches how the word can be broken into its component sounds.

Rationale and Purpose

Adopting a remedial reading program for district-wide school use is a common

practice. While these programs are most often founded on "proven" principles of reading

instruction, little empirical research exists on the effectiveness of specific programs. The

Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) website offers information on 19

intervention and remedial programs for students above third grade used in counties

throughout Florida (FCRR, 2002-2003). However, as reported by the FCRR website, the

research support for these programs varies and ranges from no empirical evidence to only

one program with one efficacy study published in the Annals ofDyslexia. The program

with a published study supporting its effectiveness was a multisensory approach called

Phono-Graphix. Many of the intervention and remedial programs reviewed by FCRR on

this website have undergone only a preliminary or beginning level of research and offer a

similar minimal level of support for efficacy.









The primary goal of the current study was to report on the efficacy of a reading-

intervention approach for high school students with reading disability. The researcher

was interested in whether high school students with reading disability who receive an

explicit and systematic multi-sensory, phonics-based, Orton-Gillingham influenced

approach to reading intervention made clinically significant gains in their reading skills.

The Barton Reading and Spelling System (Barton, 2000), is a new commercially

available multisensory remedial reading program that meets the content and function

criteria identified by the International Multisensory Structured Language Academic

Counsel. It is an Orton-Gillingham influenced system designed for one-on-one tutoring of

children, teenagers, and adults who struggle with reading, spelling, and writing, due to

dyslexia or a learning disability. Despite the soundness of the principles upon which the

Barton Reading and Spelling System is founded, there is limited empirical data

supporting the effectiveness of the program as a remedial reading program. The specific

reading skills of interest were letter-word identification, word attack, sound awareness,

spelling, and reading fluency. A secondary purpose was to investigate student's

individual patterns of performance after screening and brief, intensive treatment.

Research Questions

Research question 1: Do high school students assigned to a multisensory reading-

intervention group make greater improvement on posttest scores compared to students

who do not receive such intervention on the following variables: 1) letter-word

identification 2) word attack 3) spelling 4) sound awareness 5) speed of sight-word

recognition 6) speed of nonsense-word decoding?









Research question 2: Do individual participants show significant differences from

pretest-posttest scores for 1) letter-word identification; 2) word attack; 3) spelling; 4)

sound awareness; 5) speed of sight-word recognition; and 6) speed of nonsense-word

decoding?

Research Question 3: Does Basic Reading Skill predict 1) starting point for

tutoring; and 2) number of lessons to complete a Barton level?

Research question 4: Do more participants in the reading-intervention group than

participants in the control group achieve a greater than expected three month gain in

grade-equivalent score from pretest to posttest for 1) letter-word identification; 2) word

attack; 3) spelling; 4) sound awareness; 5) speed of sight-word recognition; and 6) speed

of nonsense-word decoding?

Hypotheses

The research questions were generated in response to several hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Based on the phonological core model to reading, students with

reading disability who are assigned to a reading-intervention program based on low

pretest scores and who receive a multisensory, Orton-Gillingham influenced approach to

intervention will make greater improvement on posttest scores when compared to a group

of students who did not receive the intervention because of higher pretest scores on

measures of reading skill.

Hypothesis 2: A student who participates in the reading-intervention program will

achieve higher posttests scorers compared to his/her pretest scores as a result of a one-on-

one multisensory treatment program.

Hypothesis 3a: A participant in the reading-intervention group who started with

lower pretest standard scores on the dependent variable reading measures will perform









more poorly on the Barton pretest and start at a lower Barton book and lesson. In

contrast, a participant in the reading-intervention group who achieved higher pretest

standard scores on the dependent variable reading measures will progress farther on the

Barton pretest, thus starting at a higher Barton book and lesson.

Hypothesis 3b: A participant in the reading-intervention group who shows more

severe reading disabilities as defined by pretest standard scores will complete fewer

books and lessons in the Barton Reading and Spelling System than a participant in the

reading-intervention group who shows less severe reading disabilities as defined by the

same pretest standard scores.

Hypothesis 4: A greater percentage of participants in the reading-intervention

group as compared to participants in the control group will increase their grade

equivalent scores by more than three months from pretest to posttest.

Significance

Although estimates vary on the prevalence of reading disability, the numbers are

alarming no matter how they are calculated. For example, Fletcher and Lyon (1998),

reporting 1998 figures from the National Institute of Child Health & Human

Development (NICHD), estimated the prevalence of reading disability at 20% of school-

age children. In another report, based on data from the National Center for Educational

Statistics, Lyon (2003) estimated that approximately 38% of fourth-grade students were

reading below a basic level and predicted that they would continue to have reading

difficulty without systematic and focused intervention. Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing,

Shaywitz, and Fletcher (1996) reported that 74% of children who were poor readers in

third grade remained poor readers in ninth grade.









In recent years, the combined influences of political, societal, and educational

factors have focused attention on the reading skills of young children during their early

school years and on the methods used to teach young children to read. In fact, in 1997 the

National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) was formed to assess the status of the research-

based knowledge behind various methods for teaching children to read and to identify the

necessary components of effective reading programs (Ehri et al., 2001). Similarly, with

the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 there has been an emphasis on

fostering young children's pre-reading skills in an effort to prevent later reading

difficulties.

An improvement in statewide reading achievement test scores for elementary

school students in the State of Florida offers some evidence that these efforts may be

paying off, at least for young children. For example, one Florida county recently reported

that approximately 70% of third- and fourth-grade students scored at grade level or

higher on the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Tests (FCAT) for 2004 (James,

FCAT Scores, 2004). Average reading scores on the FCAT also increased from 2003 to

2004 for the elementary grades (James, 2004). Unfortunately, older children in middle

and high school are not experiencing the same kinds of gains in their FCAT reading

scores (James, 2004a, 2004b). Only about 50% of seventh- and eighth-grade students

scored at grade level on the reading portion of the 2004 FCAT and this percentage was

lower from the previous year.

Young children in the elementary grades may be faring better for several reasons.

Based on extensive reviews of educational research studies, the NRP identified five key

components of effective reading instruction: a) phonemic awareness, 2) phonics, 3)









fluency, 4) vocabulary, 5) text comprehension. It is likely that teachers are providing

young children with more and systematic reading instruction that incorporates these

components. Finally, consistent and reliable evidence shows that early difficulties in

spoken language predict later difficulties with written language (i.e. reading) (Snowling,

Adams, Bishop, & Stothard, 2001; Snowling & Bishop, 2000; Stothard, Snowling,

Bishop, Chipchase, & Kaplan, 1998). Hence, the trend is for early identification and early

intervention for reading disabilities with children who have a history of spoken language

deficits. In spite of these educational strides, early identification and prevention of

reading disabilities has little applicability to the older student who continues to struggle

with reading. With this population, the focus of attention inevitably changes to that of

remediation and the choice of a remedial reading program to best address the students'

needs.

Considering the potential for emotional, societal, and monetary repercussions of

reading disability, it is imperative that empirically based studies be conducted that

investigate the outcome of students with reading disability who undergo a reading-

intervention program.

There is some evidence that students who struggle with reading in middle and high

school may be receiving more attention. For example, in a State of the Union Address on

January 28, 2004, President Bush announced a proposal to create a $100 million reading-

intervention program for middle and high school students (Robelen & Bowman, 2004).

Recently, the governor of the State of Florida announced a Middle Grades Reform Act

requiring that a higher priority be placed on reading in schools where more than 25% of

students test below grade level on the FCAT (James, 2004b). Clearly, there is a call for









empirically-supported reading-intervention programs that address the needs of older

students with reading disability.

Limitations

Our study had two main limitations: 1) the short duration of the reading

intervention and 2) lack of randomization of subjects. The high school students who

participated in this study have experienced a long history of reading disability. It's a

certainty that it will take more than the 2 or 3 months that were available for the

intervention to establish long-lasting gains in their reading skills. The other major

limitation was the lack of randomization of subjects to the experimental and control

groups. Given the professional and ethical responsibility to make the reading program

available to all students who qualified, we decided to treat all the eligible students in the

semester in which the reading program was available. Older students with reading

disability have been shown to make significant progress in their reading skills after

receiving remedial-reading intervention based on multisensory approaches that stress the

foundations of written language structure (Moats, 2001, 2004; Torgesen et al., 2001).














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Our purpose was to report on the efficacy of a multisensory reading-intervention

approach for high school students with reading disability. First we briefly discuss the

necessary components of skilled reading. The primary focus and remainder of the chapter

is devoted to two areas. We reviewed studies related to the phonological core model of

reading disabilities is provided. We described the multisensory approach to remedial

reading intervention and discussed the research on multisensory reading-intervention

approaches. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of the issues that are pertinent to

older students with reading disabilities.

What Makes Reading Instruction Effective?

In 1998, the National Research Council (NRC) "identified and summarized the

research literature relevant to the critical skills, environments and early developmental

interactions that are instrumental in the acquisition of beginning reading skills" (p.2)

(Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Building on that work, the National Reading Panel

(NRP) conducted an evidence-based analysis of the experimental and quasi-experimental

research literature on how critical reading skills are most effectively taught (NRP, 2000).

Their findings were reported in the Report of the National Reading Panel (2000).

The National Reading Panel (2000) identified five major areas that are keys to

successful reading instruction: 1) alphabetics, 2) fluency, 3) comprehension, 4) teacher

education and reading instruction, and 5) computer technology and reading instruction.

Alphabetics includes instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics, fluency addresses









the ability to read aloud with accuracy, speed, and proper expression, and comprehension

includes instruction in vocabulary, text comprehension, and comprehension strategies

(NRP, 2000). Among these five key areas of instruction, phonological awareness has

received the most attention (Ehri et al., 2001).

Phonological Core of Reading Disability

There is now converging evidence that the core deficit in reading disability is at the

level of phonological awareness and letter-sound decoding (Bus & Ijzendoorn; Ehri et al.,

2001; Fletcher et al., 1994; Foorman et al., 1997; Morris et al., 1998; Scanlon &

Vellutino, 1997; Shaywitz et al., 1999; Stanovich, 1988, 1993; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994;

Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997; Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004).

Shaywitz (2003) describes phonological awareness as an inclusive term that "...includes

all levels of awareness of the sound structure of words. It also is used to refer to the

earliest stages of developing an awareness of the parts of words, such as sensitivity to

rhyme or noticing larger parts of words such as syllables" (p. 144). Letter-sound decoding

is the process of converting the written symbols on the page to the smallest unit of speech

sounds called phonemes (Shaywitz, 2003).

In a recent summary of what has been learned about dyslexia in the past 4 decades,

Vellutino et al. (2004) reviewed the support behind a number of theories that have been

proposed as the underlying cause of dyslexia. Citing findings from the research literature,

Vellutino et al. found that there is "...growing consensus that the most influential cause

of difficulties in learning to read is the failure to acquire phonological awareness and skill

in alphabetic coding" (p.12). More specifically, weak phonological coding has been

identified as the central cause of reading disability in most impaired readers (Archer,

Gleason, & Vachon, 2003; Ehri et al., 2001; Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003; Ramus









et al., 2003; Vellutino et al.). Phonological coding is "...the ability to use speech codes to

represent information in the form of words and parts of words" (Vellutino et al. p. 12).

Defining the Core Deficit in Reading Disability

Stanovich (1988, 1993) and Stanovich and Siegel (1994) developed the

Phonological-Core Variable-Difference Model to describe the cognitive characteristics of

children with dyslexia. In the Phonological-Core Variable-Difference (PCVD) model,

Stanovich (1988, 1993) and Stanovich and Siegel (1994) posit that all poor readers have a

phonological deficit. Stanovich's (1988) model rests on the assumption of specificity.

This model assumes that a child with dyslexia has a learning disability that is reasonably

specific to reading and localized in the phonological core, and requires that the deficits

displayed by the child with dyslexia not extend too far into other domains of cognitive

functioning (Stanovich, 1988), such as pragmatic language skills and problem-solving

skills. Stanovich (1988) went on to add that the disruption in the phonological core is

relatively dissociated from intelligence. Accordingly, in defining dyslexia the

International Dyslexia Association points out that dyslexia is a specific reading disability

characterized by a specific deficit in the phonological component of language that is

unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003).

The use of measures of cognitive ability to aid in identifying or diagnosing specific

reading disability and the role of cognitive ability in the Phonological Core Variable

Difference model warrants further discussion.

Stanovich (1988) and Stanovich and Siegel (1994) used the term variable-

difference in the PCVD model to describe the performance contrasts between readers

with and without an aptitude-achievement discrepancy outside the phonological domain.

Such a distinction is often used to identify children for reading research studies (Fletcher









et al., 1994) Individuals are identified as having specific reading disability or dyslexia

based on an unexpected gap between intelligence quotient and reading level, the latter

being unexpectedly low given one's expected ability. In contrast, individuals are often

identified as garden-variety poor readers for purposes of research studies when there is

not a gap between reading achievement and intelligence quotient. Although this

distinction in identifying participants as reading disabled has received much criticism in

the reading research literature (Fletcher et al., 1994), it is frequently used by school

districts to determine eligibility for services

While reading disability seems to be best characterized by impairment in the

phonological core, there is evidence of variability around this core (Morris et al., 1998;

Stanovich & Siegel, 1993; Vellutino et al., 2004). For example, in a large scale study

using cluster analysis, Morris et al. (1998) identified seven subtypes of reading disability.

While all subtypes shared impairments in phonological processing, two of the seven

subtypes were characterized by impairment in cognitive skills as well; individuals in this

subtype were categorized as garden-variety poor readers (Morris et al., 1998). The seven

reading-disabled subtypes identified by Morris et al. (1998) consisted of the two subtypes

with impaired cognitive ability reflected in deficient language skills, four with

weaknesses in phonological awareness and variations in short-term memory and rapid

naming skills, and one subtype with impaired verbal and nonverbal measures associated

with rate and accuracy of oral reading. Morris et al. (1998) concluded that their results

were consistent with the PCVD model proposed by Stanovich (1988, 1993).

The importance of the phonological core of reading and its central role in reading

disability persists as disabled readers get older (Bruck, 1992; Shaywitz et al., 1999;









Wilson & Lesaux, 2001). In a longitudinal study, Shaywitz et al. (1999) reported on the

outcome in adolescence of young children diagnosed as dyslexic. Three groups of

subjects for the outcome study were selected from the large-scale Connecticut

Longitudinal Study when they were in Grade 9 (Shaywitz et al., 1999). One group of

children met the criteria for persistent reading disability in Grade 2 through Grade 6.

These adolescents met either the discrepancy definition or low-achievement definition of

reading disability for four of five years in Grade 2 through Grade 6. The other group did

not meet either criteria and was divided into average and superior readers based on a

standardized reading score. The 9th grade students were assessed on cognitive skills,

including phonological awareness, academic skills, and intellectual skills. Shaywitz et al.

(1999) found that the deficits in phonological coding that were present in the early school

years for the group with persistent reading disability still characterized the older readers

in adolescence.

Bruck (1992) corroborated the persistence of phonological processing deficits and

dyslexia into adulthood. She studied two populations of dyslexics. The first sample

included children between the ages of 8 and 16 years whose word recognition scores

were substantially below their intelligence level. The second sample consisted of adults

between the ages of 19 and 27 years who were diagnosed as dyslexic in childhood based

on poor word recognition skills and whose word-recognition scores ranged from Grade 1

to Grade 12 as adults. Four control groups were selected from good readers in Grades 1

through 3 and from a sample of college students. These two clinical samples of

individuals with dyslexia and the four control groups of normal readers were matched

separately for age level and reading level and were tested on a battery of phonological









awareness skills. Bruck (1992) found that phoneme awareness did not develop as a

function of age or reading level for children with dyslexia and that there was little

development of this skill between childhood and adulthood.

Connecting the Phonological Core to Intervention

Although a solid link between deficits in phonological awareness skills and reading

disability has been established in the literature, intervention that targets phonological

awareness skill alone is not sufficient in remediation of reading disability (Bus &

Ijzendoorn, 1999; Ehri et al., 2001; Harm, McCandliss, & Seidenberg, 2003; McCandliss,

Beck, Sandak, & Perfetti, 2003). An intervention study by McCandliss et al. (2003)

illustrates this point.

McCandliss and his colleagues (2003) developed an intervention called Word-

Building that taught children with deficient decoding skills how to attend to and

manipulate each grapheme position within a word using lettered tiles. This was done

through a procedure of progressive minimal pairing of words that differed only by one

grapheme. Children in the 1st grade who had deficient decoding, word identification, and

phonological awareness skills were randomly assigned to either the treatment group or

the control group. Interestingly, pre-intervention assessment revealed that the children

could decode the first letter in a pseudoword but not letters in the medial or final position.

The children who received the Word-Building intervention made significant

improvements on a formal word attack test and on a pseudoword decoding task, but not

on their word identification skills. McCandliss et al. (2003) attributed this mixed finding

to the nature of the word identification task which required reading irregular words that

do not follow the rules of English. Thus, enhanced grapheme-phoneme decoding skills

did not transfer to more accurate reading of irregular words.









In another study, Harm, McCandliss, and Seidenberg (2003) developed a simulated

model of two reading interventions, one involving only phoneme manipulation and one

involving phoneme-grapheme manipulation, in an effort to determine what made the

Word-Building (McCandliss et al., 2003) intervention successful. Their reading-

intervention simulation model was based on earlier work of Harm and Seidenberg (1999)

whose simulated acquisition of phonological knowledge was based on a connectionist

framework and explained through a series of computations involving orthographic,

phonologic, and semantic information. Harm and Seidenberg (1999) postulated that

words and nonwords are processed in the same way, by presentation of orthographic

pattern input that initiates or activates weighted connections throughout an attractor

network. They hypothesized that developmental dyslexia resulted from damage to the

network. For a full account of the theoretical framework of the Connectionist Model and

the attractor networks see Seidenberg & McClelland (1989) and Plaut, McClelland,

Seidenberg, and Patterson (1996).

Harm, McCandliss, and Seidenberg (2003) proposed the mapping theory as an

explanation for successful intervention and argued that phonological awareness activities

needed to go beyond phoneme manipulation to attain effectiveness for children who have

begun to read. Harm et al. (2003) believed that the key component to the success of the

Word-Building intervention was teaching the child to build a new word with letter tiles

by changing a single letter tile in the previous word in combination with reading the

progressively changing word. This technique was thought to place pressure on the

orthographic-to-phonological system to form mappings more sensitive to the internal

components or parts of words (Harm et al. 2003). To validate the mapping theory, Harm









et al. applied the same word-building technique (McCandliss et al., 2003) to a computer

simulated model. Five simulations were created: a normal simulation with intact

phonological representations, an impaired simulation, and three simulations that were

remediated early in reading instruction, after 10,000 reading trials (i.e., early in reading),

and after 100,000 reading trials (i.e., later in reading). Harm et al. found that the word-

building intervention that targeted the relationship between print and sound was

successful at the onset of literacy training, early in reading, and later in reading.

The mapping hypothesis predicted that letter-sound mapping changes the

orthographic-to-phonological mapping, making it more componential, and impacting the

reading skills of older children with reading disability. Such children have already

formed poor orthographic-to-phonological mappings and need to do more to change the

phonological system by creating new orthographic-to-phonological mappings (Harm et

al., 2003).Transforming one word into another word through simultaneous grapheme-

phoneme manipulation is one way to create these new mappings.

If orthographic-to-phonological mapping, activated by word-building activities, can

improve word reading ability beyond the time of early reading instruction, it is reasonable

to expect that activating multiple senses will produce even stronger mappings in the

reading system. Such is the premise of multisensory reading instruction which calls on

visual, auditory, and tactile-kinesthetic modalities in remediation techniques.

Multisensory Approach

The multisensory approach to remedial training for students with reading disability

has its origins in the work of Samuel T. Orton, known as the "father of dyslexia"

(Colony, 2001). Two of Orton's colleagues, Bessie Stillman and Anna Gillingham,

worked with Orton to develop the Orton-Gillingham-Stillman Approach (commonly









referred to as the O-G method) to reading intervention and today there are numerous

multisensory intervention approaches that are modified versions the O-G method

(Richardson, 2001). The multisensory approach is based on the integration of the visual,

auditory, and tactile-kinesthetic sensory organs (Gillingham & Stillman, 1997). The

student starts by learning individual sounds and then using the sounds to build words

(Gillingham & Stillman, 1997). As the student builds words, he/she also builds close

associations between what is seen in print (visual), what is heard (auditory), and what is

felt orally as the sounds of the letters are produced (tactile sensations in the mouth) and

the letters are printed (kinesthetic sensations in the large muscle movements) (Gillingham

& Stillman, 1997).

In 2001, the International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council

(IMSLEC) published its first compilation of research articles titled, Clinical Studies of

Multisensory Structured Language Educationfor Students i/th Dyslexia and Related

Disorders (McIntyre & Pickering, 2001). What distinguishes multisensory structured

approaches to reading intervention from other approaches is the content (what is taught)

and the principles of instruction (how it is taught) (McIntyre & Pickering, 2001). Table 2-

1 and Table 2-2 provide a summary of the content and principles, respectively, of

multisensory instruction.

Sound-symbol association must be taught in two directions, visual to auditory,

where the student sees a letter and hears the sound that it makes, and auditory to visual,

where the student hears a sound and identifies the corresponding letter. Syllable

identification includes teaching six basic types of syllables according to the O-G

approach, closed, vowel-consonant-e, open, consonant-le, r controlled, and diphthong.










Finally, instruction in morphology includes teaching how morphemes are combined to

form words and identifying base words and affixes.

Table 2-1. Content of Multisensory Instruction (IMSLEC, 2001)
Content component Definition
1. Phonology Study of phonemes, the smallest unit of sound
that can be recognized as being distinct from
other sounds in a given language.


2. Phonological Awareness

3. Sound-Symbol Association


4. Syllable Identification

5. Morphology

6. Syntax


7. Semantics


Understanding of the internal linguistic
structure of words
Knowledge of the sounds of the English
language and their correspondence to the letters
which represent those sounds.
Ability to identify a syllable as a unit of oral or
written language with one vowel sound.
Study of morphemes, the smallest unit of
meaning in a language.
The set of principles that dictate the sequence
and function of words in a sentence, including
instruction in principles of grammar.
The meaning conveyed by written and spoken
language.


Table 2-2. Principles of Multisensory Instruction (IMSLEC, 2001)
Principle component Definition/Explanation
1. Simultaneous Instruction All learning pathways of the brain-
visual/auditory and kinesthetic/tactile-are used
to enhance learning and memory
2. Systematic Organization of material must follow the
logical order of the language, beginning with
the most basic elements and proceeding to
more difficult elements.
3. Cumulative New steps are based on those already learned
and old rules are constantly reviewed and
woven into new teaching.
4. Direct Instruction All concepts and rules are taught directly and
to proficiency.
5. Diagnostic Teaching Teaching is based on continuous assessment
of the student's needs and progress.
6. Analytic Phonics Students break a whole sentence into words or
a word into its component letters or sounds.
7. Synthetic Phonics Students learn how to blend individual words
into a sentence and individual letters and
sounds into a word.









Commercial Orton-Gillingham Approaches

Students of Orton have developed multisensory reading interventions based on the

Orton-Gillingham Method. Among the more well-known methods are the Slingerland

Multisensory Approach, the Spalding Method, Alphabetic Phonics, the Herman

Approach, and the Wilson Approach (McIntyre & Pickering, 2001). Each of these

commercially available programs uses a multisensory explicit phonics approach that

emphasizes visual and auditory feedback for sounds and tactile-kinesthetic input of letter

formation (Alexander & Slinger-Constant, 2004). However, the specific content of each

varies slightly program to program. For example, Alphabetic Phonics focuses only on the

most probable spellings of each sound while Orton emphasized all possible spellings of

speech sounds (Cox, 2001). Alphabetic Phonics includes benchmark measures tied to its

curriculum; this allows the tutor to use criterion-referenced tests to assess student

progress (Cox, 2001). The Herman Approach includes several unique tactile-kinesthetic

exercises (Herman, 2001). In blind writing, students are blind-folded as they trace letters

on the table to the beat of a metronome. Bimanual writing requires the student to write

letters on the chalkboard with both hands simultaneously. The Slingerland Multisensory

Approach is a classroom adaptation of the O-G Approach that can be used with any

reading text (White, 2001). The Wilson Reading System is appropriate for older students,

Grade 5 through adulthood and includes a specific sequence of 12 steps; each one must

be mastered before moving on to the next step (Wilson, 2001). Although there are

differences in the strategies and components of each of these programs, they all stress the

importance of focusing on the strengths of the child, acknowledging his/her successes

and building on these successes to produce confident and able readers.









Empirical Studies of Multisensory Approaches

At a recent conference of the International Dyslexia Association (November 2004),

Lyon stated that literacy instruction and literacy intervention programs should be based

on converging scientific evidence and focus directly on the components identified by the

NRP as being instrumental to reading, 1) phonemic awareness, 2) phonics, 3) vocabulary,

4) fluency, and 5) comprehension. According to Lyon (2004), a study is deemed to be

scientific when 1) there are a clear set of testable questions; 2) methods are appropriate to

answer questions and falsify competing hypotheses; 3) there is an explicit link between a

theory and previous research; 4) data are examined systematically and with appropriate

tools; and 5) data are available for review and criticism. In order for researchers to claim

effectiveness for an intervention program and to generalize results to other populations,

they must randomly assign participants (both students and teachers) to treatment and no

treatment conditions.

Given limitations of various resources such as time, money, and personnel, the

above criteria are hard to meet. It is important to recognize that valuable information can

also be gained from quasi-experimental research designs, although results do not offer

empirical evidence of treatment efficacy. In fact, many of the studies reported on by the

International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council (2001) are quasi-

experimental in design (Alexander & Slinger-Constant, 2004). Studies of reading

interventions based on multisensory approaches that utilized both quasi-experimental and

experimental design have been reported in peer-reviewed journals as well (Brooks &

Weeks, 1998; Foorman et al.,1997; Guyer & Sabatino, 1989; Joshi, Dahlgren, &

Boulware-Gooden, 2002; Oakland, Black, Stanford, Nussbaum, & Balise, 1998;

Shaywitz et al., 2004; Thorpe & Borden, 1985; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997).









A number of researchers have investigated the effect of using a multisensory

teaching approach with children (Foorman et al., 1997; Joshi, Dahlgren, & Boulware-

Gooden, 2002; Oakland, Black, Stanford, Nussbaum, & Balise, 1998; Shaywitz et al.,

2004; Thorpe & Borden, 1985; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997). Joshi et al. (2002),

Oakland et al. (1998), and Foorman et al. (1997) implemented multisensory treatment

approaches based on adaptations of Alphabetic Phonics (Cox, 1985).

Joshi, Dahlgren, and Boulware-Gooden (2002) compared the reading progress of

1st grade children who were taught reading skills through Language Basics: Elementary,

a multisensory approach based on Alphabetic Phonics (Cox, 2001) and 1st grade children

who were taught reading with a basal reading program. The children in this study were

not identified as having a reading disability or being at risk for reading disability. Pre and

post test measures were taken on the children's phonological awareness, word attack and

reading comprehension. Joshi et al. (2002) found that the 1st grade children taught with

the multisensory O-G-based approach made significant gains on post test measures of

phonological awareness, word attack, and reading comprehension while the control group

children made significant gains only on reading comprehension.

Joshi et al. (2002) attributed the superior performance of the treatment group to the

systematic and explicit instruction in synthetic phonics taught in the multisensory

approach. However, their study had several methodological flaws that limited their

findings. First, the study took place in different classrooms in different schools; this

introduced uncontrolled variables such as classroom dynamics, teacher experience, and

administrative support. Second, the participants were not randomly chosen or assigned to

a treatment or control group; however the specific method of participant selection and









group assignment was not explained. Finally, the children in this study were not

identified as reading disabled nor considered at risk for reading disability. Therefore,

effectiveness of treatment cannot be generalized to children with reading disability.

Oakland et al. (1998) commented on problems of weak experimental design in

reading disability research in their study of the Dyslexia Training Program (DTP). The

DTP, an adaptation of Alphabetic Phonics (Cox, 2001), is a remedial reading program

that uses multisensory teaching to promote reading in students with reading disability.

Oakland et al. (1998) investigated the effectiveness of the DTP in improving the reading

and spelling achievement over a 2-year period of 4th grade students with reading

disability.

Twenty-two students with dyslexia served as the treatment group and received

reading instruction with the DTP; twenty-six students also identified as dyslexic served as

the control group and received the reading instruction normally provided in their school.

Diagnosis of dyslexia was based on a 15-point discrepancy between full scale IQ and

word recognition. Oakland et al. (1998) measured gains on reading comprehension, word

recognition, spelling, monosyllabic phonological decoding, and polysyllabic

phonological decoding. Compared to the control group, the DTP group made significant

progress over the two year period on reading comprehension, word recognition, and

polysyllabic phonological decoding.

Several qualities of this study offer moderate empirical evidence of treatment

effectiveness. First, the participants in the control and treatment groups were matched on

intelligence, reading achievement, gender, age, grade, and socioeconomic status.

However, participants were not randomly assigned to the treatment or control groups.









Rather, students identified as dyslexic by one clinic were designated the treatment group

and students identified by another clinic were designated the control group. Second the

treatment was sufficiently long (two years) to allow generalization to long-term

application in school settings (Oakland et al., 1998). However, the researchers were not

able to control for supplementary reading instruction outside the DTP or the quality of

reading instruction provided in the regular classroom to the control group.

Foorman et al. (1997) investigated the effectiveness of a synthetic phonics

program, an analytic phonics program, and a sight-word reading program for 114

children in Grade 2 and Grade 3 with reading disability. The reading interventions took

place in a traditional public school classroom setting. The synthetic phonics intervention

was modeled after Alphabetic Phonics (Cox, 2001). Children were previously identified

by their school district as learning disabled and were further identified as reading

disabled for the study if their combined word attack and word identification score was

less than or equal to the 25th percentile. Across groups, participants were not matched for

IQ score, initial decoding scores, socioeconomic status (SES), age, gender, or ethnicity

and group make-up varied on these characteristics.

In the synthetic phonics program, letter-sound associations were taught directly

through visual, auditory, and kinesthetic sensory input and followed a systematic

approach that proceeded from simple to complex rules. In the analytic phonics approach,

onset-rime analysis was the core skill taught; this intervention included discussion of

word meaning, writing of sentences using the target rime, and choral reading. In the

sight-word program, students were taught 150 words by pairing spoken words with

printed words or pictures.









Foorman et al. (1997) found that the synthetic phonics group outperformed the

analytic phonics group in phonological and orthographic processing and word reading.

the sight-word group in phonological processing. However, when SES, ethnicity, gender,

and VIQ were added to a growth-curve analytical model, the only treatment effect to

remain significant was the superior performance of the synthetic phonics group compared

to the sight-word group in phonological processing (Foorman et al., 1997). Teachers who

participated in this study volunteered for one of the three treatment groups, thus group

assignment was not random. Furthermore, results were confounded by demographic

variables such as SES and verbal IQ. Finally, the length of the study may not have been

long enough to realize major gains in young children with reading disability. This is a

problem Oakland et al. (1998) cited and addressed in their study.

Continuing the theme of reading-intervention programs with children, Shaywitz et

al. (2004) investigated the effects of a multisensory, phonologically-based reading

program (experimental intervention) on the brain activation patterns of children with

reading disability. Brain activation patterns of participants engaged in a letter-

identification task were measured before and after intervention using functional magnetic

resonance imaging (fMRI). Children were considered reading disabled if they had a

standard score of 90 or below on either a test of word identification or word attack and on

the average of both tests (Shaywitz et al., 2004). Over an eight-month period, children

identified with reading disability received either an experimental intervention or a

community intervention. Children with normal reading ability participated in a

community control group. Children with reading disability in the community intervention

received whatever intervention was commonly provided in their school setting, including









resource room, special education, or speech-language services. No child in the

community intervention group did received a systematic, explicit, phonics-based

intervention comparable to the one used in the experimental intervention (Shaywitz et al.,

2004).

The experimental intervention included instruction on sound-symbol association,

phoneme analysis and blending by manipulation of letter cards or tiles, dictated spelling

words (students repeated the word before spelling it and were encouraged to stretch out

the sounds of the word before spelling it), and oral reading of stories. The group

receiving the experimental intervention made significant gains on their reading fluency

compared to the community intervention group but not compared to the community

control group. The fMRI results showed increased activation in left hemisphere regions

for the experimental intervention group and the community control group immediately

after intervention (Shaywitz et al., 2004). Shaywitz et al. (2004) concluded that the

provision of an intensive phonologically-based reading intervention, that used

multisensory techniques, brought about brain activation patterns in children with reading

disability that resembled those of typical readers.

Unfortunately, like previous studies, some methodological weaknesses interfere

with generalization of results. Children in this study were recruited from different

populations. The children in the experimental intervention were recruited from a school

district in one state. Children in the community intervention group and community

control group were recruited from another state from referral sources such as

pediatricians' offices and community organizations. Thus, participants were not

randomly assigned to the treatment groups and control group. There were other









confounding variables as well. For example, because children attended school in different

states, reading curricula in the classroom may have varied widely and could not be

controlled. Also, it is not known what kind of, if any, extra-curricular reading activities

children in the community control group participated in.

Despite the confounding variables noted in the study by Shaywitz et al. (2004), it is

promising that fMRI results showed neurobiological changes in children who received

the phonologically-based treatment one year after the treatment ended. In fact, similar

findings of neural changes after phonological training in children as well as adults have

been reported in the literature (Aylward et al., 2003; Eden et al., 2004; Simos et al.,

2002). For example, Eden et al. (2004) used fMRI to take brain images of adults with

dyslexia. Before intervention, the adults with dyslexia exhibited phonological and

physiological (i.e., brain activity) deficits compared to adults that did not have dyslexia.

One half of the adults with dyslexia received training in a phonological manipulation task

Following the intervention, the adults with dyslexia who received the phonological

training demonstrated improvements in phonological processing and increased activity in

the same left-hemisphere regions engaged by normal readers (i.e., parietal cortex). The

non-tutored adults with dyslexia did not exhibit such changes.

Only a few studies have examined the effectiveness of multisensory approaches

with older students with learning disability (Brooks & Weeks 1998; Guyer & Sabatino

1989). Brooks and Weeks (1998) compared the responses of adolescent students with

different cognitive profiles on different strategies for teaching spelling. Students who had

scores below the 20th percentile on a graded word spelling test but whose cognitive status

was average or above were considered dyslexic. Students whose IQ scores were one









standard deviation below the mean were considered slow learners and were matched for

age with the dyslexic students. The control group consisted of children with normal IQ

scores who were matched on spelling age to the dyslexic participants. Participants were

taught spelling words using one of three teaching methods, a phonics method, a

visual/semantic teaching method, and a tracing method. Brooks and Weeks (1998)

hypothesized that students with dyslexia would learn less well in a phonics-based method

that was dependent on phonemic skills that characterize their weakness in phonological

awareness. They predicted that the spelling of the students with dyslexia would improve

more with the visual/semantic teaching method than the phonics method and the spelling

of the slow-learners would improve more with the phonics method than the

visual/semantic method.

In the phonics method, students listened as the teacher sounded out and pointed to

each letter of a word. In the visual/semantic method, students examined printed words to

find smaller words within the given word (e.g., tramp in trampoline). In the tracing

method, students used their index finger to trace over the letters of a word as if writing

the word. Intervention lasted a total of three weeks with each participant practicing one

method per week. Before instruction with each method, teachers obtained a baseline

measure of words spelled correctly. The spelling method was taught Tuesday-Thursday;

on Friday the participants spelled their practice words with no teaching. Different words

were used in each teaching method. Brooks and Weeks (1998) found that the students

with dyslexia learned significantly more words with the visual/semantic method that

required visualizing the word, recalling the composition of the word, and pointing to the

smaller words while naming the words. Subjecting all participants to each of the









treatment conditions allowed Brooks and Weeks (1998) to investigate which group

learned best under which condition. However, by exposing all participants to each

condition, it is not possible to determine if it was the treatment itself or the order of

treatments that made the difference in spelling skills. Also, the treatment was short in

duration and it is possible that classroom teachers would not continue to differentiate

spelling instruction for the dyslexic and slow-learners. Finally, further investigation is

needed to determine if improved spelling skills transfers to other written language tasks

such as word identification and word attack.

Citing a lack of literature addressing reading intervention with older reading

disabled students, Guyer and Sabatino (1989) examined the improvement in reading

skills of college students with learning disability assigned to one of three conditions.

They were particularly interested in whether college students with learning disability who

were exposed to a multisensory O-G approach would make more progress in reading

compared to students who were taught with a nonphonetic approach or who received no

intervention. Thirty college students were selected randomly from a college's tutorial

program for students with learning disability. Students were considered learning disabled

if they showed a discrepancy of more than one standard deviation between their ability

and achievement scores on an IQ test.

The multisensory techniques used in the O-G approach included lessons in syllable

division, breaking down words into component sounds and blending sounds into words,

teaching specific decoding and encoding rules, and teaching reading, spelling, and

handwriting simultaneously. Students in the nonphonetic approach followed a basic-skills

reading series that focused on comprehension and literature appreciation and taught them









how to analyze stories for main idea and supporting information; however, no attention

was given to word attack skills. Pre and post tests that assessed word recognition,

spelling, and word attack were administered. Guyer and Sabatino (1989) found that the

students who received instruction in the O-G multisensory approach achieved statistically

significant gains in their reading scores compared to students in the other two conditions.

The random selection of participants from the tutorial program was a strength of

this study. However, the researchers did not state how they assigned participants to

treatment groups, thus making replication of the study difficult. It is encouraging that

college students made positive gains on tests of word recognition, spelling, and word

attack in the short five-week duration of the study. A longer intervention study would

allow researchers more time to target issues particularly important to a college population

such as heavy reading loads, advanced-level text and frequent written assignments, as

well as investigating the long-term success of the intervention.

The Older Reading Disabled Student

As the above discussion has illustrated, much is known about the effective

components of reading instruction, the phonological core of reading disability, and

successful techniques to reading intervention. However, as reported by the National

Association of Educational Progress (2002), the average performance of 8th grade readers

remained flat from 1998 to 2002 and declined for 12th graders. The same components of

effective reading instruction identified by the NRP (2000) can be applied to reading

instruction in the adolescent years, keeping in mind the educational demands of middle

and high school and the history of reading failure experienced by older struggling readers

(Kamil, 2003).









It has been almost twenty years since Stanovich (1986) described the downward

spiral faced by older students with reading disability. This downward spiral starts early in

the reading acquisition cycle, when deficiency in phonological awareness skills combines

with a lack of exposure to print resulting in lack of reading practice for a young child

(Stanovich, 1986). The downward spiral continues as the child brings poor fluency skills

reflected in reduced automaticity and speed to reading material that is too difficult

(Stanovich). Children who start off reading well develop good vocabularies, continue to

read and build their vocabularies, and hence continue to enhance their reading skills. In

contrast, children with inadequate vocabularies, reflecting inadequate exposure to print,

read slowly, without enjoyment, and read less, leading to an impoverished vocabulary

which further inhibits growth in reading. Stanovich (1986) refers to this frequently

observed pattern as the Matthew Effect

These negative experiences may translate into negative attitudes toward self and

school as well as negative patterns of behavior that develop after years of failure with

reading; such attitudes and patterns can be difficult to change (Denti & Geurin, 2004).

Clearly, teenagers who struggle with reading difficulty present different challenges than

those posed by young children (Heck & Deshler, 2003).

Summary

The review of the literature in this chapter has presented a case for reading

intervention based on the O-G multisensory approach. Interventions based on this

approach are thought to be particularly effective because they target the core component

implicated in reading disability, phonological awareness and letter-sound decoding.

However, many gaps exist in the literature supporting multisensory approaches. First, few

research studies meet the strict criteria for scientific rigor in establishing empirical






35


support for specific interventions as identified by Lyon (2004). Vigorous empirical

studies often do not lend themselves easily to the parameters of educational settings.

Second, few well designed studies have examined the effectiveness of using a

multisensory approach with older reading disabled students. The purpose of our study

was to address these issues by carrying-out a well-designed reading intervention using a

multisensory approach for high school students with reading disability














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

The purpose of our study was to determine the effects of a multisensory reading-

intervention approach on the reading skills of students with reading disability. We

measured several areas of students' reading skills to determine their basic reading level.

We measured reading skills for word identification, word decoding, spelling, sound

awareness, and word identification and decoding of nonsense words under timed

conditions. A systematically assigned control group design (Tuckman, 1999) was used to

establish reading-intervention and control groups. Participants were assigned to the

reading-interventio group based on low pre-test scores. Students who achieved higher

pre-test scores were assigned to the control group and did not receive the treatment. The

research methods presented in this section are addressed under the headings of

instructional setting, recruitment and selection of participants and reading tutors,

dependent and independent variables, instrumentation, reading program details and

implementation, and treatment of the data.

Instructional Setting

The reading-intervention program took place at a charter high school in Alachua

County, Florida. The school is a public charter school for high school students with

reading and language difficulties; as a charter school, no tuition or fees are required to

attend the school. Grades 9 and 10 were enrolled in 2003 and Grade 11 was added in

2004. The reading and language difficulties of the students include word decoding,

reading comprehension, oral expression, auditory processing, and written expression.









The charter school offers students a standard diploma; however, other options are

available. The student/teacher ratio is low and class sizes are small. During the 2004-

2005 school year, there were five faculty members and 30 enrolled students. In addition,

two part-time speech-language pathologists and a part-time occupational therapist serve

the school. The following is the mission statement of the school, as provided in the

school's promotional brochure:

...High School is the first public charter high school in Alachua County
specifically for reading and language challenged students. ...is dedicated to
implementing innovative learning strategies designed to meet the individual talents
and needs of all our students. The school is committed to assessing students on an
individual basis by maintaining low student/teacher ratios, small classes, and by
using assistive technologies. The school will work to help the student continue to
make reading gains, and to build confidence and self esteem which are essential for
success outside of school (charter school brochure, Appendix A).

Participant Recruitment

The University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB-02) approval (UFIRB

Protocol # 2003-U-844) (Appendix B) was received to recruit participants and conduct

the research. At the end of August, 2004, the researcher presented an overview of this

research study to the parents of the student at the charter school during the school's open

house. The researcher explained the nature of the multisensory phonics approach, the

duration of the reading intervention, and the time, days, and location of the program.

Parents who expressed interest in the reading intervention were given a Parent Consent

form to sign (Appendix C). Parents had the option of signing and returning the consent

form at the open house or taking it home to consider and returning it to school with their

child. Parents who took the consent form home were given two weeks in which to return

the form and were told to have their child give the consent form to the school's director.

Once the return deadline occurred, the director contacted the researcher and gave her the









consent forms. Using the described procedures, consent was obtained for twenty students

to participate in the study.

All students at the charter school were potential participants if they returned a

signed consent form. A student's enrollment at the charter school assumed the presence

of a reading or language difficulty and an agreement to a behavioral contract if warranted

by the school's director. Assessment to determine eligibility for the reading-intervention

program took place over a one-week period at the charter school. The researcher

administered all tests used to determine participant eligibility All potential participants

were given pure-tone hearing screenings to confirm normal hearing status.

Twenty students returned signed consent forms and were considered potential

participants. Of these twenty students, 14 were classified according to Alachua County

School's Exceptional Student Eligibility (ESE) as Specific Learning Disabled, two were

classified as Other Health Impaired, three did not have an ESE classification, and one

student had recently been declassified as Emotionally Handicapped, but possibly

Learning Disabled. Six of the 14 students with Specific Learning Disability status were

also classified as Speech-Language Impaired. Experimental and control group

participants' ESE classifications are provided in Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

Reading Tutor Recruitment and Selection

Reading tutors were recruited from first year graduate students in the Department

of Communication Disorders and Sciences at the University of Florida (UF). In August of

the 2004-2005 academic year, a UF Speech and Hearing Clinic orientation was held for

all incoming graduate students. At this orientation, supervising Speech-Language

Pathologists described their clinic placements, including this researcher's reading-

intervention program/doctoral dissertation and the requirements to become a reading









tutor. Six first year graduate students chose the reading-intervention program as their first

choice for their first placement and thus became the reading tutors (assuming they passed

the Barton Tutor Screening, described below). All reading tutors were females; two had

clinical experience at the undergraduate level, one was currently employed as an SLP in

the Alachua County Schools, and three had no previous clinical experience. Tutor

screening and training is described below under Program Implementation.

Operational Definition of Variables

The primary hypothesis tested in this study is that high school students with reading

disability who are assigned to a reading-intervention group based on low pretest reading

scores and who receive a multisensory Orton-Gillingham influenced approach to reading

intervention will make stronger improvements on posttest reading scores compared to a

control group of students who do not receive intervention. The dependent variables were

selected subskills of reading ability measured both pre-intervention and post-intervention

by formal standardized tests. The independent variable was participation in an Orton-

Gillingham influenced simultaneously multisensory explicit and systematic phonics

approach.

Research Instrumentation

Pretest and posttest measurement included The Woodcock Johnson III

Achievement Test (WJ III-Ach, Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) and the Test of

Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE, Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). The WJ III-

Ach was used to determine participant eligibility. To qualify as reading disabled for this

study, students were required to demonstrate below average ability in single word

spelling, single word reading, word attack, or phonemic awareness as determined by

scores of one or more standard deviations below the mean (standard score of < 85) on at









least two basic reading skills subtests of the WJ III-Ach, that included Letter-Word

Identification which was used to measure word identification skills through letter

identification and word pronunciation; Spelling which was used to measure skill in

spelling spoken words correctly; WordAttack which was used to measure skill in

applying phonic and structural analysis skills to the pronunciation of unfamiliar printed

words, and Sound Awareness which was used to measure phonemic awareness skills and

consisted of four parts, Rhyming, Deletion, Substitution, and Reversal.

The TOWRE was given to measure ability to pronounce both sight words (Sight

Word Efficiency subtest) and nonwords (Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest)

accurately and fluently in timed conditions.

Participant Selection

The experimental group consisted of 9 students who qualified to participate in the

after-school reading-intervention program. The control group consisted of nine students;

six students who did not meet eligibility criteria based on the pretest scores and three

students who meet pretest eligibility criteria but could not participate due to schedule

conflicts.

Tables 3-1 and 3-2 describe students in the reading-intervention group and control

group, including assigned participant number, gender, grade, chronological age at pre-

test, and ESE classification. Identification numbers were assigned consecutively by grade

level and alphabetically by surname within each grade level. Hence, the first student in

Grade 9 with the first last name alphabetically was given identification number 1. The

numbers continued consecutively and alphabetically through Grade nine and number 6;

numbering continued in Grade 10 with identification number 7 assigned to the student

whose last name occurred first alphabetically in that grade. Table 3-3 consists of mean









test scores of the experimental group and the control group on the pre-test assessment

battery.

Table 3-1. Reading-intervention group characteristics
Id. # 7 10 11 12 13 14 16 18 20
Gender M M F M F F F M F
Grade 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11
CA 15;11 15;4 16;4 15;11 15;5 15;2 16;2 17;5 16;7
(Years;Months)
ESE Class SLDa SLD None SLD SLI OHIC SLD SLD SLD
SLIb SLI

Table 3-2. Control group characteristics


Id. # 2 3 4 6
Gender M M M F
Grade 9 9 9 9
CA 15;3 16;10 14;8 1
(Years;Months)


5;11


8
F
10
15.11


9
F
10
15;4


15
M
10
16;8


17
M
11
17;9


19
F
11
16;3


ESE Class SLD SLD SLD SLD None SLD SLD SLD None
SLI SLI SLI
Notes: Student # 1 and student #5 did not participate. aSLD = Specific Learning
Disability (primary classification). bSLI = Speech Language Impaired (additional
exceptionality). COHI = Other Health Impaired (primary classification).


Table 3-3. Mean Pre-test scores.
Experimental Group (N = 9)


Control Group (N = 9)


WJIII Achievement Test
Letter-Word Identification 69.22 90.88
Spelling 64.11 90.88
Word Attack 76.77 89.22
Sound Awareness 74.66 90.33
Basic Reading Skills 74.11 90.44
TOWRE
Sight Word Efficiency 45.55 82.44
Phonemic Decoding 59.66 83.66
Efficiency

Instructional Method

The Barton Reading and Spelling System

The Barton Reading and Spelling System (BRSS) is an Orton-Gillingham

influenced, simultaneously multisensory, explicit, and systematic phonics program









created by Susan Barton. The meaning of each of these components is given on the

Barton website (Barton 2000).

The BRSS employs simultaneous multisensory instruction by appealing to the

student's visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic senses in the learning process. Tutors

teach, and students practice, rules of written language one at a time until a rule is stable in

both reading and spelling, then a new rule is introduced. Hence, this program uses direct,

explicit instruction. The Barton program is systematic and cumulative in that tutors start

by teaching very basic rules as a foundation of written language and build upon these

rules until a student is able to apply these rules automatically and fluently when reading

and spelling. Old rules are reviewed as new ones are taught. This systematic and

cumulative process is meant to help a student understand that there is logic behind the

rules of the English language. The Barton program employs both synthetic phonics,

where a student builds words from individual sounds and letters, and analytic phonics,

where a student learns how to break longer words into its components letters and sounds.

Finally, tutors practice diagnostic teaching; they continuously assess a student's

knowledge of the rules and ability to apply the rules. The tutor engages the student in a

dialogue asking the student to explain why a particular rule affects how a word is spelled

and pronounced. When a student makes a mistake, the tutor guides the student with

dialogue to figure out where the mistake occurred and how to correct the mistake.

Levels of instruction

The Barton Reading and Spelling System consists of ten levels presented in

separate books, each of which is designed to teach different reading and spelling rules of

the English language (Table 3-4). Each level is broken down into lessons and each lesson

is further broken down into procedures. The protocol within a procedure alternates









between spelling and reading exercises, with the tutor either dictating words for the

student to spell or building words with tiles for the student to read. All levels contains

between ten and fourteen lessons with the exception of Level 1 and Level 2, which are

both considerably shorter. Similarly, most lessons contain about fifteen procedures with

the exception of the lessons in Level 1 and Level 2, which have fewer procedures. The

levels are ordered sequentially and increase in difficulty. While some students may

possess enough phonemic awareness to skip Level 1, Barton warns against skipping more

than the first level. The level at which a student begins the Barton program is determined

by a pre-test administered by the tutor.

Table 3-4. Barton System Levels
Barton Levels Name of Level
1 Phonemic Awareness
2 Consonants and Short Vowels
3 Closed and Unit Syllables
4 Multi-Syllable Words and Vowel Teams
5 Prefixes and Suffixes
6 Six Reasons for Silent E
7 Vowel-R's
8 Advanced Vowel Teams
9 Influence of Foreign Languages
10 Latin Roots and Greek Combining Forms

Teaching strategies

The tutor teaches reading and spelling rules using multisensory procedures. With

the exception of Level 1, the procedures are repetitive from level to level and lesson to

lesson, increase in difficulty within a level, and build upon the information taught in

previous lessons. A description of the terms and steps used in the multisensory delivery

is presented here.

Step 1-Tutor dictates word. The tutor gestures to herself with her hand each time

she dictates a word to the student.









Step 2-Student repeats word. The tutor gestures with her hand to the student each

time the student repeats a word.

Step 3-Touch and say. The student taps each tile, starting with the index finger,

and says the sound represented by the tile. In the initial sessions, the tutor demonstrates

this process for the student.

Step 4-Tapping a vowel sound. A specific procedure is used to tap the vowel

sound. Using a two-syllable key word to represent the short vowel sound, the student

begins by tapping the index finger on the table while saying the onset/vowel sound; next

the student taps the middle finger on the table while saying the rime. This is repeated two

times and the student ends by tapping out the vowel sound with the index finger three

times. For example for the short vowel sound of i and the key word itchy, the student

would start tapping with the index finger and say i tap with the middle finger and say i

tchy, repeat this two times, and finish with tapping the i three times with the index finger-

i tchy, i tchy, i, i, i.

Step 5-Slowdown step. The tutor makes a swooping motion with her

dominant/writing hand towards the student as the student repeats the dictated word. The

tutor starts the swoop at the student's left shoulder, brings her arm down toward the table

in an arc, and moves her arm upward towards the student's right should to finish the

swoop.

Step 6-Slowly blend the sounds. The student runs his/her index finger along the

table, below the tiles used to spell the word, in a half-circle/u shape while slowly saying

the word on the tiles.









Step 7-Say it fast like a word. After the student has slowly blended the word,

he/she draws the index finger in a line below the tiles and says the word using a normal

speaking rate.

Step 8-Finger spelling. Starting with the thumb of the non-writing hand and

moving from left to right, the student holds up one finger per sound to spell the word on

his/her fingers.

Lesson Format

A systematic teaching method is used throughout the Barton Reading and Spelling

System. To introduce a new spelling, reading, or syllable division rule, the tutor builds

words with tiles that illustrate the rule and guides the student through dialogue so the

student believes he/she has discovered the rule on his/her own. Once a rule has been

introduced, the tutor and student practices by building and reading a variety of words to

which the rule applies. The tutor always asks the student if there are any sounds or letters

the student needs help with. If the student is sure of his/her work, the student reads the

word, phrase, or sentence to make sure all the words are correct. If the student does not

pick up an error on his/her own, the tutor draws the student's attention to the word and

asks the student to double-check his/her work on that particular word. The tutor never

tells the student he/she is wrong or has made a mistake. Instead, the tutor accepts the

responsibility for errors ("Oh, I must have said that incorrectly, let me say it again, ") and

the tutor and student engage in a problem-solving exercise to find the error. When writing

sentences, the tutor always asks the student if he/she remembered to start the sentence

with a capital letter and ended the sentence with punctuation.









Levels, lessons, and procedures in the Barton Reading and Spelling System

In our study, all participants completed Levels 1 and 2; all participants began Level

3, but only two participants (# 3 and # 13) completed Level 3. These two participants

were just beginning Level 4 at the conclusion of the reading intervention. Only the

lessons and procedures (Table 3-5) specific to these levels are presented.

Level 1: Phonemic Awareness. In the first level, the student is taught that each

sound is represented by a single tile, that different color tiles designate consonants and

vowels, and that by manipulating the tiles, the student can manipulate the sounds in a

word or syllable to create new words and syllables.

Level 1 Lessons and Procedures. Level 1 consists of five lessons that begin with

single syllable vowel (V)-consonant (C) combinations, including VC, CV, CVC, VCC,

and CCV, and end with real words. Blank red tiles represent vowel sounds and blank blue

tiles represent consonant sounds. The procedures begin simply, with the break apart

procedure in which the tutor dictates a syllable such as AK (VC), the student repeats the

word, says it slowly, pulls down one tile per sound, and then touches each tile while

saying the corresponding sound. The break-apart procedure becomes progressively more

difficult as additional steps are added to this base procedure. For example, in the break-

replace procedure, after the student completes the touch and say, the tutor instructs the

student to make a new syllable by changing one tile as designated by the tutor. The

break-replace-remove procedure adds an additional step in which the tutor instructs the

student to remove a designated tile after the student has completed the break-replace

procedure. The student also practices comparing two words that differ in only one

tile/sound. The tutor builds two words and uses the touch and say strategy for each sound

until the student identifies the different sound/tile.









Level 2: Consonants and Short Vowels. In the second level of the Barton

Reading and Spelling System, the tutor introduces twenty-one consonants of English, five

vowel sounds, and five digraphs (two consonants that make one sound, such as sh).

Lettered tiles are used instead of the blank tiles used in Level 1 while vowels and

consonants continue to be represented by red and blue tiles respectively.

Level 2 Lessons and Procedures. There are five lessons in Level 2. In the first

four lessons, one vowel sound and a group of consonants are introduced; only the short

sound of the vowel is used. In Lesson 5, the tutor teaches the five digraphs and final

vowel sound.

For the first lesson, the tutor teaches six consonants (b, f m, p, s, t) and a short

vowel sound (a as in apple). If the student does not know the sound the vowel makes, the

tutor helps the student identify a key word to represent the vowel and illustrates this on a

"Key Words" page. This exercise is also used to illustrate unfamiliar consonant sounds.

After the vowel sound and consonants are introduced, the tutor either dictates a sound

and the student points to the corresponding tile or the tutor lays out the tiles in front of the

student and the student points to each tile and names the letter and the sound that the

letter makes. Once the student demonstrates consistent knowledge of this set of

consonants and the vowel sound, he/she progresses to reading and spelling real and

nonsense words composed of Lesson 1 sounds only.

To facilitate reading, the tutor builds a word with the tiles. The student does touch

and say for each sound and taps out the vowel sound if it is a difficult sound for the

student. After tapping out the sounds, the student slowly blends the sounds together and

then rapidly to create a real word. Students initially practice spelling procedures with









their fingers and the tiles. Following the tutor's dictation of a word, the student repeats

the word and then says it very slowly. The student then represents each sound of the word

on one of his/her fingers. Starting with the thumb of the non-writing hand, the student

holds up one finger per sound, moving from left to right. After the student has spelled the

dictated word with his/her fingers, the student spells the word with tiles by pulling down

one tile per sound/finger. Once the student has become proficient at spelling words with

his/her fingers and the tiles, the student progresses to spelling words on paper. Instead of

pulling down a tile to represent each sound on his/her finger, the student writes down the

letter that corresponds to the sound on his/her finger. The tutor always reminds the

student to double-check his/her work to make sure that what is written on the paper or

spelled with the tiles is, in fact, the word the student meant to spell.

Two procedures in Level 2 give the student practice reading real printed words and

practice building his/her vocabulary. To practice reading real words, the tutor gives the

student a list of printed words, consisting only of the sounds already learned and a 4" x 6"

index card with a small hole cut in the middle to place around each word. The student

reads down the list of words and uses the touch and say procedure if he/she comes across

an unfamiliar word. To build vocabulary, the student reads a one-syllable word that can

also be a prefix of a longer word. The student and tutor take turns thinking of longer

words that build on the given syllable. For example, the student could read tab and then

generate the words tabular and tablet.

In Level 2, Lesson 2, six new consonants (c, g, h, 1, n, r,) and a new short vowel

sound (i) are introduced. The tutor introduces several new procedures in Lesson 2 that are

continued throughout all lessons at this level. The student begins each lesson with a









review of previously taught letters and their corresponding sounds. This review is

followed by a phonemic awareness warm-up in which the tutor dictates a word and asks

the student to say only the first sound, the last sound, or the middle sound of the word and

to point to the corresponding letter tile. Each lesson comes with extra practice pages that

are used to review the reading and spelling rules taught in the previous lesson. If the

student completes the extra practice page for homework, the tutor reviews the student's

work before going on to new material. If the tutor did not assign the extra practice as

homework, the student has the opportunity to complete the page during the tutoring

session.

In Level 2 lessons, the student begins reading phrases and sentences. In the Read

Phrases procedure, the tutor teaches the student that sentences consist of phrases and that

phrases convey certain information, such as who, didwhat, and where. In the Read

Sentences procedure, the student uses the knowledge learned in the previous lesson to

segment a sentence into the phrase categories just learned. The student then practices

reading the sentence, pausing to indicate a phrase.

In Lesson 3, five consonants (d, j, k, v, z) and a short vowel (o) are taught. In

Lesson 4, the tutor introduces four more consonants (w, x, y, qu) and one more short

vowel (u). In Lesson 5, the final lesson of Level 2, five digraphs (sh, th, wh, ch, and ck)

and the last short vowel sound (e) are taught.

Level 3: Closed & Unit Syllables. In Level 3, many new concepts are taught,

including closed syllables, unit syllables, spelling rules, blends, and contractions.

Students and tutors discuss the concept of a syllable and learn the rules of a closed

syllable (only one vowel, the vowel makes its short sound, and is closed in at the end by a









consonant or blue tile). Students learn spelling rules that govern when to use the letter k

vs. c to make the /k/ sound in the beginning of a word, when to use the letter k vs. ck at

the end of a word to make the /k/ sound, when to use the letters ch vs. tch at the end of a

word to make the ch sound, and when to double the final consonant of a one-syllable

word. Students learn rules to apply to reading and spelling units (in unit syllables, the

sounds are not to be broken apart and the vowel sound does not make its usual sound, for

example the i in ink and ing sounds more like a long e than a short i). Each unit is

represented on a single, orange-colored tile.

Level 3 Lessons and Procedures. New procedures are introduced in Level 3. The

first new procedures address reading and spelling sight words. In the Read New Sight

Word List procedure, the student is given a list of sight words to read. As the student

reads the list of words, the tutor keeps track of the words the student reads incorrectly on

the Sight Word Tracking List. The tutor prints the missed word on an index card and the

student begins to accumulate a reading deck of missed sight words. The student is told to

practice these words and the index cards are brought out in subsequent lessons. Once the

student reads the missed sight word correctly for three lessons, the card is retired from the

sight-word reading deck.

In Create Sight Word Spelling Cards, students are taught a new procedure to

practice misspelled sight words. The tutor dictates the spelling sight words to the student

and the student prints the words on lined notebook paper. The tutor stops dictating words

at three misspellings and makes an index card for each misspelled word. The tutor

teaches the student how to see and spell the word in his/her imagination, see and write the

word on the table and see and write the word on paper. The tutor prints the missed word









on an index card and writes the difficult letters) in red ink for the student. The student

begins by staring at the word to get a good picture of it and then visualizes the word with

his/her eyes closed. After visualizing the word with his/her eyes closed, the student looks

at a blank wall, visualizes the word on the wall, and spells the word aloud. The student

next writes the word with his/her index finger as the pen on the desktop and finishes the

procedure by saying each letter aloud and writing the letter on the paper to spell the word.

The same procedure used to retire a misread sight word is used to retire a misspelled

spelling sight word.

In Level 3, the student continues to spell single words using more advanced

procedures than in Level 2 by spelling dictated phrases and sentences on paper. The final

new procedure in Level 3, Read a Story, introduces the student to reading connected

sentences. This procedure was modified in our study and the modified procedure was

followed throughout the subsequent lessons and levels. As presented in the Barton

System, each lesson includes four stories controlled for the spelling rules taught in the

particular lesson; there are two basic level stories and two advanced level stories. The

tutor uses her own discretion in choosing the appropriate story level for her student. As

presented in the BRSS, the student has one of two options. After reading the story to

him/herself, the student can either read the story aloud to the tutor or can retell the story

in his/her own words. The tutor then asks the student comprehension questions based on

the passage, regardless of the option chosen.

The researcher modified the Read a Story procedure in the following manner. The

student first read the paragraph to him/herself and marked any unfamiliar or difficult

words. After going over the difficult words with the tutor, the student read the story aloud









and the tutor listened for fluent and accurate reading. Sentences were broken down into

phrases to practice smooth reading and misread words were reviewed for correct

decoding. Finally, the student read the story again to him/herself and the tutor asked the

student to identify the who or what of the story and the main idea.

In Lessons 1, 2, 3, and 4, the student practices reading and spelling words with

blends at the beginning of a word, the end of a word, and the beginning and end of a

word. Both two letter blends and three letter blends are used and the tutor teaches the

student to distinguish between blends and digraphs digraphss make one sound and are

presented on the same tile while in a blend each letter retains its sound and is presented

on a separate tile). In Lesson 5, a student is taught to double the final consonant in a

closed one-syllable word when the word ends inf 1, s, or z (the FLOSS rule) and to

understand the exceptions to the rule. In Lesson 6, the student is taught the "Kiss the Cat"

rule which explains when to use k vs. c to make the k sound in the beginning of a word.

In Lesson 7 the "Milk Truck" rule is introduced to explain when to use k vs. ck to make

the k sound at the end of a one-syllable word. Similarly, in Lesson 9 the "Catch Lunch"

rule is introduced to explain when to use tch vs. ch to make the ch sound at the end of a

one-syllable word. Tutors provide the student with the exceptions to the spelling rules. In

Lesson 10, the students are introduced to the concept of contractions; they learn general

spelling rules that govern how to contract two words into a single word.

Level 4: Multi-Syllable Words and Vowel Teams. New spelling and reading

rules are taught in Level 4. After the tutor and student review the concept of a closed

syllable, the tutor introduces the open syllable. The student discovers that an open

syllable means that there is no consonant closing a syllable in at the end and that the









vowel makes its long sound. The tutor also teaches the student rules for dividing multi-

syllable words.

Level 4 Lessons and Procedures. In the beginning of Level 4, the tutor introduces

a new step to the Read Phrases procedure by having the student create "add-on" phrases;

these are phrases that add information to a sentence. Students no longer spell words and

nonsense words on their fingers; however, they continue to spell with the tiles and on

paper.

The first three lessons in Level 4 are devoted to teaching the concept of an open

syllable and to syllable division rules. In Lesson 1, Open Syllables, the tutor teaches that

in an open syllable there is only one vowel, the syllable is open at the end, meaning it is

not closed by a blue consonant tile, and the vowel says its name (i.e., a long vowel

sound). Students learn how to divide syllables in lessons two and three. In Lesson 2,

Syllable Division Rule #1, the tutor first teaches that a word with two non-adjacent

vowels will have two syllables, each vowel belonging in its own syllable. If there is one

letter between the vowels, that letter is moved to the end of the word (e.g., la-bel). The

student and tutor practice this syllable division rule by building words with the tiles and

dividing the words into syllables. After the student divides the word into syllables, the

tutor teaches the student how to check his/her work to make sure the division was done

correctly. To check his/her work, the student reads the syllables to blend them into one

unit. If this creates a real word, then the student is done; however, if it does not create a

real word, then the student learns to move the letter the other way, to the front of the

word.









A similar process is followed in Lesson 3, Syllable Division Rule #2. The tutor

teaches the student how to divide a word when there are two letters between the vowels.

In this case the student learns to split the two letters (e.g., lad-der), with the exception of

digraphs and units, which are never split (e.g., bi-shop).

Tutor screening

Tutors of the BRSS are trained through a series of instructional video tapes

produced by Susan Barton. The introductory tapes describe the nature of reading

disability and provide an example of what is taught in the program and how it is taught.

The introductory tapes conclude with the Tutor and Student Screenings. Before a

graduate clinician became a tutor, he/she had to pass the tutor screening and participate in

tutor training sessions. Two research assistants, a high school senior and a UF

undergraduate senior, also met this requirement. To pass the tutor screening, the

clinicians and research assistants had to demonstrate a minimal level of phonological

awareness by breaking words down into their smallest sounds, manipulating sounds in

words, deleting sounds, and blending individual sounds into words. All clinicians and

research assistants passed the screening.

Table 3-5. Procedures and Levels in the BRSS
Level Level Level Level
Procedure
1 2 3 4
Break Apart X
Break Replace X
Compare 2 Words X
Break-Replace-Remove X
Blend 2 and 3 Sounds into Real X
Words
Blend-Change-Change-Change X
Teach New Sound X X X
Teach New Sound #2 X X X
Read Sounds on Tiles X









Table 3-5 Continued.

Procedure

Spell Sounds with Tiles
Read Real Words with Tiles
Spell Real Words with Fingers, then
Tiles
Spell Real Words with Tiles
Read Nonsense Words with Tiles
Spell Nonsense Words with Fingers,
then Tiles
Spell Nonsense Words with Tiles
Read Words through Word Frame
Spell Words with Fingers, then on
Paper
Read Longer Words Together
Review Known Letters and Sounds
Review/Do Extra Practice Page
Phonemic Awareness Warm-up
Read Phrases
Read Sentences
Read Sight Words
Spell Sight Words
Spell Phrases on Paper
Spell Sentences on Paper
Read a Story


Level Level Level Level
1 2 3 4
X
X
X X


Tutor training

A total of 9 training sessions and 27 training hours occurred. In the training tapes,

Barton explains a spelling or reading rule then demonstrates the procedures used to teach

the rule by role-playing with a demonstration student. After the demonstration, Barton

encourages the viewer to stop the tape and practice the procedure with a partner; this

protocol was followed in the tutor training. For the current study, the reading tutors and

research assistants paired-up with each other to practice the procedures and took turns

being the tutor and the student. The researcher observed the role-playing and provided









guidance when questions arose. The training tapes were always available to the tutors

after the required training sessions were completed in the event that the tutors felt unsure

of a procedure and/or wanted extra practice.

Student screening

High school students who met the inclusionary criteria for participation also had to

pass the Barton Student Screening before participating in the reading-intervention

program. The screening consisted of three parts, Part A: Counting Words, Part B:

Clapping Sentences, and Part C: Compare Three Isolated Sounds with Colored Squares.

In Part A: Counting Words, the tutor dictated a sentence and the student repeated it.

As the student repeated the sentence, he/she counted the number of words in the sentence

on his/her fingers. The tutor noted if the student counted the correct number of words the

first time, counted the wrong number of words, or repeated the sentence in the wrong

sequence. The tutor dictated three sentences, two sentences had seven words and one

sentence had six words. A student was not allowed to miss any words in Part A: Counting

Words to qualify for the Barton program. In Part B: Clapping Syllables, the tutor dictated

a word and the student repeated the word and clapped the number of syllables in the

word. There were a total of six words, four words had three syllables, one word had two

syllables and one word had four syllables. A student was allowed a maximum of one

wrong. Finally, in Part C: Compare Three Isolated Sounds with Colored Squares, the

tutor dictated sounds and the student pulled down three colored squares to represent each

of the sounds. The tutor noted if the student correctly sequenced the sounds the first time,

correctly sequenced the sounds after the tutor repeated the sequence, or incorrectly

sequenced the sounds. There were 15 three-letter sequences dictated. A student was









allowed to have a maximum of two sequences repeated and a maximum of two sequences

wrong.

All students passed the screening and were thus eligible to participate in the reading

program. The student screenings took place during the first student-tutor meeting at the

charter school. The Student Screening Answer Sheet is provided in Appendix D.

Barton protests

To determine at which level the tutor should begin tutoring, the tutor first gave her

student a pre-test (Barton recognizes that some older students may possess enough

knowledge to skip the first two levels at least some lessons within the levels). Strict

pass/fail criteria, as provided by Barton, were followed to determine a student's starting

level. A compilation of the Barton Pretests for Books 1, 2, and 3 is provided in Appendix

E.

The Level 1 pre-test contained four tasks: Task A: Break-Apart Nonsense Words;

Task B: Break-Replace-Remove; Task C: Compare Two Words; and Task D: Blend 2

and 3 Sounds into Real Words. A student who completed all four tasks with 100%

accuracy was deemed to have sufficient knowledge to skip Level 1 entirely. Before a

student could move on to the next task, he/she had to meet pass criteria of zero or one

error for that task The pre-test was stopped when the student missed two or more items

and tutoring began with the lesson that corresponded with the given task.

The Level 2 pre-test contained six tasks: Task A: Test of Letter Name and Sound

Knowledge; Task B: Spelling Individual Sounds on Paper; Task C: Identifying First,

Last, and Middle Sounds; Task D: Read These Words; Task E: Spelling Real and

Nonsense Words on Paper; and Task F: Read these Sentences. Different pass/fail criteria

were used for Level 2. Both Task A and Task B were given, regardless of the number of









errors a student made on Task A; the tutor continued with Task C only if a student made

no errors on either Task A or B. If a student misread two consonants or two digraphs on

Task D, Read These Words, the tutor began with Lesson 5 of Level 2. If a student

misread one or more vowels and the vowels were a, i, or o, the tutor began with Lesson

3; if the vowels were u or e the tutor began with Lesson 4. If a student incorrectly spelled

a consonant or vowel on Task E, tutoring began with Lesson 3; if a student incorrectly

spelled only a digraph, tutoring began with Lesson 5. Finally, if a student made it to Task

F, Read These Sentences, and made more than 3 mistakes, including re-readings, or read

in a choppy manner, the tutor began with Lesson 5 in Level 2.

Based on the pre-testing protocol, 5 participants began tutoring at Level 1, Lesson

1, one participant began tutoring at Level 1, Lesson 3, two participants began at Level 2,

Lesson 1, and one participant began at Level 2, Lesson 2.

After-school reading program

Once the screenings and pre-tests were completed, the tutors were able to begin

working with the participants. Each tutor was assigned at least one student and three

tutors were assigned 2 students. Tutoring sessions took place at the charter school after

school hours. Tutors and participants met 3 days a week, Monday, Wednesday, and

Thursday, fifty minutes/session. The first session ran from 3:00 to 3:50. Tutors had two

participants met with the second participant from 4:00 to 4:50. Students assembled in a

classroom for a quiet study hall while they waited for their session or to be picked up by a

parent. The charter school had two classrooms, an office, and a teacher workroom

available to accommodate the tutors. There were two tutors/students per classroom, one

tutor in the teacher workroom, and one tutor in the office. Tutors did not change rooms

during the program in order to maintain a consistent environment for the student. The









researcher was always present in the charter school and rotated between classrooms to

observe the tutor and her participants.

Data-Collection Procedures

Lesson Plans

The printed books that accompany each level of the BRSS contain scripted

dialogue for the tutor to follow in presenting the procedures and specific directions for

carrying out the procedures. Each printed books contains all the material the tutor needs

to carry-out a lesson including the stimulus words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs,

student pages for the student to read from, and material to use for extra practice or

homework. However, the books do not provide the tutor with space to record the

student's responses or performance for any procedure. Therefore separate lesson plans

were made that allowed a tutor space to record her student's responses as correct or

incorrect and to make comments about the student's progress. The explicit directions

outlining each procedure were retained and every attempt was made to retain the

suggested dialogue printed in the book. An example of the lesson plans for Book 2

Consonants and Short Vowels is provided in Appendix F.

Tracking Sheets

The researcher developed a tracking sheet that each tutor used at every session. The

sheet allowed the tutor to record the participant number, the date, time of the session, the

number of the session, and the beginning and ending procedure for each lesson. The

tracking sheet is provided in Appendix G.

Reading and Spelling Probes

The Barton Reading and Spelling System does not provide the tutor with a

quantitative way to measure adequate progress during the daily teaching of reading and









spelling rules. Therefore, the researcher created reading and spelling probes as a tool to

quantify participants' knowledge of the rules taught before the tutor introduced new

rules. The probes consisted of five sentences to spell and five sentences to read. Each

sentence contained 2 probe words for a total of 20 items/five points each. The probe

sentences were designed to measure the participant's knowledge of the material that was

taught in the preceding lessons, but used different sentences than the participants were

used to seeing in the Barton lessons. Tutors gave the probe sentences at the end of Level

2, and after Lesson 2 and Lesson 11 of subsequent levels. Test words for the probe

sentences were taken from Angling for Words (Bowen, 1983). Pass criteria for both the

spelling and reading probes was 80% correct, meaning a participant could miss up to two

spelling word and two reading words. If a participant passed, he/she moved on to the next

lesson. However, if a participant did not pass, he/she practiced the missed words) and

was retested at the next session. The reading and spelling probes for Book 2 are located

in Appendix H.

Inter-observer agreement

Kazdin (1983) describes inter-observer agreement as the consistency between

observers; "...it refers to the extent to which observers agree in their scoring of behavior"

(p 48). Inter-observer agreement is important because it reflects whether the target

behaviors, in this case the explicit instruction used by the tutors, are carried out clearly

and completely (Kazdin, 1983). Two research assistants were trained in the BRSS as

observers to make sure the tutors were carrying out the procedures according to the

Barton protocol. The assistants participated in all tutor training sessions and were

familiar with all Barton procedures. If the observers' assessments did not agree or if the









observers did not observe the required Barton procedures in the tutoring sessions, the

tutors would undergo additional training.

The assistants observed one day a week, Monday, at the charter school. They

observed one tutor and her assigned student from 3:00 to 3:50 and a different tutor and

her assigned student from 4:00 to 4:50. Each assistant followed a list often multisensory

procedures practiced in the BRSS, such as touch and say, the slow down step, and

tapping out a sound, and recorded their observations independently of each other. The

assistants made a check-mark on the list to indicate if a required or expected multisensory

procedure occurred, if a multisensory procedure was required or expected but did not

occur, or if the multisensory procedure was not required or expected in a given segment

of the tutoring session. The inter-observer reliability sheet is provided as Appendix I.

A point-by-point agreement ratio was calculated to measure reliability. This ratio is

appropriate when there are discrete opportunities for the behavior to occur (Kazdin,

1983). As described by Kazdin (1983), "...agreements of the observers on the specific

trials are divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100

to form a percentage. Agreements can be defined as instances in which both observers

record the same thing. Disagreements are defined as instances in which one observer

recorded the behavior as occurring and the other did not (p54)." The following formula

was used to compute point-by-point agreement for each session observed: Point-by-Point

Agreement = A/A+D x 100. Of the 14 sessions observed, there was 100% agreement six

times, 90% agreement two times, 80% agreement four times, and 70% agreement 2 times

(M = 88%).









Treatment of the Data

Three statistical methods were used to analyze the data. First, independent samples

t test was carried out on the mean pretest scores of the reading-intervention and control

group participants. Next, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was carried out to measure

whether the reading-intervention group showed a stronger improvement in posttest

performance relative to their own pretest performance than did the control group (Cook

& Campbell 1979; Tuckman, 1999). The pretest scores served as the covariate or control

variable. Finally, to analyze within-group effect of the reading intervention, a dependent

samples t-test (Kranzler & Moursund, 1999) was carried out using pretest and posttest

scores for each reading-intervention group participant. Correlation analysis Tuckman,

1999) was used employed to determine the relationship between pretest score and starting

point in the Barton System and number of sessions to complete a Barton System book.

Descriptive methods using clustered column charts and line charts were employed for

further examination of the reading-intervention and control participants' performance.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The primary goal of this study was to provide data to examine the effectiveness of a

multisensory Orton-Gillingham-based approach to reading intervention for high school

students with reading disability. We used a quasi-experimental design in which the control

and reading-intervention groups were systematically assigned. Tuckman (1999) advocates

the use of the quasi-experimental design in educational research for the researcher faced

with practical limitations on participant selection, assignment, and condition manipulation.

Quasi-experimental design is an option that allows the researcher to operate within the

realities of the education setting (Tuckman, 1999).

The systematically assigned control group design (Tuckman, 1999) is one in which

the researcher systematically selects and assigns the participants to the treatment group

because they share some characteristics. In our study, participants were assigned to the

reading-intervention group, a remedial reading program, because they scored at least one

standard deviation below the mean on two or more subtests of the Woodcock Johnson III

Achievement Tests (WJ III-Ach, Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001).

Six dependent variable measures were used for pretest and posttest analysis. Standard

scores and grade-equivalent scores for four of the dependent measures were obtained from

the WJ III-Ach and that test's Compuscore Program, version 2.0. Standard scores and

grade-equivalent scores for the remaining two variables were obtained from the Test of

Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE, Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999) and that test's









technical manual. All scores used in the statistical analysis were norm-referenced standard

scores based on the standard curve with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), t test for independent samples, t test for

nonindependent (matched) samples, and correlation were used to analyze the data. The t

test for independent samples was used to compare pretest means between the reading-

intervention and control groups to determine if the pretest difference between groups was

statistically significant (Tuckman, 1999). ANCOVA was used to determine whether

members of the reading-intervention group showed greater improvement from their pretest

to posttest performance compared to members of the control group's pretest and posttest

performance (Tuckman, 1999). According to Tuckman (1999) and Shavelson (1996) the

analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is the appropriate statistical method for this design. The

covariate (the pretest) contains information about differences among subjects that is

collected before the experiment is conducted. The covariate is used to remove systematic

differences among subjects from the within-group error term (Shavelson, 1996).

The t test for nonindependent samples (or paired samples test in SPSS, version 11.0)

was used to analyze whether an individual participant's posttest score for each reading

subskill measure increased from its matched pretest score after receiving the reading-

intervention program (Kranzler & Moursund, 1999). Because each individual's pretest

score is matched with his/her posttest score, the two scores are not independent of each

other. The difference between the two scores indicates if a participant's score on the

posttest improved relative to his pretest score or if it declined relative to his pretest score.

In SPSS, the posttest score was subtracted from the pretest score; therefore, a negative

coefficient indicates the posttest score was higher than the pretest score. In order to









compare the performance of the individual participants in the reading-intervention group to

the individual participants in the control group, the t test for nonindependent samples was

run on both groups. Correlation was used to determine if the Basic Reading ,\kd// score, a

combined score of WordAttack and Letter-Word identification, was a good predictor of

starting book in the Barton Reading and Spelling System and a good predictor of number of

lessons needed to complete Level 2 in the Barton System.

Finally, for descriptive analysis of the data, column charts were used as a visual

display of each participant's progress through the lessons and books of the Barton Reading

and Spelling Program and growth in grade equivalent scores was compared between

reading-intervention and control groups. Column charts were created in Microsoft Excel

2002. Clustered columns were used to compare values across categories. The number of

sessions it took each participant to complete a Barton book was plotted as the value on the

y axis; participant number was plotted as the category across the x axis. Grade equivalent

scores were calculated from The WJ III Achievement CompuScore Program and the

TOWRE test manual. Findings for this study are presented below in response to each of the

experimental questions.

Research question 1: Do high school students assigned to a multisensory reading-

intervention group make greater improvement on posttest scores compared to students who

did not receive such intervention on the following variables: 1) letter-word identification;

2) word attack; 3) spelling; 4) sound awareness; 5) speed of sight-word recognition; 6)

speed of nonsense-word decoding?

The independent (input) variables were represented by control variables that needed

to be neutralized from influencing the results (Tuckman, 1999). The control variables were









pretest scores on Letter-Word Identification, Spelling, Word Attack, and SoundAwareness,

from the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ III Ach.) and on Sight-word

Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency from the Test of Word Reading Efficiency

(TOWRE). The dependent (outcome) variables were posttest scores on these same tests.

For the ANCOVA analysis, the fixed factors were the control and reading-intervention

groups.

The t-test for independent samples (Table 4-1), showed that the pretest scores of the

control group were significantly better than the pretest scores of the reading-intervention

group on all dependent variables at p < .05.

Table 4-1. t test for independent samples at pretest for dependent variables
Pretest t df p value (significant
at p < .05)*
WJ III Ach
Letter-Word Id -3.98 16 .001
Spelling -5.32 16 .000
Word Attack -3.44 16 .003
Sound Awareness -2.41 16 .028
TOWRE
Sight-word Efficiency -3.05 16 .008
Phonemic Decoding -3.34 16 .004
Efficiency

*all values were significant at p < .05.

Results of the ANCOVA (Table 4-2), which compared pretest to posttest

performance across groups, revealed that there were no longer significant differences

between the control group and the reading-intervention group on the dependent variables

after reading intervention. Although the posttest scores of the control group were still

higher than the posttest scores of the reading intervention group, the difference was no

longer significant and adjusted posttest scores showed that the reading intervention group

improved more than the control group. The difference in adjusted means, shown in the










AdjustedMeans column of Table 4-2, ranged in standard scores from a low of .460 on

Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (TOWRE), to a high of 3.605 on Letter Word Identification

(WJ III Ach.), These data indicate that when pretest scores were adjusted for, the reading-

intervention group improved more than the control group on the posttest by .460 and 3.605

standard score points respectively. The adjusted mean indicates the number of standard

score points the reading-intervention group improved compared to the control group for

each dependent variable (Source column).

Table 4-2. ANCOVA for dependent variables
Source df F p value (significant at Adjusted
p<.05) Mean
WJ III Ach
Letter-Word Id. 1 .674 .425 3.605
Spelling 1 .218 .648 3.251
Word Attack 1 .402 .536 2.737
Sound Awareness 1 .153 .702 2.840
TOWRE
Sight-word 1 .084 .776 2.759
Efficiency
Phonemic 1 .008 9.29 .460
Decoding
Efficiency

Line graphs (Figures 4-1 to 4-6) illustrate the progress of the reading-intervention

group in closing the gap with the control group. A common trend seen in all the figures is a

relatively flat or down-ward sloping line for the control group from pretest to posttest in

contrast to an upward-sloping line for the reading-intervention group from pretest to

posttest. The flat line indicates little movement in standard scores from pretest to posttest

while the upward-sloping line indicates movement from low standard scores to higher

standard scores. On several dependent variables the positive change in standard scores from

pretest to posttest for the reading-intervention group was particularly striking. For example,

the mean pretest score for WordAttack was approximately 20 points higher for the control

group than the reading-intervention group but at posttest, the reading-intervention group







68


had closed the gap to about four points. A similar situation was seen in Sound Awareness

where the reading-intervention group closed the gap from a 15 point difference at pretest to

a six point difference at posttest.


pretest posttest

Figure 4-1. Difference in mean standard scores for Letter-Word Id.


pretest posttest

Figure 4-2. Difference in mean standard scores for Spelling.


-*-- colliol

-U- exp~eiim





























-
0








-4-- colllrol

--- experim


pretest posttest


Figure 4-3. Difference in mean standard scores for WordAttack.












-onlliol

u ex-erilll
o
0r
(U

(U
0)


pretest posttest


Figure 4-4. Difference in mean standard scores for SoundAwareness.

































pretest posttest

Figure 4-5. Difference in mean standard scores for Sight-WordEfficiency.


pretest posttest

Figure 4-6. Difference in mean standard scores for Phonemic Decoding Efficiency.

Hypothesis 1: Based on the phonological core model to reading, it was hypothesized

that students with reading disability who were assigned to a reading-intervention group

based on low pretest scores and who received a multisensory, Orton-Gillingham influenced


~ expieimi


~ expieimi


I









approach to intervention would make greater improvement on posttest scores when

compared to a group of students who did not receive such intervention because of higher

pretest scores on measures of reading skill.

This hypothesis was supported. Results of the t test for independent samples

confirmed that the control group performed significantly better than the reading-

intervention group at pretest on the dependent variable reading measures. However, after

the reading intervention, there was no longer a significant difference between the groups on

the dependent variable reading measures with the standard scores of the reading-

intervention group moving closer to those of the control group.

Research Question 2: Do individual participants show significant differences from

pretest to posttest scores for 1) letter-word identification; 2) word attack; 3) spelling; 4)

sound awareness; 5) speed of sight-word recognition; and 6) speed of nonsense-word

decoding

Results of the t test for nonindependent matched samples revealed that the reading-

intervention group performed significantly better atp < .05 on the posttest compared to the

pretest on WordAttack (t (9) = -5.943, p = .000) and approached significance on Spelling (t

(9) = -2.007, p = .080). In contrast, the control group participants did not perform

significantly better on any of the posttest reading measures atp < .05. In contrast, the

control group participants performed significantly worse on the posttest on one measures of

the TOWRE, Sight-wordEfficiency (t (9) = 4.000, p = .004). Results of the t test for

nonindependent samples for the reading-intervention and controls groups are shown in

tables 4-3 and 4-4










Table 4-3. Reading-intervention group: t test for nonindependent samples.
Pretest-Posttest Pair Mean difference from Standard t df p < .05)
pretest to posttest Deviation
(negative coefficient
indicates higher posttest
score)
WJ III Achievement
Letter-Word -3.222 7.412 -1.304 9 .228
Identification.
Spelling -8.000 11.958 -2.007 9 .080
Word Attack -7.889 3.98260 -5.943 9 .000*
Sound Awareness -8.111 17.047 -1.427 9 .191
TOWRE
Sight-word Efficiency 1.222 21.568 .170 9 .869
Phonemic Decoding -2.889 10.833 -.800 9 .447
Efficiency
indicates significantly better posttest score at p <.05 level.

Table 4-4. Control group: t test for nonindependent samples.
Pretest-Posttest Pair Mean difference from Standard t df p < .05
pretest to posttest Deviation
(negative coefficient
indicates higher posttest
score)
WJ III Achievement
Letter-Word .000 5.172 .000 9 1.000
Identification.
Spelling -.111 3.444 -.097 9 .925
Word Attack 1.000 10.161 .295 9 .775
Sound Awareness -.111 8.781 -.038 9 .971
TOWRE
Sight-word Efficiency 6.000 4.500 4.00 9 .004**
Phonemic Decoding 3.333 6.000 1.667 9 .134
Efficiency
** indicates significantly worse posttest score at p < .05

Hypothesis 2: It was hypothesized that a student who participated in the reading-

intervention program would achieve higher posttest scores compared to their pretest scores

as a result of a one-on-one multisensory reading-intervention program.

This hypothesis was supported. The participants in the reading-intervention group

achieved a significantly higher posttest score on the dependent variable WordAttack and

approached significance on the dependent variable Spelling. Although none of the other

posttest measures were statistically significant, all posttest standard measures were higher

than their matched pretest scores. In contrast, for participants in the control group, no









posttest scores were significantly higher while the Sight-wordEfficiency posttest score was

significantly lower than its matched pretest score, indicating significantly poorer

performance.

Research Question 3: Does Basic Reading Skill predict 1) starting point for

tutoring; and 2) number of lessons to complete a Barton level?

Correlation and descriptive analyses were used to address this question. First, the

mean, median, mode and range for the reading-intervention group and control group for

pretest and posttest standard measures were analyzed (Table 4-5 and Table 4-6). The scores

varied widely in range at both pretest and posttest. For example, there was a 40 point

spread in WordAttack at pretest for the reading-intervention group and a 38 point spread at

posttest. Likewise, there was a 43 point spread for Sound Awareness at pretest for the

control group and a 42 point spread at posttest. Such a wide range of scores may be

attributed to a number of factors, including participants' comfort with the test taking

situation, familiarity with the task, and ability to perform the task.

The highest mean score for the reading-intervention group at both pretest and posttest

was for Word Attack. Although the standard score at posttest (84.67) was still one standard

deviation below the mean, it is important to note this score increased from pretest by

approximately eight standard score points (76.78). In contrast, there was little variation in

mean standard scores from pretest to posttest for the control group. For example, the mean

pretest score for Spelling was 90.88 and changed by only a fraction of a point at posttest

(91.00). Finally, the lowest mean pretest scores for the reading-intervention group and

control group at both pretest and posttest was Sight-wordEfficiency and participants did not










fare much better on Phonemic Decoding Efficiency, reflecting the persistent difficulty

students with reading disability frequently have with rapid naming.

Table 4-5. Reading-Intervention Group Mean, Median, Mode, Range at Pretest and Posttest
Test Mean Median Mode Range
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
WJ III
Achievement.
Letter-Word 69.22 72.44 72.00 80.00 47.00 82.00 47.00- 46.00-
Identification 86.00 96.00
Spelling 64.11 72.11 61.00 69.00 49.00 55.00 49.00- 55.00-
94.00 103.00
Word Attack 76.78 84.67 77.00 82.00 84.00 80.00 64.00- 72.00-
84.00 100.00
Sound Awareness 74.67 82.78 74.00 82.00 52.00 73.00 52.00- 53.00-
94.00 116.00
TOWRE
Sight-word 64.00 62.78 65.00 65.00 46.00 62.00 46.00- 55.00-
Efficiency 90.00 83.00
Phonemic 67.44 70.33 66.00 66.00 66.00 55.00 55.00- 55.00-
Decoding 95.00 91.00
Efficiency



Table 4-6. Control Group Mean, Median, Mode, and Range at Pretest and Posttest
Test Mean Median Mode Range
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
WJ III
Achievement
Letter-Word 90.89 90.89 90.00 92.00 83.00 92.00 83.00- 85.00-
Identification 98.00 98.00
Spelling 90.88 91.00 93.00 90.00 88.00 82.00 81.00- 82.00-
100.00 100.00
Word Attack 89.22 88.22 87.00 87.00 97.00 83.00 77.00- 81.00-
103.00 104.00
Sound Awareness 90.33 90.44 84.00 89.00 105.00 76.00 71.00- 76.00-
114.00 118.00
TOWRE
Sight-word 82.44 76.44 86.00 81.00 86.00 83.00 65.00- 56.00-
Efficiency 92.00 87.00
Phonemic 83.67 80.33 83.00 80.00 76.00 84.00 76.00- 67.00-
Decoding 102.00 93.00
Efficiency




As described in Chapter 3, the Barton Book in which a participant began the tutoring

program was based on the participant's performance on the Barton pretest, not on the

participant's standardized pretest reading measures. Regardless of a participant's pretest













score on the dependent variable measures, little variation was observed on the starting book


for the participants.


Results of correlation analysis (Spearman's rho) revealed that the Basic Reading


,sAill\ score was a better predictor of number of sessions taken to complete Level 2 ( r(9) =


-.66, p = .055) than starting level in the Barton System (r2 (9) = -.45, p = .23), however


neither correlation was significant (p < .05). Scatter plots (Figures 4-7 and 4-8) revealed


low negative correlations between Basic Reading Skill score and Barton Level showing


that as BRS standard score increased, number of lessons to complete a book decreased.


60.



50.


4 6 8 10 12 14

number of lessons to complete book 2

Figure 4-7. Book 2 number of lessons to complete & Basic Reading Skills


90



80



70.



p 60,

0
5s 5o
-2 0 2 4 6 8

number of lessons to complete book 1

Figure 4-8. Book 1 Number of lessons to complete & Basic Reading Skills


a
o



o
D





D









Six participants began tutoring with Book 1, five at Lesson 1 and one at Lesson 4,

and the remaining three participants began tutoring with Book 2, Lesson 1. The Basic

Reading .\kll (BRS) score was used to evaluate whether or not pretest standard scores

could be used to predict starting point for tutoring. Four participants (20, 13, 11, and 16)

had BRS standard scores in the low 80's (81, 82, 82, and 85, respectively). The remaining

five participants had standard scores on the BRS composite that ranged from one and half

(78) to almost three standard deviations below the mean (57). However, there was not a

predictable correspondence between BRS score and starting point for tutoring. For

example, Participant 11, who had a BRS standard score of 82, and Participant 18, who had

a BRS standard score of 62, both started tutoring at Book 1, Lesson 1. Conversely,

Participant 10, who had a BRS standard score of 63, and Participant 14, who had a BRS

standard score of 71, both started tutoring in Book 2.

Bar graphs were created to show the rate of progress during reading intervention as

measured by the number of sessions it took a participant to complete a Barton book

(Figures 4-9 and 4-10). The total number of sessions conducted was 26 but attendance

varied by participant and ranged from 25 sessions for Participant 18 to 14 sessions for

Participant 16; the average number of sessions attended was 20. Because all participants

completed Book 2, Consonants and Short Vowels, the investigator examined whether a

pattern could be observed between pretest performance on standardized measures and

progress during reading intervention, as measured by number of sessions to complete a

Barton book. As shown in Figure 4.9, Participant 7 took the greatest number of sessions

(13) to complete Book 2. This participant also received the lowest pretest scores on Word

Attack and Letter-Word Identification. In comparison, Participant 11, who achieved the









highest pretest scores on Spelling and Letter-WordIdentification, took the fewest number

of sessions to complete Book 2. Figure 4.10 shows that Participants 14 and 18 required

nine sessions, the next highest number of sessions after Participant 7, to complete Book 2.

In a similar fashion, Participants 14 and 18 received the third and fourth lowest pretest

standard scores, respectively, on Word Attack, the third and the worst pretest standard

scores, respectively, on Letter-Word identification, and the third and second worst pretest

standard scores, respectively, on Spelling. Although Participant 20 and Participant 16 were

among the students who had higher pretest standard scores, neither participant completed

Book 3. Participant 16 attended the fewest sessions and Participant 20 attended the next-

fewest and it is likely that poor attendance limited their progress.

Hypothesis 3a: It was hypothesized that the Basic Reading Skill score would predict

a participants starting book in the Barton Reading and Spelling System such that a

participant in the reading-intervention group who started with lower pretest standard scores

on the dependent variable reading measures would perform more poorly on the Barton

pretest and start at a lower Barton book and lesson while a participant who achieved higher

pretest standard scores on the dependent variable reading measures would progress farther

on the Barton pretest and start at a higher Barton book.

The first hypothesis pertaining to Research Question 3 was not supported; the

correlation between BRS and starting book was not significant and there was no

consistency between participants' pretest standard scores on the dependent reading

variables and their subsequent performance on the Barton pretest.

For example, Participant 7, who began tutoring with Book 1, Lesson 1, achieved the

lowest pretest scores on the WJ III Ach, with standard scores ranging from one and a half













to three standard deviations below the mean on all subtests (lowest score-SoundAwareness


standard score 52; highest score-Reading Vocabulary standard score 75).



Number of tutoring sessions/book


Figure 4-9.


Participant

Progress of participants-lowest BRS pretest standard score 7, 18, 10, 14, 12


Number of tutoring sessions/book


131- : : 1 I
14 -
3i- : : 1
12 WI I-


10
0

S8

E
Z 6


4




0 I -- --

20 13 Participant 16


Figure 4-10. Progress of participants-highest BRS standard scores 20, 13, 11, and 16









However, Participant 11, who also began tutoring at Book 1, Lesson 1, achieved

comparatively better scores on the pretest. This participant had two scores that were more

than one and a half standard deviations below the mean on the pretest (WordAttack

standard score 75; SoundAwareness standard score 77); all other scores were within one

standard deviation of the mean. In contrast, Participant 10 started tutoring at Book 2,

Lesson 1. However, this participant's pretest standard scores were similar in severity to

Participant 7 who began tutoring at Book 1, Lesson 1 (lowest score-Spelling standard score

49; highest score-WordAttack standard score 70).

Hypothesis 3b: It was hypothesized that the BRS would predict number of sessions

to complete a lesson in the Barton Reading and Spelling System such reading-intervention

participants who show more severe reading disabilities as defined by pretest standard

scores would make slower progress during reading intervention, as defined by the number

of sessions taken to complete a book, than reading-intervention participants who showed

less severe reading disabilities.

The second hypothesis pertaining to Research Question 3 had moderate support. The

correlation between BRS and the number of sessions taken to complete Book 2 was near

significant at p = .055. Participant 7, who achieved the lowest pretest standard score on

Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack required the most sessions to complete Book 2.

In comparison, Participant 11 moved through Book 2 more quickly than any other

participant and also had the highest pretest scores on Letter-WordIdentification and

Spelling. Finally, Participants 14 and 18 consistently scored in the bottom third of the

reading-intervention group on pretest scores and both required the second most number of

sessions to complete Book 2.









Research question 4: Do more reading-intervention participants than control

participants achieve a greater than expected three month gain in grade-equivalent score

from pretest to posttest for 1) letter-word identification; 2) word attack; 3) spelling; 4)

sound awareness; 5) speed of sight-word recognition; and 6) speed of nonsense-word

decoding?

The percentage of each group that showed a greater than three month change in grade

equivalent score from pretest to posttest was considered (Table 4-7). The data show that on

four of the six dependent variables, a greater percentage of participants in the reading-

intervention group increased their grade equivalent score by more than three months

compared to participants in the control group. The three students who qualified for reading

intervention but could not participate were among control group participants whose posttest

grade equivalent scores increased by more than three months. However, this increase only

held true for the WJ III Achievement test.

Table 4-7. Greater than 3-month increase in grade-equivalent score by percentage.
Dependent Variable Reading- Control Group
Intervention
Group
WJ III Achievement
Letter-Word Identification 33% 44%
Spelling 66% 33%
Word Attack 100% 44%
Sound Awareness 44% 66%
TOWRE
Sight-word Efficiency 33% 11%
Phonemic Decoding 44% 22%
Efficiency


Hypothesis 4: It was hypothesized that a greater percentage of participants in the

reading-intervention group as compared to the control group would increase their grade

equivalent scores by more than three months from pretest to posttest. This hypothesis was









also supported. On four of the six dependent variables measured, a greater percentage of

the participants in the reading-intervention group achieved posttest grade equivalent scores

that were more than three months higher than their pretest grade equivalent scores.

Complete information on pretest and posttest raw scores, standard scores, percentiles,

and grade equivalency for all dependent variable measures for both the reading-

intervention participants and control participants in provided in Appendix J.

Summary of Findings

A summary of the findings for the experimental questions is shown below.

Quantitative Findings

1. Independent samples t test found significant differences on mean pretest standard

scores between the reading-intervention group and control group for all dependent

variables. ANCOVA revealed no significant differences between groups at posttest. When

the pretest scores were held constant, the reading-intervention group consistently improved

their reading skills to a greater degree than the control group. The reading-intervention

group made noticeable gains on closing the gap in reading skills with the reading-

intervention group at posttest.

2. Dependent samples t test revealed a statistically significant improvement in Word

Attack at posttest for the reading-intervention group and a near significant improvement in

Spelling. In contrast, the control group performed significantly worse on Sight-word

Efficiency at posttest.

Descriptive Findings

1. A correlation was not observed in the performance of reading-intervention

participants on standardized pretest measures and starting point for tutoring.






82


2. A moderate correlation was observed in the performance of reading-intervention

participants on standardized pretest measures and rate of progress during reading

intervention.

3. More reading-intervention participants than control participants achieved a greater

than expected three-month increase in grade equivalency score from pretest to posttest.














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Overview of Findings

This study explored the effectiveness of an Orton-Gillingham-influenced,

multisensory, phonics intervention with high school students with reading disability. The

Phonological-Core-Variable-Differences Model, first proposed by Stanovich in 1988,

states that all poor readers have a processing deficit localized in the phonological core. A

core deficit in phonological processing impairs a reader's ability to associate written

letters with spoken sounds and disrupts the processing of phonological tasks such as

blending, segmenting, and rearranging sounds (Downey, & Snyder, 2000). This deficit

persists into adulthood (Bruck, 1992; Eden, et al., 2004; Pennington, Van Orden, Smith,

Green, & Haith, 1990). Therefore it was hypothesized that a remedial reading program

that provided explicit phonologically-based reading instruction using multiple sensory

strategies would significantly improve the reading skills of students with reading

disability. A quasi-experimental design was used to determine if members of the reading-

intervention group showed a stronger improvement on posttest performance relative to

their own pretest performance compared to members of the control group's pretest and

posttest performance. Participants' reading subskills were measured on the following

dependent variables: letter-word identification, spelling, word attack, sound awareness,

speed of sight-word recognition, and speed of phonemic decoding for nonsense words.

A related goal of the study was to analyze whether an individual participant's

posttest score for each reading subskill measure increased from its matched pretest score









following the reading intervention. Finally, correlation and descriptive analysis were

employed to determine if performance, as measured by pretest standardized scores,

predicted to Barton pretest results and progress through the reading-intervention

program, and if more reading-intervention participants than control participants achieved

an increase of more than three months in grade equivalent score as measured from time

of pretest to time of posttest.

Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) supported the hypothesis that members of the

reading-intervention group would show a stronger improvement than the control group

on their posttest performance relative to their pretest performance for the dependent

variables tested. Results of the independent samples t test revealed the control group had

significantly better pretest scores on the dependent variables compared to the reading-

intervention group. However at posttest, the differences between the control group and

the reading-intervention group on the dependent variables were no longer significant.

When results were adjusted for pretest scores, the reading-intervention group consistently

showed greater improvement achieved higher scores. The difference in adjusted means

ranged from a low of .460 on Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (TOWRE.), (i.e., the

reading-intervention group improved by only .460 standard score points more than the

control group on the posttest) to a high of 3.605 on Letter-Word identification (WJ-III

Ach.), (i.e., the reading-intervention group improved by more than 3.5 standard points

than the control group on the posttest). Similar results were observed when a t test for

nonindependent, matched samples was used to measure individual participant progress

from pretest to posttest.









Results of the t test for nonindependent samples revealed that the reading-

intervention group performed significantly better atp < .05 on the posttest compared to

the pretest on WordAttack (t (9) = -5.943, p = .000) and approached significance for

Spelling (t (9) = -2.007, p = .080). No other values reached the significance level. In

contrast, the control group participants failed to perform significantly better on any of the

reading measures atp < .05. In fact, the control group participants performed

significantly worse than the reading-intervention group participants on the TOWRE,

Sight Word Efficiency (t (9) = 4.000, p = .004) when posttest scores were compared to

pretest scores. Correlation analysis offered moderate though not significant support of a

predictive relationship between Basic Reading Skill score and number of sessions to

complete Level 2 in the Barton System (r2(9) = -.66, p = .055) but did not support a

predictive relationship between Basic Reading Skill score and starting book in the Barton

System (r2 (9) = -.45, p = .23). Results of the descriptive analysis also supported greater

improvement in the reading-intervention group participants over control group

participants. Our study took place over a three month span of time. Therefore, a three

month increase in grade level equivalency was used as a benchmark for expected change

in reading variable measures from time of pretest to time of posttest. On four of the six

dependent variables, participants in the reading-intervention group out-gained

participants in the control group on grade-equivalency. This finding was particularly

striking on the WordAttack subtest where 100% of the participants in the reading-

intervention group achieved a greater than three month improvement in grade

equivalency compared to only 44% of the participants in the control group.









The findings of the current study compare favorably with other reading-

intervention studies that have employed multisensory interventions. For example, Guyer

and Sabatino (1989) found that college students with learning disability who were

exposed to a multisensory, O-G approach made significant gains on word attack, word

analysis, and spelling skills compared to students who did not receive such an approach.

Participants in the current study who received a multisensory, O-G approach to reading

intervention also improved their skills on these reading subskills. Brooks and Weeks

(1998) found that students with dyslexia learned significantly more words with a

visual/semantic method that required visualizing the word, recalling the composition of

the word, and pointing to the smaller words while naming the words. The Barton System

utilized a similar method in teaching sight-word spelling and analysis with the t test for

nonindependent matched samples revealed posttest scores on the Spelling subtest neared

significance for participants in the reading-intervention group.

Discussion of Research Findings

Specific components of the Barton Reading and Spelling System may account for

the better posttest scores achieved by the reading-intervention group participants

compared to the control group participants. First, the Barton System consistently uses

phonetically regular words and nonsense words to teach each spelling rule. Nonsense

words follow the rules of English spelling but are not real words. For example, to teach a

rule governing the spelling of the k sound (i.e., when to use ck vs. k), the tutor asks the

student to practice the rule by reading regular and nonsense words, and by spelling

regular words. This is consistent practice that the participants in the control group did not

receive.